Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[16] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[17] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

September 27 - Removed without comment from Green Bay, Wisconsin, mentions of places of worship for Muslims, Unitarians and Jews, while adding information about Episcopalians.

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI link at the top of this entry contains a couple of summaries of the editing that prompted that original posting (which was mine). That discussion also reads in an uncommonly linear fashion down as far as the collapsed text, for those who are understandably daunted by revisiting the ANI archives. A partial list of similar, post-ANI edits can be found here, under the heading "Packerfansam". I suggest that folks give those two locations a look to assist in understanding the concerns that KateWishing has raised. These and the prior edits are all of a piece. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern of editing seems rather clear and problematic. The two past ANIs past discussions (here and here) strongly suggest a long-term pattern that shows no signs of abating. I would like to hear from Packerfansam before voting on KateWishing's proposal below. That might take a day or so though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to be patient. She can sometimes go a week between edits. (BTW that second link I provided is a Talk page discussion, not an ANI.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Frankly, yes there are a number of things that I disagree about with regards to things like notability. However, there are some instances listed above that I take issue with, even factoring in our apparent differences in beliefs. Referring to the edit on Mentor, OH, the section at the time was about local churches, the title of the section was about churches. There didn't seem to be any major concern about it at the time, and if I recall correctly, the title was later changed something along the lines of 'Places of Worship'. Regarding Ted Turner, it had established in the article that he had declared himself no longer an agnostic. I didn't see if there were exact dates attached, but if that's not a contradiction I don't know what is. Regards to the alumnus of Beloit College, no I'm not particularly a fan of his genre, but if I remember right, at the time I was under the impression that he had also hosted something else in a different genre and so 'TV host' as a more general description seemed like it would have worked fine. I could be or could have been confused or remembering wrong.

I would like to reinforce that if I'm a bit slow in my responses, don't automatically take it as meaning that I'm blowing this off. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as you keep grasping for any semi-plausible reason to remove information that offends you, you're going to keep making these mistakes. You say you removed information about non-Christian religions here because of a "Churches" header, here because (???), here to simplify, and here because it was unsourced? No. All of those edits were made for the same reason. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the clarity and specificity of the concerns raised about Packerfansam's POV editing, it is striking how little reassurance she offers that she is careful to edit free from her (acknowledged) POV, or, that she even recognizes the issue as a proper subject of community concern. JohnInDC (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a large section, like the one at the Eau Claire page should have been better-sourced (see WP:PROVEIT). I would also point out that I've made a number of edits to pages, such as the ones for Pewaukee, Wisconsin and West Bend, Wisconsin, and I made no alterations to sections that apparently stir up this controversy. That would seem to disrupt the so-called pattern. Packerfansam (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal

Most of Packerfansam's edits are helpful, so a topic ban on certain contentious subjects should resolve the issue. I propose: "Packerfansam may not remove content pertaining to religion, sexuality, magic, or the paranormal." This should not unduly interfere with her primary task of improving political biographies (in case it ever does, I'd be happy to review any edit she suggests). KateWishing (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be better described as an editing restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support edit restriction (perhaps the better term than “topic ban”). Packerfansam above acknowledges – albeit obliquely – that certain of her beliefs may conflict with Wikipedia policy. Previously in a similar context, she has indicated that she has “opinions”, for which she is “willing to take the heat”, link. While generally her problematic edits are made without explanation, she has from time to time afforded a glimpse into her thinking by expressly and specifically objecting to material that, by Wikipedia standards, is wholly acceptable. (E.g. Playboy Magazine, here; the “notability” of pornographic actresses, here.) When confronted, she does not deny a POV or that she edits based on it, but instead picks and defends two or three of her least troublesome edits with explanations that can be at least tied back to proper policies, and foregoes comment on the balance. This has been going on for more than a year. Packerfansam has been made abundantly aware of the problem and yet continues to remove material that offends her personally. Her judgment concerning certain topics simply cannot be trusted and she should be prohibited from making edits relating to them. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support after seeing Packerfansam's comments above and JohnInDC's comments, which seem like an excellent summary and interpretation of events. Further, given the diffs JohnInDC provided, I think the editing restriction is warranted. Boldly changing section header here to "edit restriction proposal" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I believe a minimal editing restriction could fix the problem here. Max Semenik (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is virtually no basis for this restriction. Edits such as this are quite appropriate. A formal restriction because she changed "magician" to "illusionist" here? That's ridiculous. Or for removing removing "magician" from the description of John Hamman as Notable alumni from Gale College here? Again, this is ridiculous. He is notable as a Marianist Brother and as a magician, but this is a list of notable alumni from Gale College for which his religious notability is most relevant in a brief description. Contrary to the claims of JohnInDC, Packerfansam does respond to issues raised with her edits. The vast majority of the diffs listed above are OLD, have been previously discussed, and Packerfansam has changed her editing in response to criticism. The few new diffs are almost entirely unproblematic. Let's drop this and handle content issues the Wikipedia way by discussion. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with analysis of I am One of Many. Further, it is not clear if sufficient dispute resolution has been involved here, and existing processes such as individual Requests for Comment on specific article talk pages, to draw in previously-uninvolved-editors to comment, could help out here. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  What dispute do you expect us to resolve? Packerfansam has not seriously contested any reversions of her edits and just continues to make similar removals throughout other articles, apparently hoping no one will notice. This thread is about a behavioural pattern and not any specific article. KateWishing (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  I don't believe that is correct. I don't see any significant recent problems. This old issues from last year were discusses and she modified her behavior. Isn't that exactly what we aim for in resolving content issues? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Almost all of the diffs in this thread post-date the last AN/I. It's a significant problem that people are still having to volunteer their time to make sure she does not remove content because it offends her religious sensibilities. Do you really doubt that's the reason for excisions like this or this (both well after AN/I and other warnings)? The very most recent removals might not seem as grave, but should we just allow her to remove impious words like "magician" and porn actresses because it's not a big deal? KateWishing (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Every one of the edits listed above is from the past 6 months (some just a few days old when listed here), all are post-ANI, all are subsequent to repeated further admonitions and attempts to engage Packerfansam, and - most tellingly - all are the exact same kind of problematic edits that started these threads. If she has "improved" it is only that the she now removes single words and deletes single persons who offend her, rather than entire swaths of text. Her mission is the same. She's just flying lower under the radar. JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Also. "Requests for comment" on what? Whether Playboy Magazine is a reliable source, whether notable people should be removed from pertinent lists when they're notable for pornography or posing naked? These aren't content disputes, good grief. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Just because a person has a notable article on Wikipedia does not imply that they are a notable person from a given place. That can be a matter for discussion. I think that this is especially true for people notably for fucking. For example, I would guess we have a number of porn actors with articles from Los Angeles, but very few are listed in List of people from Los Angeles. So, just because somebody is notable for fucking doesn't automatically mean they should be listed as a notable person from a given place. So, this complaint largely falls under a content dispute. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Wait. So porn actress, gubernatorial candidate and Cleveland native Mary Carey should be subject to different rules of inclusion in lists because of her profession? That should be Wikipedia policy? JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  Or, more to the point, you say this is policy and Packerfansam is simply executing it neutrally and in good faith? That's what we've been seeing these past 15 months? JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Close needed

The thread was archived without closure. I restored it. KateWishing (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [18] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [19]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [20]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [21] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [22], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [23], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.

All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([24]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [25] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [26] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [27] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [28] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [29] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ Rob^Talk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:

1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here

2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [30] [31]

4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here

5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.

We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [32]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[33] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[34] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [35], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [36] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [37] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [38]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

• User:Volunteer Marek : ... and who uses misleading edit summaries" — Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [39], [40], [41] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [42] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [43] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [44] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [45] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [46], [47], [48]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at the policy page WP:CIVIL, Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have not yet started being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [49], the other by Iryna Harpy. [50] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to consider a WP:BOOMERANG against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.

— User:Alex Bakharev — diff, User:Dstary — diff, User:Anonimski — diff, User:MyMoloboaccount — diff, User:Seryo93 — diff, User:LeoKiev01 — diff, User:Kudzu1 — diff, User:Buzz105 — diff, User:Tobby72 — diff, User:Haberstr — diff. As far as Bloomberg News goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article Human rights in Russia. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to bite the newbies, Marek. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for WP:BLOCK EVASION, I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page here. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating WP:BLOCK EVASION, but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed WP:PPOV. So, when are you going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the WP:LASTWORD and WP:WIN the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running WP:GAMEing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries: [51] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [52] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [53] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [54] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative per WP:POV pushing, take it to the talk page instead of sneaking in changes under misleading WP:ES.” [55] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [56] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [57] "blatant POV refactoring.” [58] ”no discussion over WP:POV use of 'incorporation'Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because you are acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much every single description is accurate. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of WP:GAMEing behavior is warranted too)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.

2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad motive) is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.

3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.

4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the motives of others.

5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [59]: Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. 02:27, 26 March 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs)

Thanks to Drmies for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know why Kalidasa 777 felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts  :) whatever. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to you, Kalidasa, and to everyone for forgetting to sign the above, and thereby confusing folks.Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. RGloucester? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [60], while being perfectly aware that they are already included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. That is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're getting the point, Kalidasa 777: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr here is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [61] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, My very best wishes? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. Can we get back on topic now? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the REAL problem

A couple users with a history of disruptive editing - Haberst, Tobby72, and Kalidasa 777 - are upset that they're not allowed to push their POV in peace. So Kalidasa 777 starts an ANI threat making nonsense accusations against a well respected and long standing contributor, Iryna, and engages in bad faith'ed canvassing to make sure his buddies show up. They do. And they join in the screaming and crying and hysterics. Haberst, who almost got indefinitely banned for going around accusing other editors of bigotry, and who as a result lay low for awhile, but now decided to come back and restart edit wars from long time ago. And Tobby72 who has been trying to stuff the same text over and over and over and over and over again against consensus for more than a year now and who uses purposefully misleading edit summary to try and mask what he's doing. That's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, you've accused me, by name, of "a history of disruptive editing". You have diffs to demonstrate where and how I went wrong? Please present them here, with comments, so I can learn from my mistakes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We want to include the GfK poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.Haberstr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info was included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The GfK survey was removed — diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about how the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [62], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — of course people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee campaigning

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

1. 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing by Scoobydunk
2. 11 March 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

Respectfully request:

1. administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction; and
2. warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both Ricky81682 and myself over the past six months or so. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no requirement that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between HughD and Springee.

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([63], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([64]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Traveling: I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. Springee (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Thank you, EvergreenFir for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. Both users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [65], Callanecc [66], EdJohnson [67] and Ricky81682 [68]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[69]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here (NickCT and Greglocock on the Pinto talk page, CZmarlin and Historianbuff on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [70] I will happily, voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. Springee (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from Ford Pinto where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Callanecc, who on 18 October 2015 asked Springee:

  There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.

• Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am, I think rightly, proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage (70%), but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.

EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.

Springee has reported HughD 7 times:

1. AE 27 December 2015
2. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
3. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
4. 3RN 22 August 2015
5. 3RN 26 October 2015
6. 3RN 7 March 2016
7. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban

Springee proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN . I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.

  As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. My enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded re HD. I oppose any action on S but would ask him to back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, Ford Pinto and Chrysler. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being topic banned from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he bizarrely plagiarized my statement of editorial interests from my user page. I don't think Hugh is interested in US Weekly or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that at 3RR and at AE months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD specifically asked him not to post there (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a long time now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:

• 19 October 2015 First notice HughD WP:NOBAN request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at User talk:Springee
• 19 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 22 October 2015, 25 October 2015, 26 October 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 26 October 2015 Second notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Third notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 23 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 27 January 2016, 2 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 2 March 2016 Fourth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Fifth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 March 2016, 18 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 18 March 2016 Sixth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD

Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[71]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[72], added back[73]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[74] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [75]. My reply is here[76]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[77] and one in frustration (but not attack)[78]. These are not attempts to provoke.

HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [79]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[80] [81]. My efforts were appriciated[82].

I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like Arthur Rubin I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. Springee (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that.

and

The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics...I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):

• 14 September 2015 Springee reported at WP:ANI for for Hounding and Tendentious editing, report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Beacon Center of Tennessee was to undo HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
• 18 October 2015 Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
• 12 November 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 21 December 2015 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil was to revert HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 22 January 2016 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy was an undo of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
• 4 March 2016 Springee's 1st edit at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. was to revert HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)

Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee wrote on 28 March 2016: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee followed HughD to a GA review. The above list highlights article space following behavior after Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including Scoobydunk at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing and Fyddlestix at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD, have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.

But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the Good Article Review of Bernard Stone, a recently passed Chicago alderman, olav ha-sholom, of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional evidence of Springee following HughD In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):

• 18 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was to revert HughD after 2 hours
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was to undo HughD after 1 day
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to The Heartland Institute was to revert HughD after 1 day
• 26 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to FreedomWorks was to revert HughD after 3 days
• 27 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Chicago-style politics was to revert HughD after 20 hours

The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [83] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.

General replies to HughD's accusations

HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors. HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[84] and RSN[85] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic. HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [86]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[87] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[88] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page. Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[89].

Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. Springee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

Moved from another ANI thread.

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

User:HughD has been disruptively editing our Ford Pinto article. Could an admin review this discussion and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The still-active discussion above (titled "Springee Campaigning") also concerns HughD and the pinto dispute. Just sayin' Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - Thanks. Yeah. I noticed. I think that discussion is discussing an interaction ban, right? I just think HughD should get topic banned from Ford Pinto. I and others think that HughD has to get topic banned from Ford Pinto. That justifies a second discussion, no? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Support banning User:HughD: It's not worth trying to edit the Ford Pinto article with HughD participating. He's basically destroyed any pretense of unbiased editing, and he continues to seriously distort the article.842U (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a Tban, as the problem extends far beyond just one article or one topic. Conflict between HughD and Springee has made a mess on a much broader range of articles and talk pages, ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Chicago-style politics to Ford Pinto. Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - re "Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here." - Maybe not. But it would be a start.... NickCT (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support with condition As noted above I don't agree with Fyddlestix in this case. HughD's 50 edits per day before the article was locked, refusal to accept opinions from 3rd party editors and the clear consensus among the other editors that HughD is a problem mean that at least this part of the discussion is not about me. That said, I proposed a two way voluntary interaction ban between HughD and myself that would also include voluntarily leaving the automotive pages in question. Thus it would result in HughD leaving the page but no sanctions would be levied against his account. Please note, tomorrow is a travel day for me and I will have limited web access Springee (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to Talk:Ford Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - I agree it isn't the main issue, but it's certainly part of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is Ford Pinto still to suffer? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. Springee (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see our project's policy WP:IBAN. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.

I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.

Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [90]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.

List of TEND examples

HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages: One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[91] after seeking and getting group consensus [92]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me. Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [93] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [94]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV. violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[95], [96]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [97] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[98]). Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [99]. Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[100], [101]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [102],[103]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [104]. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[105]. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[106], 2.[107], 3.[108]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[109] I asked a specific question [110]. Other editors noted it was not answered [111],[112]. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [113] , [114]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [115]. One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [116] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [117], HughD badgers EllenCT [118], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[119]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[120]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [121]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[122]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.

I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you have never commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.

You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:

• 28 August 2015 Springee undo of HughD at Chicago-style politics after 16 minutes with edit summary "...not developed with consensus. Please get consensus for this change"
• 8 September 2015 Springee revert of HughD at Halftime in America after 2 minutes with edit summary "Undue tag was removed without discussion or consent."

Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see WP:TEND: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague Scoobydunk brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing. Your least favorite essay is WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".

Then, when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report that at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD WP:NOTHERE.

Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.

Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project

Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "traveling."

Springee's project is HughD. User:Springee is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and Southern Strategy for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, until ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article, and Chicago-style politics his fifth top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. Please support an interaction ban. We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.

The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the question Hugh, why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone? Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and let it go, before you exhaust the community's patience. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request close, with community-initiated 1-year, two-way interaction ban, as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy WP:Interaction ban. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. Springee (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor attacking others at Talk:Twilight

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

---

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) seems to be pushing a anti-religion agenda and attacking others at Talk:Twilight. When an editor introduced an edit and started a discussion on the talk page when their edit was reverted, Pocketthis reponded with this rant that says "The subject is "CLOSED" because this is Wikipedia's protocol, and I've been helping enforce it for 5 years. You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person. A person of faith. Please feel free to contribute to in the articles written by those who also live their lives on faith and not fact. No compromise." and this one, saying things such as "This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." and "You can't pray here. Now think of the religious articles as your church. Keep it where it belongs, and all is good."

As per WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack. That seems to be this editor's modus operandi. When I asked him to tone down his rhetoric on his talk page, he stated that because I was part of a (completely different) religion, that I should "bow out" because my "religious sympathies are showing". When I reverted the article back to it's previous state per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, he reverted with the edit summary A Buddhist is trying to reinsert the religious section here. I've done my bit. If you cowards don't come to my aid, this article and hundreds like it will become part of Wikibible and noted on their talk page that YOU have started the edit war! You reversed my removal. Saying that edit-warring has "a guilty party" and it's certainly not them, despite them being the one making all the reverts.

Pocketthis is not a new editor, and should be very aware by now that this kind of behavior is inappropriate. Attacking other editors, edit-warring while blaming every other editor for edit-warring is something that would be expected from a new editor, but not someone that has been here for over four years with a few thousand edits under their belt. Their comments and actions have made it clear that they aren't here to collaborate with others (especially those he feels are compromised by having an opinion he doesn't share), and I really think some kind of administrator intervention is required. Pocketthis has been notified of this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I attacked no one. I am trying to protect the integrity of our encyclopedia from Bible pushers, who use science articles as a venue to preach. This man accusing me of attacking a new user, (which by the way isn't a new user, but an old one disguised a new one), is a Buddhist, and has sympathy for those who would insert matters of faith into a science article. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming Wikibible. I should be thanked, and not spanked. - thanksPocketthis (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• P.S. I have said my piece, and made my edits as to the issue pertaining to religion in the Twilight Article. I am done. There is no need to worry about any further comments by me. If what I have said and done there isn't enough for others to come to my aid, then it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it. - thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis seems to be an atheistic fanatic. Case ends. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, no one is coming to your aid because you are wrong. By comparison, it doesn't matter that I personally think genocide is bad. It's still a thing, and there are still Wikipedia articles on it. It doesn't matter that I think astrology is nonsense. It's still a thing and there is still a WP article on it. By the same measure, it doesn't matter that you and I are atheists. Religion is still a thing that exists, and is therefore an appropriate topic for inclusion in WP. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion Timothy, however, our science articles are being hijacked by religious fanatics. This is the max the Twilight article should have to say about anything pertaining to religion: Many religions view the twilight time of the day as holy, and many activities in various religions are practiced during that time. Anything more, and you start a 10,000 character religious section, inviting every religious faith to come make their pitch. Haven't we seen enough religious destruction in the world to know what they are really selling? It is so obvious and absurd, I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it. From the beginning of recorded time, one faith or another has killed thousands in the name of their God. Why can't we keep a lid on it here? Or at least keep in their religious articles. Miserly loves company, let them be miserable there. - Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Totally not a personal attack. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, sorry man, but your personal philosophical opinion on the role of religion in the grand scheme of the universe simply isn't relevant. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. You don't have a 10,000 character religious section, if you end up with one, then argue WP:DUEWEIGHT. You have a small (severely undersourced) section. So drop the slippery slope. Compare the section under Sun which perfectly appropriately addresses historically significant cultural and religious issues related to the sun, a section which you yourself have edited in the past and apparently had no problem with. WP is not the place to wage your personal social war. All these high handed proclamations about the fate of humanity just makes you look like you're WP:NOTHERE, and your going to wind up banned if you don't get a bit of a reality check. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have already said here that I was done with any further religious editing in that article. I was just commenting here with you as a mini debate. I see that you do not wish to debate, so I am done with debating as well. Good day-Pocketthis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your personal attacks and battleground mentality as much as your editing on the article. You cannot attack other editors on Wikipedia, especially for something as simple as having a viewpoint that you don't agree with. As far as I can see, you don't need to be touching any religious information on any article, because you have shown that you do not have the capacity to handle it, or other editors, appropriately. I don't know if a topic ban is needed, but it might be needed here to avoid a block. I don't know if you're having an off day or if there is a history of this behavior, I'm looking into that now, but the fact that you think this behavior is okay is the real issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly not competent enough to touch religious discussions for the rest of his life (this is coming from a non-theist, hit me). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this was all over, and I really want it to be. On the other hand, I must say that the issue here I have a problem with, even more than the religious sections in science articles, is being accused by the user that opened this discussion, saying that I attacked someone in the talk article. All I did in the talk article was "talk". Yes, my opinion was very concise and deliberate, but that is just because I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I speak from the front of my mouth. There is no speaking from the side of my mouth, or under my breath. I tell it as I see it. I do so politely, and that is not attacking anyone. The person with real issues here, is the user/reviewer that opened this discussion. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I never threatened the fellow in the talk page. The word Attack as used here is absurd. I will admit that as the years go by, I am more convinced that organized religion is not a good thing. To that opinion.....I am guilty. Also, perhaps I have been drinking a bit too much coffee. I'll cut down. Can we put this to bed now? - Thanks -Pocketthis (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person." Puts an interesting spin on WP:BADFAITH (Pun completely intended).

"This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." Really? I mean, hyperbole for sure. WP:CIVIL is a slam dunk. WP:SOAPBOX and a half. WP:NPA just for good measure. (But hey, if this is a way to get rid of the WP donation banner then I'm all for it.)

And this is not to mention that your entire premise is just wrong. Compare the article on the sun, as has been brought up already. Compare bread, gold, monogamy, capital punishment. The topic doesn't matter. If there are WP:RS that make the connection, and it's not WP:UNDUE weight, then it belongs.

The grand irony is, that if you had actually argued against the section based on the weakness of its sources, you would have had a good point. Instead you've nearly categorically disqualified yourself to have that discussion. You just make things worse with the "I just want it all to be over, but before it is, I want to have the last word and make sure everyone knows I'm completely justified.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my perspective on this. First, here is the content that User:Matt1618 wanted to add. Pretty heavy on the Roman Catholic thing, and if you look at Matt1618's contribs, they are 100% WP:SPA for things Roman Catholic, and their username is the biblical verse on which the Pope bases his claim of primacy. In my view, this user is so far here to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for things Roman Catholic, which is not OK. So User:Pocketthis was hitting a mark with their shotgun blasts. Matt1618 please reply here and let us know that you understand that the way you have been using Wikipedia is not OK.

That said, what Pocketthis wrote on the Talk page was out to lunch and over the top. Almost every article on archetypical natural phenomena has a section that discusses importance to "Culture" in various ways (which is really how those article should be sectioned - a Culture section that deals with things like, art, literature, religion, etc). Examples: Dawn#Mythology_and_religion + Dawn#Dawn_in_the_world_of_Art + Dawn#Literature; Blue_hour (pretty much 100% culture); Night#Cultural_aspects; Rainbow#Culture; Moon#In_culture; heck, Mars#In_culture and even Flower#Symbolism. So the notion that "religion" as a subset of Culture per has no place in an article about an archetypal time of day, is just out to lunch. I'll add here that the Twilight article is only part of one WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Time which is defunct and never created a manual of style to guide sectioning, but I would reckon they would have a "Culture" section if they had a MoS.

Pocketthis, you also did nothing to get community input when you had your disagreement and as the more experienced user that would have been wiser of you. And you were beyond blunt and into strident. That is what everybody here has said. So let me ask you - can you hear that what you said about "no religion" was not correct, and that the way you said it was way too strident? If you cannot see those things, there are bigger problems than a TBAN from religion would solve. If you can see that, there is no need for a TBAN, in my view, especially if you can bring yourself to apologize for what you did, too. (for real, not fakey) Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My perspective on this is along the lines of @Jytdog:'s response. These sections do tend to a "I have to get the details of my group in" level of overdetail, and it seems to me that what we have now could be reduced profitably. Pocketthis's response, on the other hand, is way out of line. It's one thing to overrun articles with this sort of material, but really, an article on twilight that doesn't talk about its religious significance is incomplete, and the hostility to religion expressed (a) over the top and (b) an obvious violation of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal from the topic of religion

The above makes it very clear that Pocketthis (talk · contribs) cannot constructively edit, or discuss, the topic of religion on Wikipedia. Outside of the topic of religion the editor's edits seem constructive, but if they keep at this they are going to get themselves blocked from editing. For that reason, I propose that the editor be topic banned from the subject of religion on Wikipedia for at least six months. The fact that they don't see their behavior regarding the topic of religion as a problem indicates that they don't need to be discussing it at all. Saying "You don't come with good will. You come with religion." is not "polite", no matter how much Pocketthis says otherwise, and the fact that they are willing to give "no compromise" on the subject means they should not be editing the subject at all. In their own words above, "I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it." This edit summary, more than any other thing, sums up why they should be topic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are a Buddhist that has lost his way. If you would have simply showed up in the Twilight talk page, and asked me to tone it down politely, I would have re-read my reply to the man, and tried to be more forgiving of his relentless posting. However, you chose to come here and make my life miserable because you felt your own faith threatened. Where is "your" compassion for fellow man? You lost it along the way. This isn't the living room with the TV in it asking for donations, or the front gate just waiting for that sought after Watchtower. It is an encyclopedia. This man put 2500 words about Christianity in the Twilight article, and when it was removed, he would not stop posting his opinions. I also didn't stop posting mine. Yes, I could have been more forgiving, and compromising, however, when the fellow lied to me and told me he was just a "new user" trying to do whatever, I closed the door on having an open mind. And......when this is all said and done and decided, the truth about his identity will eventually surface, and you might feel differently. How do I know he is not a new user? All of us that have been here for years know when they are talking to a sock puppet, or a banned user claiming to be a "new user". I don't have to give examples. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't belong here in this discussion. Any real user, that had prior posts, and was respected by the community would have gotten a completely different response from me there. I think you all of know that. I have worked here with the best in the world for 5 years, and you would block me over a talk page exchange with a sock puppet. Sad.. Sad commentary indeed.

• do not support- as recipient - Pocketthis (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time you comment you dig yourself in deeper. You are incapable of discussing religion in a civil manner, for whatever reason. The funny thing is, I'm certain that I've never said I was a Buddhist on Wikipedia. Not just in discussions with you, but ever. I'm an active part of the WikiProject Buddhism, and have a quote from the Dhammapada on my user page because it's relevant to how people should discuss things on Wikipedia. That doesn't make me Buddhist, and the only person who has brought up Buddhism is you, so how is it that "my faith is being threatened"? The Twilight article does not, and as far as I know, has never mentioned Buddhism, nor have I in any discussion with you up until this comment. Yet you see the word "WikiProject Buddhism" on my user page and automatically attack me for it, saying that "because I'm Buddhist" that I shouldn't have any say in the subject of religion, and that my "religious sympathies are showing" simply because I disagree with you. The very mention of the word religion seems to compromise your ability to have any sort of dialogue, and instead you start going into these diatribes that hardly have anything to do with the subject at hand. Instead of explaining why you should not be topic banned from religion, you chose to attack me and what you assume is my personal religion. If anything, that's more evidence that you need to be topic banned before you are blocked completely. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• There you go with that word Attack again. Were you beat up as a child? Seriously my friend, I think the person that is out of control here is you. How have you ever managed to maintain your seniority here with your lack of compassion and diplomacy? Amazing.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temp topic ban due to refusal to stop digging, and tendency toward WP:Discrimination. As for Aoidh, enough, we get it. Shh. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

True. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why don't you fellows go and ban the sock puppet and do something constructive here. I'm being railroaded, and I would find it amusing if I didn't spend so many hours of my life here trying to improve and beautify this place. What a disgrace this is. Other than the level headed admin that ended this case, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is how you treat a 5 year veteran of the site that has fought vandalizum tooth and nail here everyday. I have beautified your articles with photography, and made some of the best friends of my life here, of which I do not plan on informing them of this atrocity, or ask for their help. Have fun here wolf-pack, and thank you "starter of this thread". You have only reinforced my feelings about those involved in organized religion. My advice is don't look in the mirror tonight, you might not like what you see.Pocketthis (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dood. So much melodrama. Schtap. This is the problem. Learn to learn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Insulting other editors proves no understanding of the "write for the enemy" aspect of NPOV. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite topic ban. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Doesn't seem to be able to edit neutrally on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban, minimum 6 months or more. Just because this user has spent "5 years beautifying the place", doesn't give them a free pass from disruptive editing, personal attacks and discrimination. - ^theWOLFchild 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (in fact, only certain editors get free passes around here, usually they're buddies with the admins, and this doesn't seem to apply here)
• Support as someone who thinks religion is a bunch of grownup fairy tales, though historically important and worthy, on the whole, for what it tries to do. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Although from a philosophical perspective my thinking is more in line with Pocketthis and EEng, this is an international project which should aim to be more inclusive in its approach to editors. Comments such as those by Pocketthis are counter to these aims and should be duly sanctioned. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's unfair both to yourself and to me to fail to emphasize the substantial difference between ourselves and Pocktthis in terms of attitude. EEng 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPA. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this fight is silly and needs to be apprehended appropriately.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Chris
• oppose seeing that the editor in question hasn't shown that much interest in editing on religious topics. I do think that WP:DROPTHESTICK is definitely in order, however. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• SNOW support: This editor is quite clearly (and I'm sure the irony of the wording will not be lost on them) on a crusade to limit or expunge as much reference to religion on the project as possible. Frankly, the motivating factors and lack of perspective suggest a deep WP:COMPETENCY issue with regard to understanding the basic concept of encyclopedia building, as opposed to WP:ADVOCACY/the desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Their comments call into question whether they are capable of even remotely applying a WP:Neutral point of view with regard to the topic of religion (or indeed, any social topic they may have strong feelings about). I personally have doubts that this is the last stop at ANI for this contributor, but a topic-ban regarding all content and discussions relating to religion, broadly construed, is the appropriate first step. That incorporates a great many articles and discussions, but it is the user themselves who has set the bounds of those restrictions by being unable to countenance reference to an ubiquitous feature of human culture that touches upon many other areas which will necessarily incorporate coverage of religious topics, quite regardless of any judgement of whether those beliefs are rational or not. I disagree with the proposal only in that I think the ban needs to be indefinite, with a minimum 1-year of concerted, non-confrontational, non-soapbox editing, free of WP:PAs, before an appeal of the ban is brought before the community. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is identity-based harassment. and personal attacks. If the user cannot set aside their own prejudices we should remove them from the topic. I'll add that this tban should extend to include spirituality and faith as religion has a specific definition and connotation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Is there a different administrator who can look over the EGS article rather than "Guy"?

I want to report the "Guy" or "JzG" actions concerning the European Graduate School article. He does not like the school, so he is unlikely to make the necessary edit or changes to the article. He blocked me and he has tried to ban me (without any success this time). I do not want to start a war against him because I like to do something else in life. However, I tried to raise some arguments about the EGS accreditation, the recent Maltese accreditation, the fact that U.S. sources are outdated and not official (even if my contribution are lenghty in talk page, I am referring to the official Michigan, Maine and Texas website links which state something different with reference to the EGS accreditation). A prospective student has written in the talk page and "Guy" replied that the topic was "discussed to death already". I note that different administrators have written in the Rfc (@Softlavender,@Vanjagenije,@Damotclese). This has happened each time I try to raise an argument, "Guy" has the final say. He also replied by telling me that I am here to whitewash the Egs article, that I am a WP:SYN (so according to him I should not write anymore in the talk page. In other words, he believes that only long-term editors can raise their arguments and that I should wait some time before writing that EGS is accredited), then that I was a suckpuppetry, latly a meatpuppetry. In conclusion, so long as he acts as an executioner/judge/final say of the article, my contributions to the talk page would be totally worthless. My question: Is there a different administrator who can look over the article rather than "Guy"?Claudioalv (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an editor who can look at this content other than the WP:SPA Claudioalv? Who keeps demanding that we engage in novel synthesis such as listing accreditation of some courses in Malta and asserting based on this that all sources relating to questiona ble accreditaiton be removed as "incorrect", or that we portray the degrees as being recognised throughout the EU when actually the linked WP:PRIMARY source contains absolutely nothing demonstrating any obligation to accept degrees accredited elsewhere? And why is a Swiss-headquartered school only able to find accreditaiton in a country whose population is exceeded by that of many of the towns in the US state that lists its degrees as fraudulent, I wonder?

All this user has ever done is try to whitewash this article and WP:FORUMSHOP endlessly in the hope that the answer will change if the demand is repeated often enough. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is no more than a compacted form of WP:OTHERPARENT. Half of the administration is already WP:INVOLVED in this (see, your talkpage), and surely that is enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this very curious. Why should the article have an entire section on the Graduate school's lack of accreditation in 2 states in the U.S.? Do articles now have to include sections on whether they come up to the standards of the U.S.? Surely there are a zillion other organisations out there which are not accredited by similar organisations in the U.S. For example, several animal breeding organisations will not even recognise each other so should we re-write the articles to say that (imaginary example) the U.K. Hereford Bull Society is not accredited by the U.S. Hereford Bull Society? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Claudioalv: Why did you delete my posting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:] It is clear that "Guy" has more power than half of the administration. Each time I raise an argument the answer is "No" without providing any reasons. It should not take longer to see in the talk page that he is acting as a Supreme Judge/executioner/final say. It is not enough because his conduct has been reckless and biased. He just does not like that an editor (even if is a WP:SPA) raises an argument (U.S. source are outdated and that is easy to verify). I was asking to verify and update the U.S. sources, and as a result I was blocked and he tried to ban me. This is a serious problem because freedom of speech is involved. Blocking someone and attempting to ban him without any reason should not be allowed by other administrators. I am not currently asking to edit the article with the contribution I provided (even if there is consensus in the Rfc as you can easily see), I am only asking that someone else not biased can look over the article. thanks for your time. Claudioalv (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hear that Guy? Now you need to kill off the rest in single combat to gain their powers. There can be only one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The rest of them are just getting too old for this shit, Guy! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps this issue can be resolved through this venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination).  Sandstein  21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I have not deleted any your post. Claudioalv (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff.[123] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I apologize. I did not do on purpose, I guess I was writing at the same time you were writing. Sorry again. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thank you. The postings were quite close so it may have been an edit conflict. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk). Moreover I do agree with your post I have accidently deleted. Besides, the States mentioned in the article state something different than EGS degrees are fraudolent. Texas is current review the inclusion of EGS in the list (the recent Malta accreditation was not on their record), Maine and Michigan do not publish anymore any list of degrees mill. This is really easy to verify. However was not possible to address this argument in the talk page because the final say has been so far "Guy"'s judgment and if you disagree with him, he firstly block you and then he will try to ban. Welcome to the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well well, inside information. Thus indicating that you are not independent if this company.WP:COI much? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy. I am just citing the official links you have ever refused to read. You are aware of this information but you just do not care. Everyone can verify them by clicking the following: 1, 2, 3. Claudioalv (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that JzG is acting both as editor and admin in this discussion. At this point he shouldn't be taking admin actions wrt the article--he clearly has an editorial horse in this race. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article other than in an administrative capacity. One does not become involved simply by engaging with an SPA over a long period of time. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not describe the edit here[124] as "administrative". This is a large deletion being made whilst the article is under a long-standing protection allowing only admins to edit. You also stated in the Edit Summary that the addition you reverted was made against consensus - that is not my reading of the Talk page. I also find it "curious" that the admin who made the edit you reverted was the same admin who lifted the block on User:Claudioalv and refuted your accusation of sockpuppetry. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that Claudioalv has semi-disclosed a COI; he or she was asked directly about connections with EGS here and gave a long answer that didn't answer the question. He/she was asked again here, and in their answer, all they said was "I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem ...". This is not a clear answer. i have asked them again here on their talk page, and they chose to come here and continue the drama instead of answering there.

In my view it is likely that Claudioalv is being paid for their work on this article, either as employee of EGS or as a contractor. In my view - especially in light of their refusal to answer direct questions - Claudioalv should be blocked until they make a clear COI disclosure on their talk page. So much disruption they have caused - Arbcom even, and they have not addressed this basic thing, directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. I have answered your question. If you think that banning me is the right thing to do go ahead. But at least verify If I have written nonsense or contributions supported by official governmental website (Malta, Michigan, Maine and Texas). thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only real question here is why we keep going through the same old shit with this article, and why we continue to allow SPAs and COI editors to have access to it. I suggest long-term semi-protection and dealing out some indef blocks. BMK (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User BMK You are biased toward me like "Guy" because you refused to look at my contributions and the sources I provided. Are COI users not allowed to write? If I find that an article is misleading or incorrect, I join the discussion by posting my contribution. Why shouldn't do it? I have revealed my identity the first time an administrator accepted my unblock request. Do you mean that only "Guy" can edit the article and build a free encyclopedia? Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel stated that he is not the final say, but he was probably wrong at this point. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is that each time I try to raise an argument aministrators and editors prefer to define me like WP:SYN, sockpuppetry, meatpoppetry, clueless, wide-eyed and now COI, instead to verify that Michigan does not state that EGS confer degree mills, Maine does not publish any official list of No-Accredited School, Texas is currently reviewing the EGS status and an official governmental entity of a E.U. Country has conferred a legitimate accreditation (Malta even if is a small country is still a E.U. contry and part of E.U.) However, the current article states just the contrary, i.e. the school is not accredited and in the U.S. the school is specifically included in a list of degree mill (info that relies on outdated links). Claudioalv (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, the whole world is against you (except DrChrissy, apparently), and it's going to stay that way unless you provide the information that Jytdog is asking for - and do so publicly. We don't disallow paid editing, but it must be publicly declared (see WP:TOU), and we regulate the ways in which hardcore conflict of interest editors can participate (see WP:COI). As long as you fail to make a clear public declaration of your status in regard to EGS, you're going to get the same kind of treatment that the previous SPAs received. That you were able to convince a single administrator to unblock you (which he should not have done, but that's water under the bridge) is irrelevant, here you're dealing with the entire Wikipedia community, and we are passionate about keeping the encyclopedia neutral and not letting it be taken over by any outside entity for promotional purposes (see WP:PROMO). BMK (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you before Claudioalv, I strongly urge you to complete the COI disclosure work and stop battling here. You are digging yourself a very deep hole the more you push in this way. You will of course do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really want this seemingly notable-enough article to be deleted just because people are disrupting it? Will that win us anything, or will the ones who disrupt Wikipedia be winning? Can this just be semi-protected for a very long time instead and forgotten about already? LjL (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of block

Timeline of block Much of the problem here seems to focus on JzG's block of Claudioalv. I have prepared below a timeline of the relevant edits.

• (22:30, 9 February) Claudioalv's first contribution ever to WP is to Talk:European Graduate School here.[125]

• (22:48, 9 February) Claudioalv's second contribution ever is again to the Talk:European Graduate School page here.[126]

• (00:20, 10 February) JzG reverts Claudioalv here[127]. Reverting another user's posting on a talk page is in itself actionable.

• (00:20, 10 February) Jzg indefinitely blocks Claudioalv, leaving edit summary "(Abusing multiple accounts)" according to Claudioalv's block log.

• (16:16, 10 February) Claudioalv's first contribution to their own talk page was here[128] asking to have their block lifted.

• (23:48, 16 February) Jzg's first ever contribution to Claudioalv's Talk page is here[129].

In other words, I am unable to find any evidence of a discussion about any problem that JzG had with Claudioalv before blocking them. Claudioalv does not have appear to have been warned about the possibility of a block, nor indeed even notified about their block. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement that one be warned before one is blocked. You still have much to learn. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you that has much to learn - about misrepresenting others postings. Read it again. Where have I said there is a requirement? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come now, DrChrissy, whatever you are, you cannot convince me that you don't understand what "implication" means. Please don't take us for nitwits. BMK (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The implication is only in your head. The reason I raised the lack of warning is that JzG was dealing with a new user. It seems only fair to me that an admin should warn a user of what may happen if the admin is disagreeing with their editing behaviour. Are you seriously arguing that it is appropriate for an admin to block a new user without discussing the problem first and warning them a block is possible? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it were in my head, it would be an "inference" not an "implication" But it ain't. BMK (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Address my question, please. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The timeline is right there on the talk page; I will agree that Guy would have done well to talk before blocking. However, User:DrChrissy, I can't help but think that you are exporting a personal problem with Guy to this thread, and I should warn you that you shouldn't. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this at all. I was shocked to see a very experienced admin block a new editor after only 2 edits. I looked further into this and was even more shocked that I could find no evidence to support the reason given for the block, and that there was apparently no discussion with the blocked editor about their behaviour. This, to my mind, is a misuse of the blocking tool. The time line is not clear from the User's talk page because the editor was not informed about their block - I am simply clarifying the timeline and also pointing out that a users posting on a talk page was reverted with no justification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting extensive bickering between two editors that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread (other than to question one-another's motives for being on this board to begin with). BMK is free to open another thread to examine DrChrissy's editing patterns if he believes there are long-term behavioural issues, but this is not the place. Nor is this extensive divergence into back-and-forth assertions about eachother's experience, motivations, and block history helping to resolve any of the issues of this thread, as both contributors should have realized two posts in. Please stay on topic. Snow let's rap 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Shocked" my Great Aunt Fanny. You know, DrChrissy, the more I see your edits in Wikipedia space, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling in order to cause disruption. I'm also starting to wonder about your putative lack of experience here. I would advise other editors to keep a close watch on DrChrissy's noticeboard editing - perhaps it might strike a chord with someone as reminiscent of a previous editor, maybe even someone with a bone to pick with Guy. BMK (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (E/C)@Beyond My Ken: Apologies for shocking your Great Aunt Fanny. Please could you keep the subject of your comments directed to the content, not the editor. Please answer this question directly. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If not, you are invited to strike that last comment. DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, nothing to strike. My growing impression from your Wikipediaspace editing is that you seem to be deliberately causing problems, just as my 'impression from your conduct is that it's possible you're not as much of a newbie as you claim to be. Those impressions didn't come out of nowhere, they're based on the quality and content of your edits, and they lead to certain possibilities which I would like the community to keep an eye on. BMK (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Are you sure you are discussing this with the correct editor? I have never claimed to be a newbie apart from my very first edits over 5 years ago. My user page shows I have been registered for 5 years and 26 days and this box has been on my user page for as long as I can remember. I repeat, are you confusing me with another editor? DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, DrChrissy, I know very well that every time you get into trouble, you beg for leeway because you've not been here long enough to know all the ins and outs of the place. I also know that although you were registered in 2011, your editing counts were quite modest until 2015. [130]. I also know that 2015 was the year that your edits to Wikipedia space took off. [131]. (You seem to want to have it both ways: "I am not a newbie" and "Give me a break, I haven't been here that long.") In short, I know who I'm talking about, I'm talking about you and your editing and your disruptions. Those are facts, the questions that're open are if you are being deliberately disruptive or not, and whether the community will see fit to do something about it, eventually. (Aside from your two topic bans, I mean - you do realize that most editors go through their entire productive editing life without ever being topic banned?) BMK (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) That's pretty rich coming from an editor who has been site blocked 9 times! I would ask for diffs about my "beg for leeway", but I won't, because they do not exist. As for the frequency of my edits over time - I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Anyway, this is all getting well off the subject of the thread and I am sure readers are totally fed up with your false accusations, so I will leave the last word to you. DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC) DrC, it's difficult to describe the many inaccuracies in your post. I have never been "site blocked". I have been blocked for edit warring, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a misdemeanor, for very short periods of time, and when the block is over, I have been free to continue editing, unencumbered by any restrictions. The most serious item in my block log is the one for "abusing multiple accounts", which was, basically, a misunderstanding when I changed screen names without notifying anyone about it - it's all explained in the "My History" link on my talk user page, which has been there for years - full disclosure of everything. I have never been banned in any respect, as you have. You seem not to understand that your two topic bans are very big deals indeed, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fairly major felony. The next step up from multiple topic bans is, most likely, a complete 'site ban, which would indefinitely forbid you from editing Wikipedia again until the ban is lifted. You've already seen how hard it is to get a topic ban removed, please just imagine how hard it is to get un-site banned. My final advice to you, which you don't want and won't listen to, is to straighten up your act, stop disrupting the noticeboards to make trouble for admins you believe you have grievances against, stop pushing fringe theories in your editing, and edit strictly according to policy. If you do that, you have a chance that your future history here will go a different way, if you don't -- well, as was said below, you're hearing the sound of the community losing its patience with your nonsense. BMK (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) I'm pretty sure DrC is not a sock, but ... that sound you hear? It's the community's patience being stretched and it's nearly at snapping point. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Quite possible, I've been wrong about socks before - but I've more often been right. In any event, I've decided that DrC is really not worth the time or attention -- the bottom line is that he's your standard fringe advocate who simply can't work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on non-standard medicine and science, and appears to hold Guy - a firm advocate of those policies - responsible. DrC's motivations are totally transparent, as are his methods. Although more disruptive and persevering than some, his type is pretty much a dime-a-dozen around here, so it's best to let him work his way into more sanctions on his own, since he seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes (like our friend Claudioalv here). BMK (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudioalv picked up right where a blocked user left off. Checkuser subsequently showed that Claudioalv is a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. Another admin assumed good faith and unblocked. As we now see, Claudioalv has done precisely as expected: wasted hours and hours of volunteers' time with querulous demands, novel synthesis and circular argument.

As a matter of simple fact, removing talk page comments by suspected socks is not actionable. It's perfectly acceptable.

DrChrissy would be wise not to keep coming to the drama boards with vendettas and vexatious complaints. That is likely to lead to a ban form Wikipedia space to go with your other two bans. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in fact, your reason for blocking "(Abusing multiple accounts)" was erroneous. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not. It was a WP:DUCK block for sockpuppetry, it turns out that the user is a meatpuppet not a sock puppet, but we do not draw any distinction between the two. One WP:SPA is banned, another pops right up, we block. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say there should be more than a mere "suspicion" of sockpuppetry before removing talk page comments becomes perfectly acceptable. LjL (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's fun to poke someone you have disagreed with, but please have a quick look at the underlying issue first. That would avoid appearing to support an obviously problematic user who wants Wikipedia to promote the idea that a shonky business selling degrees has accreditation (re shonky, see for example this list of institutions whose degrees are illegal to use in Texas—the list includes EGS). Many people try to promote stuff on Wikipedia every day, and people like JzG/Guy who deal with them should be thanked and supported, not obstructed with the above retaliation from some unrelated past disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "mere suspicion". There have been a lot of WP:SPAs at that article, and a lot of sockpuppetry too. As usual with a subject whose self-image is at odds with the reliable independent sources, they want to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem. And as usual the problem is that the facts undermine their commercial activities. This is not our problem to fix, of course. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to assume I'm having "fun" to "poke" you because we have disagreed. We have agreed, too. I do not particularly care about the underlying issue here, either. I do take issue with your wording: maybe there was more than "suspicion", but I didn't come up with the "suspicion" terminology, I was reacting to your claim that "removing talk page comments by suspected socks is [...] perfectly acceptable". I do not think that's generally accurate, is all. LjL (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Was that addressed to me? I have no recollection of any disputes with you, which doesn't mean they didn't happen, just that anything that may have happened is currently filed in the ox of things where reasonable people may differ. I don't have any impression of any problematic history between us, and I have no intention of excavating links to try to find one. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, in the packed discussion, LjL mistook Johnuniq's post just above for one of your own. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me add something that may help show I'm not here to annoy Guy: I was informed a while ago, by a checkuser, that it's not even really considered acceptable for me to place "suspected sock" tags (the type with documentation that actually explains they're the ones to be used by non-admins) on user pages of users who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. But then, conversely, blanket removal of comments by editors who are suspect of sockpuppetry is always perfectly acceptable? I can recognize it's acceptable in some cases, perhaps including this one, but I just disagree with that blanket statement. LjL (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment From An Outside Perspective: Ok, after looking over all of this, why the hell is the community spending so much time on a C-class article? Don't we all have more important things to do? If Guy and Claudioalv want to go at it, jut let them. We already know that Claudioalv would end up getting blocked. Also, why the hell this article? Who will ever look at this, besides the two going at it above? Shouldn't we be putting our effort towards something positive? Remember, I'm just looking at this without any involvement. TJH2018 talk 02:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing else is needed to be done. The article is protected (if it's not deleted, I imagine it will remain protected for quite a while). If so, fine. From there, individuals can make edit requests on the talk page. Any admin including Guy can respond to those requests. The talk page shows that the edit requests are broad based language about accreditation and Guy has been rejecting them. That's fair to me since the page is under heavy dispute and there's no indication of consensus to support adding any of that language to the article. The next steps are to pursue WP:DRR or better yet to actually provide the support that would get Guy or any admin to see that there is support for including the text into the page. There is currently an RFC on including the Malta and that's going on how it goes on. If you want to be taken seriously here, don't make 500 demands for variations of puffery based on stringing together things into a source and expect us not to see what's going on here. If there's an RFC on Malta, don't bring up the state of Michigan and keep on expanding it to test how much you can get away with; it's not helping. If say there was something like a refusal by Guy to add a faculty member here, then fine but I'm not seeing anything like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just providing an update. My back-and-forth with Claudioalv is wrapping up and I expect that you will hear from each of us in the next day or two. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is always a tough balancing act. So we have a particular scenario here which often frustrates administrative efforts. We have an article on a small(ish) private institution which is purported to have dubious business practices--it might be a degree mill as here, or perhaps predatory publisher, as in the case of the last time I saw a similar discussion here at ANI. The article gives every impression of having been started as an effort to publicize the institution, polish(and/or whitewash) its image and generally raise its profile, but the article does just barely satisfy WP:GNG by the skin of its teeth. The institution and its employees are obviously savvy to online marketing and organized enough to create headaches for the Wikipedians who have to grapple with them. Initially socking investigations are done with at least some degree of depth and transparency, but nobody (who isn't a COI editor) wants to make this article the crux of their activities, even on a given day, so eventually things devolve to an "oppose on suspicion" (or even "block on suspicion") state of affairs where any new member or insistent IP is assumed to be a part of the conspiratory collective.

My own perspective on this is that, unless we have a WP:DUCK test on steroids (e.i. with their first edit, they restored the exact content removed after the last sock was blocked, something along those), then WP:Assume good faith controls and is binding on our actions. A COI editor will reveal themselves by necessity in most cases anyway, and usually pretty quickly, and we have SPI and other similar tools exactly for these situations. Like LjL and others here, I have objections to the ban hammer being the first stop, based solely on one admin's instincts, at least where there is no transparency as to the evidence that admin considered. It's not that I don't appreciate the complexity of the issue or the burden it places upon our efforts to arrest bias in these articles, its just that I think there are other community principles at play here that can become even more deeply complicated if we start acting in a reflexive manner.

Now, I want to qualify all of the above by saying that I don't know where this situation really falls in that scheme; I don't know the content well enough to say whether it or not it was appropriate for Guy to "block on sight" in this instance. I'm only echoing others here in saying that the standard simply cannot be suspicion alone; an examination of the facts is always appropriate where an admin blocked an account two edits in with only a vague summary, and the admin in question could save themselves and the community a lot of time by being more detailed and transparent about what evidence is being considered in this extraordinary action and/or by giving the suspected a sock just a tiny bit of WP:ROPE to make the situation more clear; they'll certainly take it if they are a COI. Otherwise the admin, even one in high standing in the community, is going to have to live with the fact that an indef of a new user is always going to receive deep scrutiny, as a matter of community principle. Just my thoughts on this situation in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the user's first edit was proposing, on Talk, the same content that had IIRC previously been proposed by other WP:SPAs. And virtually every editor proposing anything on that article is a WP:SPA proposing that we (surprise surprise) remove mention of the identified issues with the place. That does rather invite suspicion. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

Ferakp (talk · contribs) is making source misrepresentations and deleting sourced information:

• He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [132]
  • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[133]

• Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [134]
  • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
    • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

• Here he deletes statistics of Female Genital Mutilation which are well sourced from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [135]

• He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [136] [137] [138]
  • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [139]

• He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [140] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [141]

• He was warned many times on his talkpage but always swiftly removes all warnings from his talkpage.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here. Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: <--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, . All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Ferakp (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.

Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [142] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.

Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the talkpage there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:--92.106.49.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source . Here is your source, . Here is my source about declining: . It is from 2015 and it says: In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee. Another source and source even says directly that it is declined "In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated.". About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at Female genital mutilation to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [143][144][145] He removed similar material from Iraqi Kurdistan [146] and Kurdish women. [147][148] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my Female genital mutilation edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that female genital cutting is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> . About change of this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing. This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.

I added this Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.

Changed media to Turkish media because source says so. Other changes are adding more details. I just added more details and neutralized statements. The report from Iraqi Kurdistan is not related to the all Kurds. That's why many were changed to some when all Kurds were mentioned. Also, In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal. Especially under Saddam Hussein, women had many rights and liberties, including strong economic rights. was removed. The source doesn't mention where that information was gathered and it is based to what study. Because the source is blog (thread) and only some of statements are cited, I see it as a unreliable source. In the source, "In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal" statement was not mentioned but another statement was mentioned. However, because it is blog/thread, I see it as unreliable source. As far as I know, blogs and thread in forums are not allowed as sources. I might be wrong. The only mistake I did was removing this statement -- >The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging. However, the source didn't work and I tried very hard to find it but I didn't. The link is still not working. Also, I tried to find the report from the organization's website but I didn't find it. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--92.106.49.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My message to reviewer. I have done nothing wrong except in FGM article, I didn't notice the source. I explained all my changes and this is the first time someone reports me. I have edited and improved tons of times and for me it's normal that there is sometimes users who are against my changes, but I have always solved disputes. If you are going to give me a ban, please give me a permanent ban, not topic ban. I am so tired of users like 92.106.49.6 and similar users which have nothing to do than blackwash articles related to the Kurds. Thank you Ferakp (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There was high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. Ferakp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. WP:NPOV --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [149]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[150], Arabs[151], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [152], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:

Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [153], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called Human Rights in Rojava. I transferred those statements and sources from Rojava article to Human rights in Rojava.

Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[154]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.

[155] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture. The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. Ferakp (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:

• On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
• He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
• He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
• He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
• He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [156] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [157] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [158]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [159].
• Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, for example Amnesty International use in another their report words"ethnic cleansing" because they classify it as a ethnic cleansing. The reason why they didn't call it ethnic cleansing in the YPG/PYD related article is because it's a far away from to be classified as a ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.

Which book?

They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.

There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Kurdish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.

What is the problem with this edit, ? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: The survey group was small but the results are a reminder... My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.

Excuse me can you show my your claims about "Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.Ferakp (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's a 2014 survey on FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan here; UNICEF summary here. It could be used to update Kurdish women or Iraqi Kurdistan, or to create Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.Ferakp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been caught at least 9 times from blackwashing Kurdish articles, calling me nationalist editor, trying to show my edits which are related to neutralization as blackwashings and following me. You are clearly blackwashing Kurdish articles, as I proved above, if someone has to get warning or ban, it should be you.Ferakp (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on Yaşar Kemal, he posted this to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen here in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly here, where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see this. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen here about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the Yezidis are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly removed negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on Kurdish women without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed more and more reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: here, for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen here, when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
• Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --GGT (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am 100% behind my messages and edits which you mentioned. About Yasar Kemal, I told you so many times that the person was Kurdish, not a Turk. I added sources and you deleted my sources. I told you to at least keep sources and use talk page until we solve it. Try to understand it, also tell it to your friends who 24/7 try to change Hamdi Ulukaya article to show him as a Turk even though I have tons of articles even his own video about himself.
I am totally supporting the edit [160]: About the lack of interest, it is Turkish claim. If you read news like this you will realize that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea (Press freedom Index) and nothing unbiased comes from them when it comes to Kurdish related news. So, if the Kurds say that they are not allowed to open schools, they are continuously closed and international newspapers confirm them, is it not a fair to keep one biased Turkish source which claims that they weren't interested.. That's why I showed it as a claim but kept it despite the source was unreliable.
About Yazidi woman, I am going to repeat again, Dailymail is not reliable source and she is Yazidi not a Kurd. Just read her article and sources related to her. Tons of articles says she is Yazidis and Iraq. Yazidis are not Kurds, they are recognized as different ethnic group by the UN.
About the edit more: How many times, I have to explain this edit. Let me explain again even though it is already explained. About the first edit, the source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The article said that A 2015 study by Kurdish social anthropologist Kameel Ahmady found and assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. Here comes the problem. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or does it means only Iranin Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran, it is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran so I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect, let me repeat, among the Kurds in Iran, not in Western Iran as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I simply deleted because it was clearly falsified. Statement related to statistics said "is" but it's not true because the source I added clearly said that it is dropped everywhere to under 50% and in some regions, it is almost 0%. If I would have deleted "statistics", I would have deleted that 72% also. I didn't and I leave it because that is true, unlike other statistics about regions which weren't true anymore because I had source for them. I already explained 3 times that the law about FGM is allowed so that statement which says that it is not enforced is not true anymore, that's why I removed it. There is my source above. If you think that edit is wrong, then you simply protect blackwashing Kurdish pages. Keeping falsified statement about FGM, FGM statistics which is not valid anymore and statement about FGM law which also not valid anymore is nothing else than blackwashing. I would have understood if you would have for example presented statistics in table and mentioned that they are from 2011 or 2012 or have said that law wasn't accepted until 2015 but keeping those despite new sources is clearly blackwashing. Ferakp (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing information negative information can be whitewashing. I don't agree with Ferakp's view that his edits are only aimed at restoring neutrality. Many of them are removing reliably sourced negative information. This conflict looks to me as a typical example of two editors with opposite biases trying to make the article what *they* think is neutral, and then assuming bad faith on the case of the other editor. The only solution is probably to get more editors involved, especially uninvolved neutral editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You better tell this to the user who reported me.This is because the user is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles with another Turkish troll group. The same user who reported me is cooperating with Shadow4dark user, you usually find them and some other users always in same pages blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing Turkish-PKK related pages. For example, Shadow4dark has added Kurdish terrorism category to every Kurdish article he has visited and the user who reported me has cooperated with Shadow4dark, he just deleted speed deletion tag which another user added to the Category:Kurdish terrorism. The user deleted it and didn't explain or use talk page to tell why he/she thinks that it is not meeting speedy deletion requirements. The same user also tried remove my all details which neutralized the Kurdish articles. As I mentioned above, there is clear evidence that this user with other users are doing nothing else than blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing articles related to them. I proved 9 times that this users is deleting newest sources and replacing with oldest ones. Also, this user has showed many my edits as whitewashing even though I proved that they are clearly related to neutralization, just read my messages above.

I'm telling it to you, FerakP. Although obviously, it goes for all of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, this is not simply a POV conflict. Of course everyone will have their perceptions of neutrality and of course some inherent bias may be present on my part. That goes without saying. However, having been involved in numerous debates about this volatile and politically sensitive region (and never raised one issue here at ANI about any user), it is very clear to me that this is not about a POV conflict (which would look like this) and that there is an important behavioural problem about this user that is certainly not the case with other users I have disputed with. Consistently adding unsourced, editorialised content based on one's perception of events, manipulating the content of sources (just as he did in his recent text about Yaşar Kemal) whilst consistently removing reliably sourced content on trivial pretexts, whilst continuously accusing others at every dispute of "blackwashing", "disruptive editing", "collaborating" is not a POV problem. It is a behavioural problem and is tendentious and disruptive editing. My having different perceptions of neutrality whilst pointing out a destructive editing pattern that continues despite warnings does not invalidate concerns raised about his editing pattern and does not reduce this to an "it goes for all of you" dispute. The editing patterns of other users here, I believe, are incomparable to that of Ferakp, who has not expanded a single article without adding positive material about Kurdish people or negative material about other ethnic groups. For all his activity on content issues, this user has only created one original article and the subject matter of that article speaks for itself. For all his stance about Kurds, which in other circumstances would be perfectly fine, he has not even expanded one Kurdish-related (or otherwise) article when ethnic issues or negative material about Kurds were not at stake. --GGT (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GGT Check my edits again, think twice, read your answer again and think again, is it really true what you just wrote here. About Yasar Kemal, I added sources and told you that sources say so. You can't force anyone to be "Turkish" if he is not. You removed details about him and my sources. You had a chance to use talk page but you just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page.Ferakp (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't a behavioral problem, the POV conflict would be soon resolved as the involved editors would rationally discuss the issue and come to a NPOV compromise. ;-) But anyway, my point was that this is not ONE editor who is to blame here. But both sides are behaving wrongly. It may very well be that Ferakp is a worse offender, I'm not going to spend time making a statistical analysis of it. No matter who starts the fight, breaking Wikipedia policy is the incorrect response. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what could make me a worse offender, is it that I proved that all accusations are not true and I am absolutely right, or that I neutralized articles using reliable and newest sources. You should tell those editors that they should focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles 24/7. I am tired to clean Kurdish articles from their fictitious references (I showed 4 of them) and claims. Ferakp (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles" - could not have a statement that shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. What would be "my articles" now, Ferakp? --GGT (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Section break for convenience and an appeal before this gets to a topic ban

Having read the above and looked at the above, I'm inclined to agree there are issues with regard to Ferakp with regard to how to interpret sourcing in a non-biased manner, tendentiousness and lack of acceptance of consensus, and a general battleground mentality. Ferakp, you need to understand that on this project we overwhelmingly rely on WP:Secondary sources in most circumstances; you don't get to just delete or alter content supported by those sources because they "got it wrong" just because the facts and positions in those sources does not jive with your preferred interpretation of reality and/or primary sources. More important than that, even if you're policy interpretations were correct, you still wouldn't be getting anywhere without adjusting your attitude towards the consensus-based model of this project or the principle of showing special care in editorial areas where you may not have a neutral point of view. To be clear, there are places where I feel your edits show potential to add beneficial nuance to these issues, but there are also others where it is clear you operating under the bias of wanting to see (and to present) an interpretation of facts in a light which is most beneficial to the Kurdish people.

I have sympathy for how the historical context here affects views, and indeed I appreciate the hardships various Kurdish populations have endured themselves, but you have to understand that you are not going to accomplish anything on this project by working against the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing, except to waste a good deal of your own energy, and that of other editors; indeed, you risk pushing the perspectives of the articles in question in the opposite direction you intend as other editors strive to counterblance you, some of whom could possibly become more entrenched in their views as a product of dealing with your own intransigence. Further, at this point, you are running the risk of being seen as so problematic in this topic area that you must be removed from it, after which your influence on these topics will be reduced to just that resistance to your views that you engendered in other contributors. Please consider taking a break from the articles in question for a little while, then going back with an effort to see if you can hammer out reasonable compromise wording with regard to some of the points you object to. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User:QEDK

Seeking Admin intervention or community action to control disruption by User:QEDK. At a bit of a loss about how to deal with this:

• Spouting nonsense about G11 not applying to drafts Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here
• Reverted CSD tagging [161] on a hoax article
• Sustained and inappropriate attacks against me that need a boomarang [162] and then [163]
• [164] reverting many changes to policy and immediately asking User:Callanecc [165] to fully protect the page "due to edit warring" to protect his preferred text.
• Seeking more eyes on his nonsense [166] at AN after he spectacularly failed to get any support for a topic ban against me
• Canvassing and speculation about tag teaming [167]
• General incivility and lack of WP:COMMONSENSE

I'll just leave this for less frustrated people to look into. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained twice what I said. You did not read them because you were busy making a revenge ANI thread.
• Yes, so? That draft is not a hoax and I am not allowed to be BOLD when that's been the principle on which you've been acting all the time.
• Where are the personal attacks?
• I reverted changes to policy because none of them were community-vetted. To prevent people from editing policies on ILIKEIT basis was my intention.
• Why not? You're scared or what?
• Where have I been incivil? Where's the lack of commonsense?

There's nothing to look into, except ofc, your own ANI thread. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose it's too hard, but a kindly admin should take QEDK in hand and try to explain what is helpful and what is not. @QEDK: What do you think about WP:NOTWEBHOST? Should passers-by be able to store stuff indefinitely "because it's a draft"? How could this page ever be useful? Why did you edit it four times to remove the CSD tag? Was the tag wrongly applied and you wanted to make sure the paperwork was done correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I removed it, added a wrong tag, restored previous, removed it, so 4 times. Yes, I believe all userspace drafts should be indefinitely stored unless and until it violates Wikipedia policies like BLP violations or UP#COPIES, drafts are drafts because they are not fit to be articles, there's no reason to remove them. There's nothing to suggest I've done anything which is against policy and if so, do cite such. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the point: no competent editor could think the page under discussion is a user space draft—it's obvious junk and needs to be deleted to send the message that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Get WP:NOTWEBHOST revoked if you want people to store stuff here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? NOTWEBHOST prevents you from treating Wikipedia like your personal blog, memorial or wiki or cloud. That draft is legitimate and contains information about a certain Stephen Reynolds. Please read Wikipedia policies completely before you say something again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing in your diffs or in a quick general look at QEDK's recent edit history that is disruptive or uncivil. Your accusation that they are not ignoring the rules (the policy that is invoked by WP:COMMONSENSE) makes them deserving of commendation rather than reprimand.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How long are you going to put this charade up? Not to mention, if you really had read the whole thing, it says When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The {{essay}} disclaimer also covers that it is not "as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• A point of correction about bullet point #4 in the opening post of this thread: @QEDK: You didn't ask Callanecc to protect it, you posted at WP:RFPP (request), correct? If your request was inappropriate, it most likely wouldn't have been granted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask at RFPP. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to say you asked User:Callanecc directly, he/she just happened to pick up the request. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Baseless. —Cryptic 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that some of this seems like a full-scale vendetta of QEDK and Godsy against Legacypac. Perhaps it's QEDK and Godsy that need a MfD topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought that this was an April Fools' Day joke until I realized it was posted on March 31.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary?

Here _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy should be blocked for the legal threat, but his claim should also be investigated, especially if it's a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Baseball_Bugs, I think I know 'who' the IP is. But obviously cannot say. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Lambert (undercover police officer) is a hatchet job to all intents and purposes for a different Bob Lambert. The Ballyseedy IRA "Bob Lambert" is not well-sourced - it appears to be from a 2008 book by Peter Cottrell. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Collect. I was not referring to the honey-trap guy. The IP has effectively outed himself though. Has the IP been blocked yet? I wouldn't call the Cottrell work a particularly WP:RS- it's a short guide rather than based on research._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for attempting intimidation through legal threats. That being done, it may be worth looking into their concerns to make sure our content regarding that person is well sourced or removed. HighInBC 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, as above, I would suggest removing it until we have a better source than Cottrell. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any wonder so many people think Wikipedia is run by idiots? As Jimbo Wales said, The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.}}

The difference here, which isn't terribly important right now, is that the highly offensive, unsourced, and apparently quite dubious content dealt with a deceased family member rather than a living person. Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. This is not the behavior of genuinely reasonable, sensible people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Did you even notice the part where we took their complaint seriously? I am not sure if Jimbo has attempted to find a consensus to change our no legal threats policy, but as the policy stands we need to block people who have active threats of legal action.

We are not lawyers and we cannot respond to legal threats in a competent way. We block the person with an explanation as to why, we let them know that if they retract the threat the block can be reversed. And we look into the complaint to see if it is valid. I think you are not seeing the whole situation here. HighInBC 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Did you even notice what I actually wrote? I posted that Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. It's evident from their talk page that that statement is 100% accurate. The boilerplate language posted to the IP's talk page gives no sign whatever that their concerns are being taken seriously. The OP here violated policy by not providing the IP with the mandatory notice of / link to this discussion. This episode is just another FUBAR situation caused by inbred Wikipedia editors being more concerned with the selectively chosen rules of the game here than with matters of genuine substance. It's an embarassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling people inbred - really? SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still having this discussion? The IP has been blocked for legal threats. Close the thread.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the behavior of other editors is being discussed as well. The thread should not be closed yet. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: yes I read what your wrote, did you write what you meant me to read? I did "reach out" to the IP in that I left a notice explaining our position on legal threats. We did look into their concerns and address them. Perhaps you could better communicate what it is you think we should have said to the IP, or better yet say it to the IP yourself then teach us by example. As it is you are very poorly communicating what your actual concerns are. HighInBC 00:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A friendly chat re how best to handle legalistic footstomping

• Frankly, I never bought the received wisdom that we must block legal threat-eners on sight, particularly where the threat isn't directed specifically at other editors, which is usually the sign of an actual attempt to "chill". So what if someone says "Fix this or I'll sue!"? The Foundation knows how to take care of itself; if we're following our own rules there's nothing to worry about; and (most importantly) blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints.

So why do we block for legal foot-stomping, instead of just ignoring the threat and engaging the complaint, at least as long as the person seems to be listening? If they won't engage and just keep making threats (especially, as I say, against other editors) then block as with any other persistently unconstructive behavior. EEng 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the big reasons is that any form of intimidation has a chilling effect that damages our neutral point of view. If someone can say "The article should be like this or bad things will happen" that creates a very strong bias. Our WP:NLT policy is of course open to discussion and if consensus is found even change. HighInBC 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Duh, thanks for recapitulating what we all know is the logic of NLT. The questions (I guess I'll have to say again) are: whether a vague legalistic threat is, in fact, intimidating (which is different from whether it's meant to be intimidating); and (whatever the answer to that) whether instablocking is, in fact, the most useful way to respond. Since almost all "legal threats" come from very new editors, the idea that such blocks act as a warning to others [underlined portioned added later, to clarify] doesn't hold much water. EEng 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the attitude. I am enforcing the NLT policy as it is written, if you want that changed then seek consensus for that change and I will follow that instead. HighInBC 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't question whether you were enforcing policy as written. The question was raised above whether our policy re/treatment of LTs is wise, at least one other editor seemed interested in kicking that around, and I joined in. There's no need for you to explain to experienced editors that the way to get policy changed is to seek consensus, that you as an admin would abide by such change, and other bits of obviousness. EEng 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page of the policy would be a good place to have a discussion about that. If what I was saying was really obvious then you would be talking about it there. HighInBC 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, because discussants at ANI often kick an idea around in the context of a particular incident before making a formal proposal elsewhere -- though the literal-minded, and those who like everything bureaucratically pigeonholed, may find that bothersome. Perhaps you just let those who wish to discuss, discuss, without further metadefending your need to defend your earlier defense of an administrative action that I didn't question? EEng 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user can sue Wikipedia, or he can edit Wikipedia, but he can't do both. If an editor recants and disavows his legal threat, then an unblock can be considered. If he doesn't, then he stays blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You too are just repeating what we all know to be the current policies/practices, and chanting appealing-sounding syllogisms. Anyway, someone who says, "I'm so mad, if this isn't fixed I might sue WP!" hasn't sued anyone yet, and I'm trying to raise the question of whether those policies/practices best keep that from happening, and best get any errors corrected. Based on the straw-poll so far, however, it appears that for the moment the ground is not fertile for a reexamination of such questions. EEng 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My position is that it is not just the current policy, but that it is a good idea and a good practice. I am not just repeating the policy, I am defending it. I can't speak for Bugs but I suspect they are not just repeating something they heard, but rather expressing an opinion. I think you are belittling both of us by suggesting our defence of the policy are just "appealing-sounding syllogisms". I would love to continue this discussion on the talk page of the NLT policy, if you have any concrete proposals on how to improve things. HighInBC 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My original post asked whether the time-honored NLT arguments really are valid (for example, "blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints") but neither of you even acknowledged that question. Like I said, this doesn't seem like the time to shout into the wind. One thought for the future, however, is that someone should ask Foundation legal what they think about all this. Businesses often receive threats of suit, but they don't simply hang up the phone when that happens. (And yes, I realize WP isn't a business, but the point remains.) EEng 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I did answer your question by suggesting that our NLT policy was about avoiding intimidation in Wiki. The block is not for the benefit of the person blocked, and it is not an attempt to prevent law suits. It is taking legal matters off of Wikipedia because nobody here is qualified to deal with these matters. You responded with "Duh" and then acted like nobody was listening to you. You might not have liked the answer to your question but you got an answer. HighInBC 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone makes extra-Wikipedia threats, be they legal or physical, they have forfeited their editing privileges. There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: actually, under the current WP:NLT policy as tweaked around the end of 2015 (I think), a user can sue Wikipedia (or one of its editors for Wikipedia issues), as long as they don't threaten here to sue: "That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia". I do not particularly endorse those changes, and I think they went under a bit of silence. LjL (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose someone decides to sue me for some unknown reason. How would they found out just who they should sue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: what, you mean your real name is not Baseball Bugs?! Damn, I better disclaim that cease&desist letter I sent Mr Bugs... LjL (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But supposing someone uses a pseudonym, what would the plaintiff do? Get some court order compelling Wikimedia to break confidentiality? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: yes. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, people on Wikipedia can write pseudonymously, but they can also write with their real name and they shouldn't feel all the chills and their effects, IMO. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a "legal threat" is an intimidation from freely editing articles, based on possible legal action, which creates chilling effects. What is more of an intimidation with such effects than actual legal action taking place? "Oh but I didn't threaten it, I just did it" doesn't impress me a lot as a get-out-of-jail-free card. LjL (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of legal threats policy

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Baseball Bugs, Collect, HighInBC, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, WaltCip, and EEng:

With all due respect to the blocking administrator and everyone else who has supported the block, this situation has been badly mishandled. As has been explained on this noticeboard several times before, a statement that something written on Wikipedia is "libelous" or "defamatory" is not, in and of itself, a "legal threat", any more than a statement that something is a copyright violation is a legal threat. A "legal threat" is a statement (or perhaps a very strong implication) of the writer's intention to sue one or more editors or the Wikimedia Foundation, or take some similar action against them. In the case of this particular edit, which deals with something that occurred in 1923, no legal claim for defamation could be brought even in theory because, at least in most jurisdictions (including the U.S., the U.K. and Ireland), only living persons can sue for defamation.

The misconception that any passing reference to an article's content as being defamatory constitutes a legal threat seems to remain widespread even though this issue was dealt with in an arbitration decision I wrote and which was unanimously adopted six years ago (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2#Principles in page history). As explained in that decision, and as subsequently written into the policy page that everyone is citing, at Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, use of words such as "libelous" or "defamatory" is discouraged because such language could be misinterpreted or perceived as a legal threat and thus damages the editing environment. Nonetheless, the policy specifically states in discussing editors' use of such language, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention" and that is certainly what should have occurred here.

Even if a more express legal threat had been made, and even if the "threat" would have had more substance even if it had been made, allowances must be made for newcomers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing norms and policies, and who may be reacting out of unhappiness or anger at the treatment of themselves or a family member on the largest and most prominent interactive website in the world. See generally, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and in a related context, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, all of which seriously discourage blocking as a first response except in extreme situations.

Policy should always be enforced with due regard to what Wikipedia is and what we are all trying to accomplish here. The situation at the moment is that someone reached out to us angrily because he or she perceived that an ancestor was being unfairly maligned, and we struck back by immediately preventing them from editing any more coupled with a barely tailored template pointing them to a complicated policy page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The block should be reversed and a more reasonable explanation of our editing policy and the reasons for it should be provided to the IP, with the request that he or she bring any further concerns to the article talkpage. It is only out of the possibility that perhaps I have missed something that I am holding off on unblocking pending a bit more discussion, rather than unblocking immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The block should stay until or if the user recants and disavows this statement: "‎The Ballyseedy Massacre and its aftermath: Bob Lambert did not order the killing of three Free State leaders in March 1923 and any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read any portion of what I wrote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You consider that threatening statement to be a "passing reference"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You should likely note that I did not say that the IP should be blocked - in fact I pointed out that the claim he objected to was poorly sourced in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I didn't attribute any statement to you. I pinged everyone who had commented in the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want this re-statement of policy to become the emphatic norm amongst the community at large, I'd suggest pinging a helluvva lot more editors than just those involved here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They did not just say it was defamatory, they said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". "will be treated" is a threat of action. It was clearly meant to have a chilling effect.

I feel the block was in line with policy and our best practices. I don't think it is good for our NPOV to let users intimidate others like that. If you want to reverse the block go ahead, but please take responsibility for any future intimidation this user attempts. HighInBC 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor was actually following our WP:BLP (removing unsourced information). We even use the word defamatory in the WP:BLPREMOVE Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material.... That the IP editor did not know the magic word "BLP," but rather used common sense is not a reason to block; furthermore, such reactionary blocking is far more "chilling" than ambiguous edit summaries. NE Ent 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee I hate to repeat myself, but they did not just say "defamatory". They said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". This is a threat of action. The phrase "will be treated by [my] family" is a promise of action as shown by the words "will" and "be treated". The words "his family, my family" shows that the threat is coming from them and not just a warning about a 3rd party. This is not simply someone saying something is defamatory, it is showing an intent to take action.

The NLT blocking template explains what caused the block and what they can do to get unblocked. They can retract the threat any time. HighInBC 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, User:Newyorkbrad. User:Baseball Bugs, what are you doing back here? I thought you'd been kicked off the admin noticeboards years ago for this type of stupid shit-stirring. As for the rest of you, especially User:HighInBC, "treated as defamatory" does not equal "I will sue you". It might. But it might mean a letter to the WMF. It might mean taking the issue to ANI or BLPN. Or something else. Clarify what the editor means before acting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong, on all counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your ad-hominem attack against Bugs does little to contribute to the conversation. Nothing is gained by attacking people who disagree with you. HighInBC 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't been particularly active of late, so it's understandable why he's behind the curve on these matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not strong enough to fall under NLT directly, but it's uncivil and chilling to vaguely hint at some kind of consequences, even—or perhaps especially—where it's just as likely the threat refers to extrajudicial action. There does need to be an adequate WP:DOLT assessment here, even if we don't consider it as actionable under NLT. All that said, I would caution us all against letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, to the extent of only allowing NLT blocks where a "reasonable anticipation of litigation" arises. NLT may be interpretable in that way, but I believe the practices of the community have redefined the policy in such a way that NLT is broader than that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chillum, you have access to the block tool. You don't have to pull it out and wave it about in situations like this. Just talk to the man for Christ's sake. "Sorry. We're looking into it. It's being discussed [[here]]. By the way, check out WP:NLT." Listen, inform, advise, be polite and helpful. Bashing people with your tool when a bit of advice will do just as well is the very definition of being a dick. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a change to NLT. As it stands legal threats call for a block, not a warning. Keep your insults to yourself, they are far more dickish then enforcing the policy that the community created. Seriously, I don't deserve to be treated this way for doing my job here. If you don't like the policy then seek to change it, don't just bitch at the guy who enforces it.

Wikipedia talk:No legal threats has not been edited since 26 August 2015‎. I follow the consensus of the community and that policy has been very stable. If you don't like the policy then change it and I will follow that. I don't pick and choose how I enforce policy. HighInBC 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." Please try to remember this in future. Now that it has been pointed out to you, if I see you blocking people for apparent legal threats without first clarifying their intentions and pointing them to WP:NLT, I'll take you straight to ArbCom. Follow policy - especially with regard to blocking or threats to block. Don't be a cowboy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Should" ≠ "shall". It's within the admin's discretion unless there's some other problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv: Yes, should ≠ shall. We allow for exceptions where intelligent admins may use their discretion, or even make the occasional error. Exceptions. Occasional. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin. EEng 18:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

When someone makes a legal threat, the only editing they should be allowed to do is to go to their user page to recant and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. Perhaps I should have said, "This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter)." EEng 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting this before it drags on further. GABHello! 22:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you don't like the policy, you should lobby for changing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter). EEng 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, man, it's like deja vu. It's like deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired attempt to distract from the failure to exercise judgment. EEng 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for keeping it to the executive summary this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's one thing I learned while on Wikipedia is that admins and editors don't know what a legal threat is and will block someone based on their own interpretations of what a legal threat is. I was once blocked until I "took it back," Meanwhile, on my talk page 90% of the editors commenting criticized the block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to that, and no, that is not a legal threat. The ADL is not a court of law. If I said, I'm going to email CNN about you, is that a legal threat? No. Admins need to follow policy and just saying, "I'm going to email/contact X" is not a LEGAL threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Its intent was to intimidate, hence it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, you and most admins need to read up on the NLT policy. Newyorkbradkindly posted it and reiterated that a legal threat requires a legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless your threat was intended as a joke, it qualifies, and you were properly blocked for it - and reinstated once you disavowed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that what I have said here does not require any change to the existing policy, but adherence to the existing policy as per modifications made as long ago as 2010.

I any case, I am going to unblock the IP now with an appropriately tailored message about collaborative editing, even though I realize that if this is a dynamic IP, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's review: "any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory.)" Now, what could be done about defamatory material on Wikipedia? Here's an incomplete list.

1. remove it using the English word "defamatory" in the edit summary
2. remove it using the wiki lingo "BLP"
3. refer it to WP:BLP
4. email info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL
5. post on AN
6. post on your favorite admin's talk page
7. post {{admin help}} on the article talk page
8. post a comment on the article talk page
9. post a comment on the inserting user's talk page
10. find someone on wmf:Staff_and_contractors and email them
11. email cu-ombuds-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org per meta:Ombudsman commission
12. file a lawsuit
13. threaten to sue an contributor

Of those, only the last two are blockable legal threats. To decided "action" means "legal action" without evidence is an assumption and we have a policy on that: assume good faith. The simplest, least drama solution to simply notify the editor of the right thing (e.g. WP:BLP ) to do rather than inform them of the wrong one. NE Ent 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Watch -- now someone will say that if you want to change the NLT policy you should get consensus. EEng 03:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

English Democrats

The English Democrats are not a far-right party. However the political ideology box on their page says they are "far right". I've been warned about saying this is slanderous. However, it clearly is - especially when the source provided does no even say "far right" but "right wing". Bizarrely I have tried to point this out on the talk page only to get people leaving warning messages on my talk page.

See also my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Democrats#Political_spectrum 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "slanderous" just an abuse of cites - the two given do not support "far-right" at all. Happens far too often on Wikipedia - some folks think giving a "ref" means no one will ever actually check the claim asserted to be made in it. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute to me. GAB^Hello! 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ED are widely identified as far right by WP:RS. ED hates this and fans have spent many hours trying to change this in Wikipedia. Anything more you need to know? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is slanderous is a bad idea since it runs the risk it'll be perceived as trying the same thing as try for the same sort of chilling effect of a legal threat. In a few limited cases like with BLPs, it may be acceptable but the vast majority of the time, you should instead clearly explain what the problem is in accordance with wikipedia policy rather than needing to bring up slander/libel. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When people say things on the article's talk page such as "Since we are required to edit carefully all articles naming living persons, the rule is clear - since more sources just say "right wing" we pretty much have to stick with the less extreme adjective", it seems clear that BLP is being brought up as applying. Sometimes, to some people, rules seem very clear, and policies involving biographies apply to all articles naming living people (even when it concerns the parts that aren't specifically about the people). I sometimes wish I could have such certainties in my life. LjL (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Even in BLP cases you should still avoid bringing up defamation. I'm not going to fault someone who mentions slander if we call someone a paedophile who raped lots of kids and helped makes bombs and provided other support for ISIS and tortured random people and cute furry animals to death when there is zero sourcing for any of this (perhaps it's vandalism); but it's not likely to be helpful to bring up slander because we call a political party far right regardless of the sourcing problems and even if it does name living people associated with it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If standard dispute resolution processes have not yet been attempted, I would suggest Request for Comment process on the article talk page, with pre-formatted sections on the talk page when you start the RFC one for previously-involved and another for previously-uninvolved-editors, to gain some further insight into the article and how to hopefully constructively move forward with additional outside input. Recommendation: When doing so, suggest gaining additional helpful previously-uninvolved-contributors to the WP:RFC on the article talk page, by posting a neutrally-worded-notice to the BLP noticeboard to get some additional eyes on the matter. — Cirt (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

Wikicology has made a legal threat here, claiming 'Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information.' Background: he has created an article about himself (actually the seventh article about himself). See

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have challenged his claim to be a biochemist, in the 'occupation' section of the infobox [168]. He also says on his Foundation page: "I'm Olatunde Isaac, a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist". Which university does he work at? His Academia page states 'Olatunde Olalekan Isaac hasn't uploaded any papers yet'. Are there any papers? An 'academic' technically is employed by or is a fellow of some institution, or at the very least has at least one published paper.

This raises a number of interesting issues. Is it OK on Wikipedia to say you are an academic, or a scientist, given that some would regard it as a pseudonym and not really have a problem with it. Or is it a form of identity fraud, designed to improve one's standing or authority in the wiki world? Is it OK to claim invasion of privacy, even when you have written an article about yourself? Or is he saying that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and is not writing about himself? E.g. here he claims that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Here he claims that olatunde olalekan and Olatunde Isaac are two different people. "One is a notable biochemist from Nigeria(I mean Olatunde Isaac) who was known for dacryodes edulis. Olatunde olalekan is a non notable researcher".

MichaelQSchmidt has argued WP:CLEANSTART, however I can't see it is a clean start, given he has repeated exactly the behaviour we saw before, namely trying to publish an article about himself on Wikipedia, by creating a whole host of stubs, or adding material of dubious quality, ingratiating himself with the WMF in an attempt to acquire notability. We had a similar case with user:Wifione, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: What I wrote at that discussion about way-earlier poor edits only alluded to above was "Sadly, many newcomers do similar.. some from angst.. some from inexperience. For those who accept it as a learning experience and apologize and promise to not repeat those earlier errors in understanding, what is hurt by WP:AGF and allowing a WP:CLEANSTART?" That said, I see no "legal threat" in the linked quote, and simply an editor understandably worrying over "unauthorized disclosure of my personal information" shows A) a natural unhappiness about a perceived threat of WP:OUTING and B) unhappiness with your continued digging and chiding over the closed issue of his earlier inexperienced editing. WP:STICK is applicable here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some (pauses, waves hands) traits - that's really no big deal, I mean, that's part of online life. " That sort of thing, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not STICK. There are two important principles involved here. (1) Is it OK to challenge someone representing the WMF, on whether their claimed academic credentials are genuine. (2) If someone writes an article about themselves, claiming that they are a scientist or a doctor or distinguished lawyer, can they claim invasion of privacy, even though they are the subject of the article itself? Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where you got it completely wrong. Firstly I'm not in anyway a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm a volunter like anyone here. Secondly, writing about oneself is not forbidden. See WP:WWA, where there is a notice that I'm a Wikipedian with article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I imagine MichaelQSchmidt knows a thing or two about clean starts. Peter Damian (talk)

For that matter so do you and I can't see what relevance either has on two editors in good standing. Casting dirt like this just makes you look a bit of a shit and suggests that you don't really have a case and are casting dirt around instead in the hope that it will stick somewhere. Not cool Peter, not cool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference is, unlike other people, that I have never written an article about myself with the help of an army of socks. Nor have I ever lied about a sock. Nor have I claimed academic credentials, or an occupation I did not have. My two points above remain. Not cool, Spartaz. Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Firstly, I never made any legal threat. I was only trying to explain to him why it is inappropriate to intrude into ones privacy. This editor is looking for thousands of ways to embarrass me. This is against the spirit of collaboration. I have tried all I could to avoid any conflict with this editor but It seemed to me that conflict is their hobby. I had tried all I could to explain to this editor while some things happened in my earliest time on Wikipedia. I'm a bit disturbed by this editor's behavior here on Wikipedia. A quick analysis of his contribution shows that he only made 4934 edit counts in his 12 years of being on Wikipedia. Out of the 4934 edits, only 18% where made to main space, 18.98 to userpage and 31.73 to User talk pages where he moves around to attack other editors, engaging in unnecessary arguments. This is odd to me!. Yes, about two years ago, I had a competency issue, trying to write about myself without prior knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about. Then, this led me to create multiple account to write on the same topic with the believe that an article about me will stay. Few days later I knew about WP:Sock Puppetry as a policy and the implication of engaging it, I told RHaworth about the accounts and my new account, Wikicology. RHaworth decided not to block me after I told him that I will continue to contribute constructively. In fact, that was when I know that a subject must pass WP:GNG or other criteria to be included on Wikipedia. Since then, I have been contributing significantly to the project both online and offline which made me to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. We normally see all manners of disruptive behavior from new editor. This particular one is a typical example of what we normally experience when new editors join Wikipedia especially those that aren't the product of Wikipedia Workshops/training. Some of this editors later get it right and they remain a long-term and valuable editors. Wikipedia is complex, and it's often difficult for new editors to understand how the encyclopedia works. They have no idea of the basic policies and guideline, WP:GNG, WP:CV, WP:BLP and what count as WP:RS. Some of them have not even heard of the word "Sock puppetry" and any other related terms. They usually think Wikipedia is like a social media where anything goes. Hence, they unknowingly get themselves in all manners of troubles and some of them get blocked or Ban. What this editor pointed out is the oldest history of a now experienced editor who has now grown to be an asset to the community. The then, new editor is now a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee as a volunteer and was twice a grantee of the WMF. The then, non-notable "Olatunde Isaac" is now notable. I achieve this notability as a result of my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. I will also like to mention that I didn't just jumped into creating the article. I consulted Nikki Maria and MichaelQSchmidt who advised me to write it in my sandbox which I did and MichaelQSchmidt help to move it to mainspace. I don't know Peter's motive behind this dead issue perhaps he felt I'm against "WikiProject Accuracy" conceptualized by Atsme and decided to embarrass me. However, Peter fail to understand that those accounts were blocked to prevent further disruption and not as a punishment. The accounts were blocked because they were used inappropriately to create article about a non-notable person. When Wikicology was created, it was declared to RHaworth (one of the blocking admin) on his talk where Peter found it like anybody el. RHaworth allowed me to continue editing since I had promised not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and will always make good contributions on wikipedia. Per my personal information, I'm a volunteer and not a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff. I'm never under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia. Today, I can call myself a "Dog" and tomorrow, I can say I'm "human". It is not a business of any editor. Identity verification is only required if I wish to become a WMF paid staff, WP:Oversighter or WP:CheckUser. However, if I choose to become one, I will send it to WMF through a private channel, and it will be destroyed upon receipt & verification and will not be shared with anyone outside the Wikimedia Foundation. Peter started bringing my personal information to wikipedia without any authorization to do so, which I considered a breach of privacy. The growth of Wikipedia is declining because of attitude like this. How on earth will I make legal threat? Perhaps he taught I'm going to fill a suit against him for invasion of privacy. I can never fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedian. Over my dead body! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat, but there seems to be some background here that requires further investigation, as part of a WP:DOLT analysis, particularly given there seem to be claims of WP:OUTING-like violations... which in my view would be a mitigating circumstance for what we normally consider indef-worthy behavior. Additionally, Wikicology's response above can also be read as disavowing a legal threat... which would help get us out of NLT territory, but not necessarily out of disruptive incivility territory. Telling someone that something they're doing on-wiki is legally harms you or gives you a cause of action against that person in a post intended to cause that person to stop whatever they were doing that you believe is legally harming your or gave rise to that cause of action is the very definition of a legal threat. Legal threats need not take the form of "I am going to sue you" or "I am strongly considering suing you." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To put my analysis more simply: The following sort of statement is a legal threat: "You are doing x. By doing x you are harming my y rights. Harming someone's y rights is grounds for a lawsuit." If you say that A implies B, B implies C, and A is true, then you're also saying B and C are true. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv; thank you so much for your comment. I didn't mean it the way it was interpreted. Like I said, I can not fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedia and I'm not threatening to do so. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv I think you need to look carefully at the 'outing' claim. As I mention above, Wikicology has written an article about himself (Olatunde_Isaac), where he claims to be a biochemist. If I then ask about his credentials as a practising biochemist, qua subject of article, is that outing? Common sense suggests not. Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no right whatsoever to ask me my credential as a practicing biochemist. Do I came to you for employment? Secondly, show me the policy that says that editors should be punished for writing or editing contents about themselves. Lastly, This is a clear case of WP:OUTING. per WP:OUTING, posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But I DO have a right to ask for evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist. Are you familiar with the WP policies on reliable sources? Where, as author of the article, is your evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist? It's really simple, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything you wish to know about Olatunde Isaac is already on the article. Every claims in the article are supported by reliable sources and if you find any unsourced claim, you're free to remove it. What you're saying is like asking Gbenga Daniel to upload his credential or send them to you to verify his academic background. This attitude is disruptive and unacceptable. Wikipedia doesn't require any editor to request for other editors or subject of an article's personal information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Can I ask if you are the same person as Olatunde Isaac ? Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged not forbidden and not a Criminal offense'. Why not stop User:Jimbo Wales from editing Jimmy Wales or tag his article with COI template.? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering does nothing to help this case, and, as far as a cursory inspection goes, User:Jimbo Wales has the good sense not to edit that article. Oh, and... We don't do "criminal offences" here. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology uses hos personal page as a sort of "Wikimedia CV". I guess that's OK, it's Wikipedia related. But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim. Especially since it in the Wikipedia context is completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: If Wikicology states he's a biologist on his user page, why would he have to "back that up"...? Numerous editors here state tidbits of personal info about themselves on their userpages, often by way of userboxes. Are you saying that everyone must prove this info? That's just silly. What if they don't? Must it be removed? Should they be blocked? Do have a policy to cite in support of this? Because afaic WP:AGF applies here. If he says he says he's biologist, than just accept it. There is no reason to doubt it, and there is no reason to question it in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Essjay stated he was a Professor of Theology on his user page. That did not end well, and it says much for assuming 'good faith'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point being...? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian; with all sense of humility, I doubt if you understand the difference between a paid staff and a volunteer Wikipedian. Essjay stated that on his user page and on MEDIA. In addition, he his a paid WMF staff, oversight, checkuser and bureaucrat thus he was expected to reveal his identity. That's not the case here. I'm neither a paid WMF staff, nor oversight, or checkuser and bureaucrat. I'm a volunteer like you and anyone around. If I may ask, when did personal identity disclosure becomes a criteria to edit Wikipedia as a volunteer? Point me to that policy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're misinformed, Wikicology. Essjay was a volunteer, too. And he made statements in the media, just like you do. Can we agree that misrepresentations to the public and/or the community are not a good thing? Andreas JN466 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I didn't express any of the opinions and claims that you now ask me to I defend. So I won't. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim." Defend that.
Meanwhile, I think I'll go put a "This user is an astronaut" userbox on my user page. Will I need to prove that? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear and self-evident, and don't know what your problem with that statement is. No, you don't need to prove that you are an astronaut, and I didn't say you needed to prove it, and also, no-one will believe you, just like nobody for a second thinks you are actually the child of a wolf. You are not using your real name and not making claims about who you are in reality. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it was a clear legal threat. Please don't do that, User:Wikicology. There is no WP:OUTING, since you clearly identify on your user page. And it's not really right to say that you don't in any way represent the Wikimedia Foundation; your user page on Meta describes you in large letters as "Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria" etc., and your user page here features extensive descriptions of your volunteer participation in WMF activities like the Wikipedia Library. Of course as a volunteer you don't legally represent the WMF, but in a public-relations sense you do, given the press and outreach work you do in your home country.
• Now, as Peter Damian points out, we have had scandals within the Wikimedia movement before where people in leadership positions misrepresented their academic credentials, sockpuppeted extensively (you have candidly acknowledged your own sockpuppeting history), and so forth. They have harmed this movement. So it seems a fair question to me for the community to ask you whether you are in fact working as an academic or biochemist, because that is the impression your biography gives. If you just have a biochemistry degree, but are not currently working in the field, it would be better to say that (and there is no shame in that). Perhaps User:AKoval_(WMF) might like to weigh in here; you could for example provide documentation of your qualifications and current professional activity to her. At the end of the day, your fellow volunteers have an understandable desire to avoid misrepresentations that could lead to disrepute for the Wikimedia movement. As you are one of the public faces of Wikipedia in the Nigerian media, I think you should be open about this. Andreas JN466 13:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jayen466. I'm going to officially post the documentation of my credentials to the Wikimedia Foundation next week and I will Cced Anal Koval. I'm currently not in my home in Lagos. Do you think it's ideal for peter to slammed the article about me, Olatunde Isaac with WP:COI template even when it has been declared at WP:WWA? This is unfair. We don't have to be unfair with ourselves. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm daft; I had forgotten that Anna Koval recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikipedia Education Program is now managed by Floor Koudijs. Andreas JN466 11:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know the underlying matters here but that was a clear legal threat, no doubt. Maybe made in the heat of the moment, but a threat, still the same. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't dig up ancient history and newbie mistakes. But Olatunde, you wrote the latest version of the bio this month, and Michael moved it into mainspace, so now it's an issue. Writing your own bio is a violation of WP:COI. Current footnotes 1, 3 and 4 are almost identical and seem to have relied on a press release. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note Re-statement of WP:NLT here, by User:Newyorkbrad. Might be relevant to your discussions. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

I have further concerns about this editor. I was puzzled by the way that he comes across as somewhat illiterate, and yet manages to come upt with a large and apparently impressive article like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. I now have copyvio concerns. See my investigation here. As already noted by another editor, Olatunde's references either point to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. The same seems to be true of Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. He copies passages verbatim from other articles about other kinds of poisoning (such as Chlorine and Beryllium), and refs these to completely unrelated articles. E.g. he writes

Mucous membranes are primarily affected, along with type I pneumocytes and the respiratory epithelium. The generation of free radicals from lipid peroxidation results in irritation of the bronchioles and alveoli, causing rapid destruction of the respiratory epithelial cells. The reaction's net result is the release of fluids, leading to pulmonary edema.[22]

But cite-22 refers to a paper which contains none of the text whatsoever, indeed almost no references to Nitrogen Dioxide. It's like that for every part I have looked at. This is not just a copyvio issue (he is copying from Wikipedia anyway) but potentially a public health risk, I would have thought (but I am not a medical expert). Could some expert look at this article please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this subsection: ANI is not the place to handle the content aspect of disputes like these. WP:COIN would be far better. With all due respect to Wikicology I would recommend he exercise care in editing articles about himself. Aside from that and the claimed legal threat above (which has been disavowed), there is nothing here clearly meriting administrator intervention. If some wrongdoing is demonstrated, rather than merely claimed, action might be appropriate. Even then I would advise Peter Damian to take care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in pursuing this matter: To my admittedly uninformed self, this looks a bit obsessive, and could give rise to sanctions for harassing behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mendaliv. Close this and other sub-sections as distractive to the main cause of complaint. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Messenger well and truly shot. Thanks Mendaliv Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fragmentation of the discussion, I think it's best to keep it in one place. FWIW, spot checks of the references in nitrogen dioxide poisoning make it seem somewhat probable that there is a real concern here. To give one example, the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." is sourced to Kattan M, et al. (2007). "Health effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and passive smoking on urban asthmatic children." The source's full text is online and mentions neither methemoglobinemia nor hypoxia, which is concerning. Doc James has said he will look into this; it would inform this discussion if he could let us know his impressions here in due course. Andreas JN466 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow...Thank you. I just read through the source and sentence myself and actually, the source provided do not support the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." But that sentence is correct.[169]. Still a mystery that I added that source, anyway.I will request an expert to clean it up. Happy easter. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm familiar with Peter's history, but I'm pretty sure you're shooting the messenger, here. After creation and initial editing by Wikicology (only), the article had 37 references. I have checked the first 10 of them. Of these, 1 cannot be retrieved, 2 support part but not all of the preceding content, and the remaining 7 all have something to do with nitrogen dioxide, but don't support the content that precedes them. There appears to be a serious misinterpretation in using one of them: "The values [for EPA recommended exposure levels] were also based on concentation of Nitrogen dioxide that show a significant and direct effects on the pulmonary function of asthmatic patients," when in fact that study showed that asthma was correlated with NO₂ exposure below the set levels. Furthermore, the article repeatedly suggests that NO₂ exposure causes heart failure; that's at most a chronic rather than an acute result of exposure, and I'm not finding literature that bears that out. (One study suggested that exposure might increase the risk of mortality from existing heart disease, which is quite a different story.) I'm afraid this suggests to me that many, though not all, of the references were added at random after the text was composed to give it greater gravitas; the example chosen above by Andreas is not a fluke. Choess (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology seems to be copying text between articles without attribution. Parts of Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, which he created on 9 January 2016 (most of it in one edit [170]) appear in Maxwell's thermodynamic surface and in User:SciFox/sandbox. For example, see the internal search result for "Maxwell sculpted the original model in clay." [171]

It appears that sources are then added to some articles inappropriately or were perhaps wrong in the original.

Wikicology, if you copy text, you should add attribution to the edit summary, such as copied content from [[page name]]. Without attribution, it's a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface. See [172] and [173]. The Gibbs thing looks like some kind of exercise. Question: user SciFox (talk · contribs) = Wikicology (talk · contribs)? - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looking at SciFox's sandbox, they appear to have started translating the article into German, which I would not expect if they were the same user. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the situation:
  • This is a legal threat[174]. That this threat has not been crossed out I find very concerning.
  • If one has written an article about themselves they have willingly disclosed their identity. But more concerning one should not be writing an article about himself. Linking to WP:WWA is not support for this. That User:Wikicology first says he was not writing about himself and now says that they are is a move forwards.
  • The policy that says you cannot write about yourself is WP:COI. It says "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." It is definitely fair for Peter to add the COI template to the article you wrote about yourself.
  • As a member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee yes they do represent the Wikimedia foundation and yes one expects a high degree of honesty. That they have blanked the article they created about them self is a positive step.[175]
  • Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has now been redirected by User:Jytdog. I am still concerned. The first referenced sentence is "It usually occurs after the inhalation of beyond the threshold limit value." supported by this ref [176]. What content in there supports this claim?
  • That Wikicology is working to improve content about Nigeria is excellent as is their efforts to promote Wikipedia in that country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean any legal threat. I crossed out this statement. I will request for cleanup on the medical related topics I wrote. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for crossing it out User:Wikicology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm looking at New York City Legionnaires' disease outbreak here. It's not the same order of serious as writing your own biography or misrepresenting sources in a biomedical article but seems to have some plagiarism and sourcing problems. I've just had guests arrive but will continue with this in a few hours.

Above, people are agitating to close this thread. Please don't. Let's keep all this in one place until we know what we're dealing with here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've finished (here).

Wikicology, first I have to say I'm very sorry you're going through this now. This can't be easy for you.

1. This article and 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks were created at roughly the same time. They both cover the 2015 Bronx outbreak, and I presume both authors searched en.Wikipedia and found no coverage of the topic before creating their respective articles.
2. You begin the article with a falsehood (the only falsehood I could find). The outbreak the article addresses isn't the first known cases of infection by Legionella pneumophila in New York City.
3. Three of the eight citations in the article don't actually support what they're meant to support.
4. There are three instances of very close paraphrasing. In the first instance you've copied from a Wikipedia article. In such cases, as SarahSV pointed out above, it's best to mention in your edit summary that you copied it from X Wikipedia article. In the second instance, you don't actually cite the source (the New York Times). That is plagiarism. You cite the source in the last instance but, if you can't think of a good paraphrase, I recommend just quoting the source directly, between " and ", otherwise you leave our reader with the impression that you came up with that form of words.

Jytdog has just redirected the article to Legionnaires' disease#History.[177] where he's written a nice summary of the salient points of the 2015 Bronx cases. This seems appropriate to me. I've just redirected 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks to Legionnaires' disease#History. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly. I want to thank you for the diligent work on the article. Thanks for the helpful advice. I'm so grateful. It's a learning curve. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'Learning curve'? You learned the art of currying favour] pretty quickly Peter Damian (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I spent today working over two of these articles, Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (that is a permalink, prior to the redirect with now goes here: Nitrogen_dioxide#Toxicity) and I just finished completely rewriting Chlorine gas poisoning (prior version is here). Am just starting to work on Beryllium poisoning (permalink). These articles were/are The two articles I cleaned were each a disaster, and I am not being hyperbolic. Whatever else happens here, I would like there to be an indefinite topic-ban from anything related to health for Wikicology. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

  AFAICT, Wikicology has never edited the Beryllium poisoning article. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had finished cleaning up the other two and had not started the beryllium article when I wrote that. Yes, the Beryllium article was not even close as bad as the other two. Thanks for pointing out that it was not part of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could say how you intend to fix these issues. I see there are issues with image uploads too. [178] I randomly checked a few sentences in your Igogo festival, and the sources did not seem to support them (from "Following the King's visitation" to "end of the festival for that year").

We all make mistakes. Fixing them is important, as is reflecting on why they happened so that you can put personal processes in place to avoid them in future. The more we see of you doing that, the less of an issue this will be. In the meantime, I agree with Jytdog that you should avoid anything health-related, and I would add to that no COI editing. Perhaps if you can agree to that, no formal topic ban would be needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin, I strongly agree to this. In the interim, I will focus on general cleanup on the articles and images. If I need any assistance, I will contact you or any other experienced editor. I will start doing this by next week. See this bizarre request by Peter.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikicology you have not offered any explanation as to why you are creating all this bad content and continuing to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. You need to offer an explanation. I for one don't trust you to clean up as you have not shown any indication that you understand what you have done wrong. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understood what I did wrong. I have no negative intention. Just as User:SlimVirgin said, there are instances where the sources I provided do not support claims in the medical-related topics that was pointed out. There are also instances, where I wrongly copied text from other articles in the medical related topics without attribution. That won't repeat itself again. My non-medical related articles are fine but I will still double-check for any problem. I may also invite people to review again after the cleanup. I never know that writing about myself will be a major problem but now that I know, I have requested the article deletion and it has been deleted. I won't go back to this again. I will refrain from medical-related topics and other controversial topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, you have not addressed fully the issue above (see the mention of the article Igogo festival). It's not just your medical editing/articles which are problematical. Your other articles are full of fake references as well. You have written several hundred Wikipedia articles. Are they all full of fake references and fabricated information? Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry for this extremely slow response. It's a stressful day for me. I will like to say that my articles are not full of fake references. The ones that was pointed as was due to impatience. My Nigeria-related articles doesn't really have a major problem. Igogo festival once featured on DYK and if there is going to be a problem, it's certainly not going to be a major one. Almost all articles on Wikipedia have one problems or the other. No article is perfect, even some of our featured articles. Accuracy is a general problem on Wikipedia. If we should start digging up people's article, we will surely have something to raise concerns about. Like I earlier said, by next week, I will go over the articles again to check for problems even the ones that featured on DYK. Sincerely, this is really a difficult time for me. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the comments above by Softlavender. The valid concerns raised above about fake references, poor quality editing on medical articles, and unreliable sourcing standards, are most disturbing. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could explain how these things have happened. I've noticed that you create a lot of articles in one edit; for example, this is the first revision of Igogo festival. So, first question: are you preparing them elsewhere and pasting them in? Second question: can you say something about how you find and choose sources? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you. Its just like a dream. I can still not understand how I unintentionally created those mess. Maybe I was impatience! Per your question; I often write the contents with sources as a draft outside mainspace (or sandbox), then paste it on mainspace. I usually don't use sandbox. I search for sources online and I choose sources based on their reliability and relevance. I create a lots of articles on a daily basis. Sincerely, I unintentionally messed up on those medical-related topics. I will refrain from medical related-topics for years. Please advice. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you thought a novel was reliable and relevant as a source for an article? That content was also completely unsupported by the source as well. I'm afraid that the more we look into your edits, the more problems we find and that it is evidently not restricted to those medical articles. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, if indeed as you say, you can still not understand how you unintentionally created this mess, could it be that your account is used by other people, with or without your being aware of it? Some kind of team perhaps? That might explain some things. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DVdm, I don't share my account with anyone. I don't share my device with any of my team member and I rarely login my account in other device. I've decided to do something. By next week, I will pick the articles I've created one-by-one to fix any problem I found. I will triple check the sources, then invite one or two experienced editors to review them again. I was probably too hasty or impatient to double check some of my articles. I feel remorseful about this brothers. Thank you so much. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler explanation is that, to achieve credibility and recognition on Wikipedia, you needed to create a substantial number of long articles with diverse sources. This (as I know) is difficult and takes a long time. A simpler way, as long as you are not found out, is to take the structure of a different article, say on Beryllium poisoning, then add random references that appear to reflect the new subject, and lo you have an article on Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning. And of course, yet again, you are lying to us. You "unintentionally created those mess"? My foot. Perhaps you can also explain how here you protest your innocence, saying that 'olatunde olalekan' and 'Olatunde Isaac' are two different people. Is that true? Are they different people? If not, was your error 'unintentional'? How? Again, the simplest explanation is that you were telling us a fat, whopping great lie. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, and in the same place you protest that you "promise to learn more about editting so that the same mistake will not repeat itself." You are making the same sorts of promises here again. What assurance do we have that you will keep your promises, given that you didn't before? Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter, one thing I haven't understood is how Beryllium poisoning fits in. Wikicology hasn't edited it. Did he copy parts of it to another article, and if so can you give an example? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see my notes page here and look at the examples. E.g. the old Beryllium poisoning article reads "persistent dry cough. It can result in anorexia, weight loss, and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases.", his NO2 article read "persistent dry cough, all of which may result in weight loss, anorexia and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases." He then references it to "Sources and concentrations of indoor nitrogen dioxide in Barcelona, Spain", which is quite comical. Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He has obviously been doing this for a long time. See e.g. here. What is the connection between the completion of a church, and Matthew chapter 2? Written while socking, but my guess is that he quickly learned that Wikipedians rarely check that the source supports the content. After all, that edit stuck for years, and is still there. Realising that he could manufacture seemingly well-sourced articles and thereby gain a rep on Wikipedia, he gave up socking in order to build the rep up, so successfully that he now represents WMF as 'the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria'. It's actually pretty impressive. Peter Damian (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, can you clarify some of this? For example, did you copy words from Beryllium poisoning to Nitrogen dioxide poisoning? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember doing that. The truth is, most of these gas poisoning have similar symptoms but if the sources I provided does not support it, then its still a mess. I admit my errors on these topics and I will stay off-clear from topics like this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet other articles?

I have just found this, an apparently well-sourced article where the sources are apparent only. I haven't had time to check out comprehensively however. Supper time now, will look tomorrow, any help is welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• As already mentioned at User talk:RHaworth, a recent example. This was just the first randomly picked recent contribution that I checked and just reverted, so there's probably a lot more, likely far too much to be checked by even a handful of people.
• Second random check: [179]. Removed unsourced red links [180]. - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeating the diff, that self-referencing/COI edit you reverted was made by Wikicology just on March 2, 2016. That is very recent. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my action is fine in the example {U|Dvdm}} pointed out. Yes, I removed the external link because the link is already on the infobox. In this edit, and this one you pointed out, my edit is also fine. Firstly, I created Olu Aboluwoye and I nominated it for deletion myself through WP:AfD. The article was deleted but still appear on the list of notable faculty member on the Adekunle Ajasin University article. Dvdm and Jytdog, should "Olu Aboluwoye" remain on the list? The removal of other non-notable people from the list is also justified.

Per this policy, a person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

• If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.

No reliable sources to established the subject notability and no indication that the people met the above requirement. Hence their removal. Please don't see my comment as argumentative. I'm only trying to explain the reasons for my action. There are lots to learn here and no one is perfect. I will address all the concern raised and there is no doubt that I've learn from my mistakes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(fixed indentation, no further comment) - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not an article, but an i.m.o. disturbing comment in user Widr's last week's RFA: [181]. Quoting:

  I wouldn't recommend blocking, unless it is a last resort. Ritchie333 is correct that anyone can revert "poop" from an article, but these so-called vandal fighters never seem to notice the stuff that really matters and this is worrisome.

  Given what we have here, I think that Wikicology pointing to this is very worrisome. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What I simply implied was that vandal fighters are doing some great work but should be careful with using the block button. Some editors, especially newbies sometimes unintentionally vandalize Wikipedia and they only need someone to explain what count as vandalism to them not to immediately block them. Please, don't quote me out of context. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I quoted this specially because of the context. - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible for newbies to "unintentionally vandalise" because vandalism means that edits are not made in good faith. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The number, type, and scope of these issues is alarming

Forgive the subthread, but we are talking about all of this so casually we might as well be talking about the lovely weather. In fact, we are talking about a number of extremely major issues, any one of which would get a person indef blocked or banned:

• Creating seven different Wikipedia articles about himself (and then attempting to backpedal by blatantly lying and saying they are two different people -- who merely happen to have the exact same first and middle name)
• Multiple instances of inserting potentially dangerous medical misinformation into Wikipedia articles
• Fake references, links to nonexisting webpages or webpages not mentioning the subject, sources that contradict what they are supposedly substantiating
• Copyright violations
• Legal threat
• Sockpuppetry [182]

... and whatever else I may have missed. This is looking even worse than the Wifione case to me. Why isn't this at ArbCom already, and/or why isn't a site ban being proposed? Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would be punitive overkill and can actually encourage creation of puppets by some. As long as the old behavior is no longer repeated and there is evidence of recent editing being productive, I think ArbCom can best decide if recent behavior is better or worse than that of three years ago and whether or not a WP:CLEANSTART can be officially allowed and condoned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I welcome the neutral eyes of ArbCom and thus "officially" request a recognition and approval of a CLEANSTART by ArbCom,.. mostly because I wish to improve Nigerian topics and some editors choosing to continually revisit my newcomer mistakes is not productive. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Past errors may be forgiven just so long as you accede to whatever they decide. Not obeying could result in a long-term block or ban. Even our filing User:Peter Damian knows that this sort of fairness can work. [183][184] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yeow. So my thought is that a cleanstart isn't really merited if these are, indeed, old problems/newbie mistakes. If that's all they are, let's fix them now. Someone who has made mistakes in the past and owns up to them is extremely valuable, provided they make a concerted effort towards improving. If the problem is harassment on the basis of those old problems/newbie mistakes, then the gavel should fall against the person doing the harassment. I'm not arguing that there is harassment, but so long as it's on-wiki and not pervasive, I think it has the potential to do a great deal of reputational harm both to Wikicology and to the project to give the appearance that one of our most prominent Nigerian editors has been cast out for those mistakes. On the other hand, if there's ongoing disruption and serious problems with Wikicology's editing, then a cleanstart is not merited because it'd permit him to just walk away from damage and conceal future problems from whatever cleanstart account Wikicology is granted.
  In short, no matter what the facts are, I don't think the conclusion would be to authorize a clean start. Rather, I would suggest that what we need is factfinding and conclusions drawn as to whether Wikicology's recent editing behavior is disruptive or damaging, and if so what (if any) sanctions should lie to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that declaring oneself to be a sockpuppet is generally not considered a newbie mistake... even if it did happen just under 2 years ago. Considering the timing of claim, master account's name, and what all the accounts did—persistently create articles about Olatunde Isaac, as well as AfC drafts, and uploading files—it's a credible claim. I believe Wikicology has some difficult questions to answer, and those questions are not going to end with this ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a newbie mistake to try to create Olatunde Isaac, multiple times when the topic was clearly not a notable one. Experienced editor will never commit such blunder (please, don't see my comment as argumentative). It's recent recreation by me is never a mistake but a misunderstanding of the COI Policy. I never imagine that it will create a serious problem. Like I said I did consulted Nikki Maria and Michael. I was advised to write it in my sandbox if there are sources that will establish notability. I did and Michael moved it to main space on my request. If I had been discouraged, of course I wouldn't have recreated it. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics, in the interim. In addition, the topic Olatunde Isaac should be salted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• These aren't newcomer mistakes. His latest of his seven articles on himself was created just this month. He is still creating havoc. He has created 550 articles, all of which will have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb for fake references and false information. He should not be in a position of leadership, and his Wikimedia page should be removed. He is on some sort of strange and misleading trip, in my view, exemplified for instance by his RfA five months ago: [185]. A site ban would not be punitive, it would be preventive, the same as with Wifione. I believe the case deserves a full and thorough review by ArbCom -- not to approve a so-called fresh start, but to assess how deep the level of falsehood and problematical editing goes, and in view of a possible site ban. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothere. Why is this ed still allowed on the project? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I never knew it will be a bad idea to write about myself again. I felt I could write it neutrally and declare the WP:COI. I admitted that I was wrong for doing this and I feel remorseful. This won't repeat itself again. I felt it was deleted and my attempt to recreate it then was considered disruptive because it was a clear non-notable topic. Actually, here is no policy that state that editors should declare their identity on Wikipedia. Like I said earlier, I may decided to call myself a "Fisherman" or a "Lawyer" it doesn't mean they are true since there is no reliable sources that supported such claim and identity disclosure is never a requirement to contribute to Wikipedia. Now that community feels it is proper to be truthful about this especially when I'm now becoming the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, I will officially forward the documentation of my credential and profession to the WMF and if anyone wish to be copied, I will be more than glad to put them in copy of my email. There after, I will immediately make changes to my userpages. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia in Nigeria. Omg. Where is the banhammer? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a site ban is called for, as I think this used could be helpful in other areas. However I don't think they should be writing about themselves. If they truly justify an article then there should be other people who can write about it. While COI editing is technically allowed here, I think in this case the community may want to consider disallowing it. HighInBC 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea, as long as we're here, set up a topic ban for Wikicology with respect to himself in all content spaces (i.e., he can still talk about himself in project and userspace, just not in articles, files, categories, templates for use in mainspace, etc.), as well as any publications to which he has contributed. That topic ban should be indefinite, given we're already ~3 years into this (including the previous accounts). I don't think we should accept a voluntary agreement to not do it, unless it's formalized as a topic ban. This would not be the resolution of this situation, but merely so we can pare down the topics of discussion, whether for here or for ArbCom. Again, this is not intended to foreclose a siteban discussion or ArbCom filing, just to hone the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Wikicology is at least trying to present himself as a Wikipedia representative, and actively trying to become the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, and as such it's absolutely shocking that he seems to have no knowledge of even basic Wikipedia policy, and doesn't even by himself understand basic principles of neutrality. At the very least he should remove his self-aggrandizing autobiography from his User-page and stop trying to put himself forwards as some sort of Wikipedia expert. If he doesn't do that, I would support a ban to show that this guy most certainly does not represent Wikipedia in any way.

I also wonder if these kinds of pages are common and accepted: Wikipedia:Yabatech_Wikipedia_Education_Program_Seminar, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Workshop for Students of Fountain University. I've never seen anything like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I blanked my user page Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think pages like that, documenting past outreach projects and workshops are not unusual, but in recent years have been much more commonly kept over at meta. I do want to comment, though, that Wikicology evidently has done a lot in terms of outreach and workshops. For instance, he's one of the proposers/coordinators of an upcoming Foundation-funded project to create photographic content of Nigeria, and is a member of the Individual Engagement Grants committee. I'm not saying that should be an endorsement or make him immune to oversight for acts or omissions over here, but if he is positively contributing in other ways a siteban might serve to hamstring support for getting future projects rolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that at Wikicology's recent Request for Adminship Davidcannon told Wikipedians Wikicology was a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University. Searching the university' website for his name yields nothing, and he is not on the staff list. In this context I note this edit from earlier this month, in which Wikicology (1) added himself as the only notable alumnus of the university and (2) deleted the external link to the university's official site (the link was also present in the infobox, but malformed and not clickable). --Andreas JN466 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Henceforth:

• I will never edit content about myself again
• I will never use another account other than this one
• I will appropriately paraphrase all content and
• only use high quality secondary sources going forwards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: if henceforth you will indeed never use another account other than this one, would you please provide a full list of the accounts that you have recently (and since 3 June 2014) used? I think that would be helpful. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and advise so far. Sincerely, I do not have any other account. This is the only account I'm using since June 3, 2014. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And how do we know you are telling the truth, given that here you said "I don't know If any of the above suspects of sockpuppet also uses the same browsing center because its not my juridition to be monitoring anybody that visit the same computer center so I wouldn't know if any one is using the same Ip to abuse wikipedia. Although I appear more like a new user.Am not realy a new user I once have an account on wikipedia but I lost the diary that contain the pin and username. That's why I created a new one you see as “sixtyn”. Esteem wikipedian,let's not punish the inoccent ones for what they knows nothing about. " Peter Damian (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AND AGAIN: 1 Dec 2013. "The seeming sources that were actually to wikipedia articles that did not support the content gave a false air of significance to the subject. I would strongly recommend against doing that again. Wikipedia articles may not be used to source articles. " How can he plausibly claim that this was an accident or a mystery or a dream, given that this has been his mode of operation for well over 2 years? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian stop being hostile with me. An editor has warn you here and another editor raised similar concern about your behavior on my talk page. This is not a battle ground and Wikipedia is not about winning. If everyone behaves like this then you won't have been allowed to continue editing here, considering your past behavior. I learn that you yourself were blocked multiple times and the last was an indef-blocked for maybe 5 years. So you sure ain't perfect. I wonder what socks you used during those many years. one has to wonder why this guy does not believe in clean start. Heck he was at one time even banned. you were banned from editing for using multiple sock puppets. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian. It was reversed after you appealed to ArbCom. Now tell me, considering your disruptive behavior, are you not suppose to be site ban yourself? And you're here asking people to stone a sinner (seeking for forgiveness) to death when you yourself is the most sinful person. I don't expect people like you to be giving advise on sockpuppetry-related issue as a MASTER of SOCKPUPPETRY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This sort of counterattack doesn't help your cause, Wikicology, given how many editors have verified and endorsed Peter Damian's concerns above. Drop it. Andreas JN466 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

This is an open comment for everyone; Chill out. It's as if some of you are out for blood. Sure, Wikicology has created somewhat of a mess, but it doesn't seem as if he did so with any malice or intent to harm. Wikipedia is a massive, complex beast and not easiest thing to learn quickly (especially if English is not your primary language). I think that Wikicology's involvement with the WMF and certainly his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn. Asking for blocks and bans and whatnot will solve nothing. I think if we ask Wikicology to voluntarily stop creating articles or adding content for now, until he can demonstrate a competence for doing so and a sound knowledge of the editing guidelines, will suffice. In the meantime, allow him to help with the clean-up, it would be a good learning experience. Perhaps some mentoring would help as well... - ^theWOLFchild 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

" ... his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn." He's learned how to speak sweetly and make promises which he does not keep. Aside from his COI, constant self-promotion, lies about who he is and his employment/profession (see Andreas's revelations above), copyright violations, and dangerous medical misinformation, he has created 550 articles which are likely full of the same fake references and false information that all of the ones we have examined so far are. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious concerns with this editors contribs. Dialing back at this time just isn't an option, not merely because of the seriousness of the claims, but the positions of trust Wikicology has attained both here and in the grant-awarding bodies on meta. In determining whether Wikicology has done wrong we need to clear it up publicly and transparently. In my view the most serious claim here is becoming falsified research and credentials: If it's true, then the Foundation appears to have bankrolled some of this editor's activities through grant disbursals. If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria. It's a really serious situation that needs to be handled carefully. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned whether some of the 550 articles he has written are COI/paid, especially those concerning people or organizations in his home country. He has created an average of approximately one article per day (hard to tell the full number since deleted articles don't always show up on the X!'s tools) since he started editing, which in itself is odd in my view, particularly since many of them are quite large and have quite a large number of 'citations'. In terms of "If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria", I disagree. The whole thing has to be rooted out from the bottom up. It would be scandalous not to investigate this. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC); edited 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As others have said above, an ArbCom case may be the best venue for such an investigation, given the amount of material that has to be critically examined, and the fact that some of it is no longer even visible to non-admins. It's too much for AN/I to handle. Andreas JN466 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. This is beyond ANI's ability to review at this point. @Softlavender: I actually wholeheartedly agree with you, that it would be scandalous to fail to review this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Credentials

•  Comment:: Initially, I decided to be silent about my employment status and credentials but I have decided to break silence about series of accusation of falsified credentials. First of all, I never in anyway falsified my credentials and it is quiet unfortunate that people keep accusing me of this here. I'm a biochemist just as I had stated in my userpage and anywhere you can find it. I once lectured at "Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but not directly employed by the University (not a formal employment). I did this for few months before my current employment. Currently, I work as a medical lab scientist at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service", here in Lagos, Nigeria. I was employed there before my National Youth Service Program and I returned to the organization after the program. The fact that my former work at the annex is informal is why you can't find my name on the university staff list and no media have ever described me as ACADEMIC neither have I stated it anywhere outside Wikipedia that I'm an academic. Wikipedia is informal, thus I can include informal information/activities on my userpage. If the WMF had formally requested for my personal information/credentials, there is no way I can include my work at the annex. To avoid any doubt, I am more than ready to forward my Certificates to the WMF with my professional employment status, to clear every doubt. If anyone his interested, I will Cced you. I recently blanked my userpage because I felt personal information is not even necessary in the first place. I'm sad to seeing all these accusations. Why would anyone call me a liar and accused me of falsified credential when I have not presented any formal documents that contradicted what is on my userpage? This is disheartening!!! Even when Olatunde Isaac was created, did I went ahead to include this on the list of academics? Did all the reliable sources in the article refers to me as academic?. If you must accuse people of falsified credential on the basis of what you see on their userpage, why have you not been accusing those that include series of things like "This user is a medical doctor" This user is a chemist" in sandboxes on their userpage. Take this case to Abcom, they know how to best handle this. All the accusers too will be mentioned, they would have to provide all the necessary documents to back their accusation. If any of the accusers refuse to take this to Abcom, I'm going to take this to Abcom myself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not directly employed by the University? Then how do explain this photo of you labeled "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria" [186] (which retained that caption until 31 October 2015, the day after you withdrew your failed RfA)? -- Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I not suppose to describe my image? Yes the caption is suppose to be " Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but I never really took the photo serious. In fact, that wasn't really my personal office, I have no personal office there. When I took the photo, someone told me it was fine. He said "Isaac, this photo is fine, it looks as if you're in your personal office" that's why I used the caption." I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption. I'm not the photo-loving type that's why it was there for long and when I got a better one I removed it. Is there any problem with that? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is your continued misrepresentation of yourself and your continued self-promotion for your own advancement. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• More fun with self-created Wikipedia articles on himself:

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created two times
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created 2 March 2016 and deleted at creator's request three days ago after this ANI was filed

That makes a total of 14 times he has posted articles on himself on Wikipedia article space. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how this is relevant here again. This had been already noted above. Yes, I created the article 13 times as a newbie (with socks) when the topic was clearly not notable and the accounts I used to recreate it were blocked. It's recreation is as a result of the significant of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Just as I had said earlier, I never put it directly on the mainspace. Michael Q. Schmidt moved it to mainspace. Now that it has generated a lots of heating reaction, I requested for it to be speedily deleted and have also requested that it should be SALTED which is a good step. I've been advised above not to write about myself again by several editors. I have agreed. What else do you want? Are you just interested in Drama? If that's your aim then you are not helping this discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating 13 articles on yourself over a period of more than six months cannot be attributed to "newbie"-ism: it is sheer dogged policy-violating self-promotionalism beyond all reasonable assumptions of good faith. And the one you created this month is the same thing -- do not persist in trying to cover your tracks by claiming someone else put it on mainspace; you wrote the article with the intention of putting it on mainspace to promote yourself, as you have a lengthy history of doing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Unless you believe editors here somehow did not look at or read the opening of this ANI, repeating that list of failures again simply makes a long discussion even longer. And pardon, but most of these poorly written beginner errors happened three years ago and, while definitely showing lack of editorial experience, I cannot see them as recent events intended to disrupt or defraud. Unstated above is that the repeatedly A7 speedied efforts Olatunde olalekan isaac, Olatunde Olalekan Isaac, Olatunde O Isaac, Olatunde isaac, and Olatunde olalekan all occurred during the last quarter of 2013, Olatunde isaac O happened in April 2014, and the last effort Olatunde Isaac did not happen until two years later. And it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins (through multiple explanations) to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article. Perhaps someone might wish to WP:ADOPT and counsel? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you've failed to notice that I posted exactly how many times each article was re-created, meaning that he created articles on himself not merely 7 times, but 14 times -- double the number mentioned in the OP. And the earliest ones occurred from 26 August 2013 through 22 April 2014, so that's 2 to 2.5 years ago (not three), and the latest one was just this month. The reason he requested the deletion of that recent one is to cover his tracks, as people were discovering even more discrepancies and falsehoods in it. It's clear to me from all of the conversations I have read concerning this entire affair that he has been misrepresenting himself, and his employment/occupation, on Wikipedia for quite some time, and that moreover he has used Wikipedia and his activities here to boost his own notability, and therefore in a kind of feedback loop his self-representation (or misrepresentation), hat-collecting, mass article generation, and ladder-climbing somehow garnered him enough notability for his own Wikipedia article -- an article he quickly got deleted so we could not peruse it. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, one thing I don't understand is why you moved the most recent bio into mainspace on 2 March, just over three hours after he created it. The notability issue was obvious, you knew that he had written it, and several sources were identical (and seemed to have been based on press releases, possibly written by the subject). Yet here you say "it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins ... to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look through a few more articles to see if this was as widespread an issue as it seems. At Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi, awards given to other people were credited to the article subject (fixed), and other statements were unsourced. At Friday Okonofua large parts of his career section were cited to unrelated sources that only mention him or were scientific papers authored by him, and I just removed a whole load else that was not backed up at all by the cited sources. I share the concerns of the users above about the quality of the articles created by Wikicology. Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A search for *.newspunch.org, the site Wikicology used for his own recent bio at User:Wikicology revealed article Iyabo Ojo, created by Wikicology on 1 April 2015 ([187]). Since then it was maintained by others: [188]. Current situation:

• ref 1: "error 404"
• ref 2: "sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist"
• ref 3: says nothing about "director and producer"
• ref 4: not found
• ref 5: not found
• ref 6: not found
• ref 7: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 8: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 9: backs the last part of the sentence in the text
• ref 10: backs the scripting part of the sentence in the text
• ref 11: "error 404"
• ref 12: backs the name of a film

How does one go about putting this straight? - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Give him some novel type of topic ban? No creation of new articles, no addition of new content, until he has revisited all his articles and either corrected the sources or removed the unsourced or porly sourced information. He has been creating problems for years now, and it is clear that it was ongoing until this ANI discussion started. He should also cease all activities as a public face of Wikipedia, as this really isn't the kind of image we want to have. Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, I was not talking about putting him straight here, if that is possible. I was referring to the article. - DVdm (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I just looked at this interview, linked in the latest incarnation of his autobiography. In it, he discusses Yoruba tribal marks: "for example, when I wrote an article entitled "Yoruba Tribal marks", I got a sense of accomplishment from knowing that over 5 million people would read it." (which, at some 1,000 pageviews a month, would take some 300 years to achieve; if you really did say that to the interviewer, then again I'ld much prefer that you no longer presented yourself as the face of the Nigerian Wikipedians).

Sure enough, that article has the exact same problems as those discussed above. I checked the "Pele" section. The first source[189] doesn't mention "pele" at all. The second source[190] mentions Pele, but doesn't support anything it supposedly references. Source 8 doesn't support the sentence it references. And so on. The final sentence, about president Obasanjo, is probably a reference to the source from the preceding sentence[191], but that source makes it clear that it was his father that had the marks, not the President. Basically, the whole paragraph should be removed and rewritten from scratch. I note that this article was on DYK as well...

Please, whether it is a complete block or a severe topic ban like I described above, something drastic needs to be done in any case. Way too much damage has been done already, and every article he wrote or significantly contributed to needs a thorough recheck (or being moved to userspace or draft space perhaps). Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should move toward a decision. Several editors have spot-checked his articles. The sources are about the topic, but only generally so; they regularly don't support the content. I keep hoping that Wikicology will commit to fixing the articles, but the issue now is whether anyone would even want that. A ban from mainspace therefore seems inevitable. The question becomes whether it should extend to a total community ban, or whether we should hand it over to the ArbCom. I can't see the ArbCom reaching a different decision, mind you. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose a site ban at this time. I propose that, for one year, that the editor's main space work be limited to cleaning up and improving the articles that they have created. I think the editor understands that this would be their last chance. I am willing to mentor the editor, and I think they would benefit from more than one mentor. I think that there is a possibility that this editor can be transformed into an asset to this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I might have supported that until a few hours ago. But having seen Wikicology's recent posts about how it didn't matter that his photograph caption was untrue (the one of him in his office at the university, even though he has never had an office there), and how it didn't matter that he claimed to be an academic because he had only ever made that claim on Wikipedia (including in his mainspace bio), I now wonder whether there is a fundamental disconnect. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would make concerted improvement of the hundreds of articles he has created very unlikely. I say give him a year to clean up his messes and re-evaluate then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Asking him to clean up his articles makes sense, but is he both able and willing? I asked him today about an unsourced claim in an article of his (see Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria#Source request). He replied that it was an older article he had written 18 months ago, and he supplied a link to a source for the claim. [192] But the source he supplied had simply copied the relevant portion of the Wikipedia article word for word. So he still seems to have difficulty identifying reliable sources (but he is teaching people how to edit on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation).

You've offered to be a mentor, but are you prepared for that amount of work? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made the offer and I think that I have a well-established record of helping editors and getting them on track. I promise you that I will not tolerate any more misbehavior. If I see any, I will be right here at ANI reporting that mentorship did not work in this case. I hope one or two other experienced editors will help as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: -- Many thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion. I lack words to say thank you but for better choice of words THANK YOU. Am so grateful. However, I will impose a 1 year topic ban on myself with regards to creating any new articles, and will focus on cleaning up the articles i created, and will do exactly as SlimVirgin suggested regarding citations to quality sources. After I finish correcting each article, I will be diligent in having experienced editors such as HighInBC and SlimVirgin review them, to make sure they meet expectations. I plea to the community to please give me another chance. I've accepted the mentorship by Cullen328 and will work diligently to correct the mistakes I made in the articles I created, if allowed to do so, and will source everything properly and not make those same mistakes again. I will work diligently to fix the mess I made in an effort to re-establish trust from the community and if I stray from that after my probationary period, I will quietly accept the community's decision. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Sep 2014

This ANI from September 2014 says it all. A variety of users express concern about issues identical to those raised here. (Except they weren't aware of the earlier socking). E.g compentence ('the trail of destruction this editor seems intent on leaving in their wake'), the lecturing, biting back at criticism, frequent copyright violation, weird excuses for the copyvio, including browser malfunction that caused an accidential paste from the clipboard. Generally, the complete inability or refusal to understand what they were doing wrong. DGG warns of an indef but fails to carry out, postdlf proposes a site ban, or at least an indef. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

It is apparently clear that I've demonstrated a certain level of incompetence which led to series of problems. The truth is, I'm just too excessively enthusiastic as a young man who is ready to learn. I never have any intention to harm the project and all have done so far is in good faith. I therefore humbly request a CLEAN START and someone to ADOPT me and I won't create or add any content to mainspace until they can attest that I'm experienced enough to do so. Also the page Olatunde Isaac should be salted. I believe, this will be more productive than indef block. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk explaining why clean start wouldn't work. You've had too many accounts, all with the same issues. Wikipedia:Clean start does not allow clean starts for:

Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny ...

I also noted on your talk that you've suggested moving articles you wrote out of mainspace. But as others have edited them, that wouldn't be appropriate, so please don't make any page moves. What you should do instead is start removing unsourced material from them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - indef block

The lengthy ANI thread from 2014, linked above, shows that all these same sorts of promises and excuses we are seeing now from User:Wikicology, have all been seen before, nearly two years ago. And the difference is not a lot. There is no need for an arbcom case. There is also no need for burning more community time on this. Hundreds of very problematic articles have been created over a very long time period.

Proposal is for an indefinite block of User:Wikicology from the English Wikipedia, while recognising that he may be much better able to contribute to Wikipedias in languages in which he is more fluent. And also recognising his hard work and great efforts to help the Wikipedia movement.

• Support as proposer. MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Wikicology can appeal to UTRS when their English has improved significantly. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wtf does their English has to do with this? Whatever can be said about Wikicology their English proficiency is not the problem - many users get along fine with much less English. Also Nigerian English is its own variety and should be respected as such.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Too long. Would support a block community ban with permission to appeal in one year. Would also support a mentorship agreement under which Wikicology is topic banned from mainspace for a year, but during which they can work on repairing their articles in their sandbox, under supervision. This would require the mentor to take responsibility for content when it is posted to mainspace after cleanup. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I apologise, perhaps my proposal was not well worded. An indefinite block can be appealed any time. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now starting to think that Maunus' idea of a community ban (thank you for clarifying that) may be better. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here we have a user who fabricates references; misrepresents his credentials to improve his on-wiki image, and thinks little of it; plagiarises from Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia sources; makes thinly veiled legal threats; has used WP for self-promotion; clearly lacks competence in several areas, including ideas of reliable sourcing; and even if you forgive all of that, cannot, as far as I can see, be trusted to fix his mistakes. While Cullen's offer shows generosity and faith, I do not believe the extra effort spent on monitoring Wikicology's contributions and mentoring him, with a level of scrutiny commensurate to the seriousness of these issues, is justified over and above the effort it will take to fix the mess already made. Support an indefinite block, but prefer a community ban. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I encourage respondents who support the proposal, to also mention if they would prefer, or countenance, a community ban. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A far better outcome for the encyclopedia is to require this editor to spend one year cleaning up and improving the hundreds of articles they have created, under a mentorship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do you offer to present a summary of the cleanup work accomplished under your mentorship to this forum after the one year has elapsed? If the problem articles have not been sensibly cleaned by Wikicology, do you undertake to complete that task yourself? For all articles he has edited under all of his accounts, known now or admitted or found later? MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will mentor this editor. And I accept the terms above, although it will put my own nascent projects back a year. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per the sense that some editors are angry (no, not all) and wish to react punitively toward an apologetic editor they perceive as a "problem". That worry stated, and since the editor has repeatedly told us that he will not repeat editing behaviors found abhorrent, I concur with Cullen328. Let him prove and improve himself under a mentorship. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per BethNaught's comments above. I have no particular issue with people misrepresenting their identity online (and yes, you are patently fabricating your identity, since in this thread you say you're a lab assistant but six months ago you made the explicit statement that "I'm a Biochemist and a university lecturer"), provided it's not done Essjay-style to argue from a supposed position of authority, but fabricating references is an absolute line in the sand as far as I'm concerned. I've no doubt that the people suggesting mentorship above are doing so in good faith, but IMO the concept of mentorship applies to new users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's arcane policies and practices, not to users who've been highly active for years and are well aware of the policies in question, but appear to believe IAR gives them a carte blanche to disregard any policy they feel inconveniences them. Realistically, someone with a two year, 8800-edit history isn't going to suddenly change (particularly someone who considers themself the self-appointed "face of Wikipedia"), and the only alternative to blocking would be a set of restrictions so onerous he would probably prefer a block and a clean break; I'd suggest "no addition of anything to mainspace without having it checked by a neutral third party, and a blanket ban on article creation other than via the WP:AFC process" as an absolute minimum. ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Second choice: Cullen brings up a nice alternative, that we should require a mentorship under which the he'll clean up the mess he's created. But I never see those working. My first preference is to see this at ArbCom (I recognize that an indef block and ArbCom are not mutually exclusive). I think AffCom or some other body over at meta needs to check on Wikicology's activities more broadly, with possible involvement of the Foundation board, to carefully examine the grants that Wikicology has received. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Psomu800

Psomu800 (talk · contribs) has persistently violated copyright policy by placing copyrighted text into numerous articles despite warnings. Recent examples:

• diff 1 – content copied to All India Radio article from here, here and here.
• diff 2 – content copied to RuPay article from here.
• diff 3 – content copied to India Posts article from here.

I think we should follow WP:CV and block Psomu800 for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It happened again (diff 4). This time Psomu800 copied text to the Hinduja Global Solutions article from here. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more attention on the articles in question, and to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations for more eyes on the user issues. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now filed a case at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Psomu800. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System

See also: User talk:Godsy § St. John's Fire District and other moves, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Continued Disruption by User:QEDK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § MfD end run GAME, and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31 § User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp

---

After failing to get me sanctioned for alleged gaming [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199] [200], , Godsy immediately [201] embarked on his own WP:GAME mission reverting moves into mainspace of WP:STALEDRAFT articles on non-controversial and easily verified topics [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208].

This activity is quite pointy [209] and downright hypocritical. While he claims he is trying to prevent me from getting material deleted from userspace (including the stupid suggestion I'm moving pages to main to delete them) he is himself deleting the Stale Draft material from mainspace where I placed it for other editors to expand and improve. His actions are in direct contravention of WP:COMMONSENSE (does nothing to expand or improve the encyclopedia) and the guidelines at WP:CHALLENGE. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." He made no effort to add sources or verify anything.

Godsy is part of the small group that appears to want userspace drafts untouched [210] regardless of how old or unsuitable and against policy WP:DRAFT that allows any user to work on them.

I'd like to see these moves all reversed and material restored to mainspace. Let's tag up anything that is actually questionable and see if we can improve these topics rather then delete them by stealth by relegating good topics to userspace forever. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another report? Sigh... either an admin needs to boldly handle all these or it's likely to end up at arbcom (which is ridiculous imho). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, any admin who does involved is then part of problem so we shall see. WP:UP is now protected since there's massive editing going to create new policy which then gets taken straight to MFD and arguments continue again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Me thinks this is gonna end up at Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stand my move summaries. Stating the current rules and my subsequently following them isn't equal to "Godsy ... appears to want userspace drafts untouched regardless of how old or unsuitable". I think that a consensus should be formed on the issue of the types of moves Legacypac has been doing. Objections have been raised across multiple forums by many editors, and users shouldn't continue unilateral action not supported by the rules and consensus when their actions are challenged. If Legacypac wants the couple of handfuls (approx. 10) of moves I reverted reveiwed, perhaps the approx. 250 questionable moves from the userspace or draftspace to the mainspace they performed this year should be called into to question. I refuted the above twisting of WP:V on my talk page, so I'm not going to waste space and do it again here. That's all I have to say.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• The unsatisfying close of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD_end_run_GAME was unfortunate. It gives implicit approval to the GAMING, short of an arbcom ruling. The disputed boldness needs to stop for policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On my part, the amount of activity exceeds my ability to review. It is not possible to see the full picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny Why are we back at ANI already? I really hope this doesn't have to go before ArbCom. We should be working together on an answer to the draft situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything (not true obviously since by his count I've moved 250 pages forward) but insists on himself effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace without any effort to improve them. Now he calls into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is his agenda here?

Policy development is always an option, but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE. If he really does not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of your statements point by point:

"We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything"

False. I've stated that some of your page moves were inappropriate per the guideline that currently exist (i.e. WP:STALEDRAFT, "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;") in the AN/I thread about your actions (not started by me I might add). If a page you move to the mainspace is deleted, then it clearly is not suitable for the mainspace.

"effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace"

"pages I think are a good start for mainspace" seems to be unequal to "suitable".

"Now [they] call into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is [their] agenda here?"

By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. If a page gets deleted, it wasn't suitable for the mainspace, and should not have been moved. That means the page moves were improper. If that big of a chuck of the page moves were improper, what is to say that others were not as well? Some of the page moves I reverted were articles slated for deletion (example).

This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination speak for themselves.

"but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE"

I wouldn't consider call 10/250 (less than 5% of the moves) "mass undoing". I gave a good reason in my summary of the moves: "The article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace." WP:COMMONSENSE is part of WP:IAR?, and I'm not ignoring the rules.

The fact that about 10% of your page moves have resulted one way or another in deletion, and that you nominated a page for deletion at AfD after you moved it from the userspace to the mainspace because you disliked the standards of MfD (By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination), calls into question whether your actions were in good faith.

"If [they] really do not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix."

I neither like nor dislike the pages, and that is not a reason to take something to AfD. That aside: if the pages are in a state that they can be reasonably taken to AfD, then the page move was improper, as pages should not be moved unless they are suitable (i.e. meet the core content policies). As such the page moves should be reverted and the proper forum to seek deletion would be MfD. I did not "stealth delete" pages, I reverted some page moves.

So, I'll ask those reading this thread to take your statements with a grain of salt at the least, and I won't be responding to any more of your falsehoods here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ffs, Legacypac (talk · contribs), it's enough. We've seen enough of your bullshit, man. I cordially invite you to form an ArbCom case request, if it pleases you but stop making revenge threads about every other person who has the guts to oppose you. Forever and evermore, thine. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, for the people who oppose Legacypac, what's the next step? Is there an actual plan here beyond just dragging this back here and again with accusations? There's been topic ban proposals, admonishment proposals, and now wholesale reverts of the moves. None of the proposed sanctions seem to have actual support so we're left again with people making accusations. Of course I've been accused of either collaborating or coordinating or colluding or something else so I'll wait for that as well. If Legacypac takes the pages to MFD, will we will be back here again for "gaming" because he's mass-listing these at MFD? And no, yelling and screaming that he should go away is not an actual solution here so please provide some idea of what people are supposed to do. I think everyone agrees that moving pages to mainspace is fine in concept so can someone point to a policy that explicitly says when it is appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, moving pages that will clearly not survive in mainspace is not fine. That has been, time and again, been cleared out by admins and non-admins alike. Not to mention, you and a couple of others who are overreaching NOTWEBHOST to delete drafts by saying, Wikipedia's not an indefinite place for storage of data when the actual policy says something altogether. Again, it's him against policy, not me. Moreover, this thread was just meant for revenge. Needless to say, everyone's tired of his pointless charades and if he thinks he's right, he can take the highway to heaven. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So you get to determine that they aren't going to survive in mainspace and that's enough? User:Akivah/Yeshivat Rambam Maimonides Academy page seemed like a perfectly fine stub for mainspace to me. And I'm certain there's no policy that says people can unilterally move stuff back into userspace just because they don't like the person who did it. At the very least Godsy could have combined them into a single AFD and discussed them to let other people decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You do realize the references were added after I reverted the move, correct?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected on that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

10/10 Legacypac trying to clear his image because he was the one who moved the unsuitable draft in the first place. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listed the pages at AfD because per what I can derive from policies and guidelines that is the improper forum. If the pages could be reasonably listed there, the page moves themselves are improper, and as such the proper forum would be MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do wish to be blunt. This is essentially reopening the other discussion, which was closed reasonably. While I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning for Legacypac's moves, moving them BACK to Userspace without discussion is definitely disruptive and possibly even WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, especially so soon after the prior ANI discussion was closed. If you really can't work it out without fighting and disrupting the encyclopedia, then I think, at the very least, there should be an interaction ban here or at the very least a voluntary Wiki-break for the involved persons also. Please realize that this really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, even if no one gets their own way here. Getting into these heated discussions only hurts Wikipedia. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Chrisw80: I reverted a few of the moves that were problematic and improper (approx. 10/250, less than 5% of the moves). Legacypac moved them boldy, so I think it was reasonable for me to revert a few that clearly had issues (one of the worst examples). If I had reverted the moves without being super selective or en masse, I could understand your position. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion. Just making sure you had some information that is vital, as there is a lot to read across all the discussions. Respectfully,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: That information is important, and it does moderate my opinion somewhat, but it doesn't change it materially. Thank you for replying and for the information. Best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The bold moves were discussed before and I think the consensus was that, other than the accusations, the discussion was haywire. Now, I took the problematic ones I saw to AFD and for that was accused of being in collusion for asking if the move was actually appropriate. So is the result (a) we can't leave them alone and (b) we can't discuss the mainspace pages via AFD and (c) all that can be done is unilateral reversions of page moves? That's not a recipe for resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• So as an admin, you're telling me making unilateral moves are fine but unilaterally reverting them is not? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @QEDK: Aren't these basically CSD criteria applied in mainspace? That's the admin role. Userification is done by admins, we don't generally allow people to just unilaterally take mainspace pages and forcibly move them without discussion at all. Seems strange to say that these pages can be moved back into a variety of userspaces without any discussion at all, especially when the last ANI discussion resulted in no action. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was BOLD, hope you got no problem with that, since you were fine elsewhere. And, there's no rule that says userfication cannot be done by non-admins. You do realize everything was done without any discussion, so why do you just keep citing just one side of the whole story. As an admin, you should have already taken the responsibility and closed all of Legacypac's revenge threads, his attempts at throwing dirt on people (I counted three including me) are quite uninteresting to watch. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that was argued before, got no action as the close. Clearly that's irrelevant because it was reverted anyway and now we're here again on the other side about the reverting. We aren't going to have move wars and proposals to topic ban/admonish/whatever were all rejected. If this results in no action again, is anyone actually going to move on? The proposals now are to stop all of MFD which is absurd or to "stop" a project which is equally odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Suspend all of MFD

There is one solution here: suspend all of MFD and any movement/deletion of any userspace drafts until there is a clear consensus of what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as patently ridiculous. There are plenty of solutions to this other than suspending MfD. A suitable compromise can be made here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Suspension of WP:WikiProject abandoned drafts would be more like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also patently ridiculous as it would not address the issue at hand. What we do need is more help over at MfD by experienced editors and admins. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Chrisw80, that's not right. Currently MfD has more active participants than it ever had. The recent MfD battles, messy as they were, albeit continuing, have shifted the battlefront to creative (GAMING) issues of liberal CSDing, sometimes explicit reference to IAR, and unilateral moves of userpage drafts to mainspace or draftspace. While many of the moves are good or fair actions, some are not, and the activities have gotten ahead of policy documentation. I suggest suspension to allow for the policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that the MFD header and WP:UP keeps getting changed (so much that UP was protected) and then those changes are being used as allegedly "policy changes" at MFD shows is more gaming than anything else. Screaming that everyone involved is scheming together without evidence and demanding that we stop all of this in favor of new discussions after you create and withdraw proposals looks more like you're just creating stalling tactics until everyone else is either topic banned or so frustrated they go away. There's a line between actual disagreement and massively being obstructionist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Does more harm than good.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Facepalm Hell no. Once we get a full-blown draft MfD discussion rolling I am hopeful that Legacypac will curtail nominating behavior that might disrupt that discussion. If not we can revisit the MfD topic ban idea proposed in the previous thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspension and dissolution of Abandoned Drafts WikiProject

Ok if we aren't going to shut down MFD, then the next solution is to shut down the Abandoned Drafts project and suspend all MFD discussions regarding userspace drafts. Any project this far off the rails needs to be eliminated completely. 107.72.99.115 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too draconian. When and if we get a proposal discussion actually going we can agree to temporarily suspend draft MfDs during the pendency of that discussion, but that should only happen if that discussion is disrupted, and should only persist temporarily. The abandoned drafts project is not the problem. The problem is a lack of clear, realistic policy guidance on article drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself? This is coming from someone who is experienced with an actual problematic WikiProject. It was merely taking Category:Stale userspace drafts and making it a static table. Other than that, the project has basically been dead since 2011. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself?". Yes. It is small and specific. It has listed a lot of old drafts with a implication that something should be done to reduce or even eliminate the list. There is clearly not consensus for that. Sure, many of the listed pages are delectable under G* criteria, others are good to move to mainspace, but the set of intended drafts of unclear potential are being subjected to actions that were not discussed and are now disputed. A little time to discuss a proper guideline please. Dissolution is overkill. Suspension for a week or two? --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite there yet. I think that if the noms continue on unabated once we have a discussion kicked off, then absolutely call for a temporary moratorium on staledraft noms (it's not like they're going anywhere). Until it's clear something's happening it'd be premature to ask for a halt to noms, but the tradeoff (in my view) is that once something's clearly happening we might call for something involuntary, from targeted bans from listing drafts at MfD up to a broad halt of the MfD process, to compel discussion. The listers are at least justified in not wanting to stop before a concrete discussion emerges since it's entirely possible nothing will emerge once the pressure is off. But, again, once something emerges the listing should stop, either until a proposal emerges and is adopted, or until discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it after my vacation is over or someone else can. No problem. I guess, the temporary moratorium can start from now? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So the problem is that it has a list of old userspace drafts? Should the category be deleted? Should all the categories at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard be deleted or suspended? The Oldest People project was a decade of chaos with Arbcom cases and no one considered suspending or deleting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USERSPACE DRAFTS. THE ENTIRE PROJECT MUST BE DELETED NOW There is no reason for anyone to care about whatever people did in their userspace, it is THEIR space after that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How about no? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as this has been clearly labeled as housekeeping, no need to continue fighting about this. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DESTROYING ARTICLES WITHOUT THOUGHT is not housekeeping.

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

Request for closure

Can this be closed now? I don't think anyone is suggesting that an admin re-move these pages back into mainspace and I don't think anyone here actually has a serious proposal on what to do. The demands on a moratorium don't really seem to have consensus and we shouldn't just wait around until QEDK's vacation is over or the like. There's been numerous discussions going on with changes to a number of policies and numerous MFD discussions as well. There's clearly disagreement on what should be done but regardless of all this chaos, there's been no discussions taken to DRV for any further analyses so I'm presuming that the closings and resolutions afterwards are at the very least not worth fighting. We still need someone to close the RFCs regarding relistings at WT:MFD so that can be resolved and just more eyes at MFD would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Screw it. Don't close this. Let's just have round five of this idiocy continue on and have everyone pile on. What's the next proposal, indefinite bans all around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm letting the antics get to me. It seems as though this can be closed as there's nothing further to do if people considered Legacypac's page-moves as inappropriately WP:BOLD in the first place. I'd prefer we have a policy where mass unilateral reversions were not done and instead the pages could be discussed each but that's not happening at the moment.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

These 166 IPs are obviously trolls, and I would love if admins could block them for a week or so after they leave a comment like this. They seem to have gotten under Ricky's skin, and clearly aren't making reasonable suggestions. A2soup (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See here. That range seems to be a magnet for abuse. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed this. I thought I saw someone reverting a 166' IP's !vote at an MfD as being by a banned user... if so, anybody have any idea who the banned user is? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there have been multiple bans/ban proposals for 166 editors. See this for one of the bans. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, look at that. I vaguely remember that discussion now that I've seen it. Wonder if it's time for a LTA page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Now Godsy is DRV'ing to restore a stale draft promotional article. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31#User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp This editor is hell bent on reversing cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Godsy has a point. The wrong method to the right result here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, most of these old drafts need to be processed, many deleted, but the wrong method has been implement. The WP:BRD principle applies, bold implementation objected to, so stop, discussion how to proceed.

Also agree on the 166.x.x.x problem. I don't know what he has got against Ricky, but he is using all unrelated opportunities to abuse Ricky. Ricky is doing well to remain as calm as he is, 166.x.x.x is most definitely not helping with anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've been collecting some info on this troll for some time. See here for just some of the info I've gathered from AN / ANI, which I used to frame the ban proposal. The most prolific 166 troll is one that has been hounding Ricky for months. A few other banned users are also in that range. The most likely banned user that is doing all the hounding is Kochtruth who has ome run ins with Ricky before being indef'd. Since then, any time there is a thread involving Ricky, the 166 troll will show up to stir shit. Editors not familiar with their MO will respond in good faith but in general, it's safe to RBI them Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to

John Carter (talk · contribs) recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by posting on my talk page while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[211][212][213][214] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? HighInBC 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and User:Sturmgewehr88 between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under an IBAN with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably these two concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.

Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([215]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose IBAN I am not seeing anything mean spirited here. The links you give show John either talking about articles or explaining how Wikipedia works. You "banning him" from your talk page seems to be in response to reasonable comments. If we are to CBAN based on two people being in the same places then we need a lot more evidence than has been presented. HighInBC 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• WP:KEEPOFF is relevant here (though sadly underdeveloped even as far as essays go). Telling someone to keep off your user talk page is rarely helpful, and when done unreasonably, can lead to non-enforcement of that "ban". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. If you don't have a good reason to tell someone to go away then it is hardly harassment if they say something to you later. Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order. In both of those links where you tell John to go away the comments being made are measured and reasonable. HighInBC 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: He showed up at an ANI thread I started about his friend and deliberately misrepresented the dispute by pretending it was already under discussion on DRN. He engaged in off-wiki contact with ... someone who apparently really doesn't like me and then when I asked if it was the same site-banned user who had been posting my personal information all over the internet (and was at that time still actively engaged in emailing anyone who got in a dispute with me on Wikipedia, from a sock account -- email me if you want the details) he repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying as "of course someone without a publicly disclosed email must be engaged in sockpuppetry" (???) even though I explained my concern to him over and over again. He suddenly showed up on an article I was in the middle of rewriting and started trolling the hell out of me over one word in the lead, despite multiple users telling him to cut it out, and then when he didn't get his way on the talk page he opened an ANI thread (again: you say he was discussing article content, but ANI is not the place for that). Half the time I cannot make head or tail about what his beef is with me, and the only reason I can think of is that he is deliberately being antagonistic. When I told him to stay off my talk page he didn't until told more firmly to stay off, and then he came back again later, while logged out, and posted an inane non-sequitur apparently just to get another rise out of me (seriously -- look at what User:Curly Turkey and I were discussing, and then try to figure out what JC's contribution to the discussion was; if you can, then you understand the content of my talk page better than I do). And he has been stalking my edits to boot! What more evidence do you need? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't convinced when Hijiri first started telling me that JC was hounding him, but after a couple of months of seeing him showing up everywhere—and often making bizarre comments like the one pointed out here—I'm convinced. I have no idea what a solution is, but I'm positive that he didn't show up at Hijiri's talk page to honestly be helpful—he obviously dislikes Hijirii too much. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More dispute resolution could be a good idea, perhaps with a mediator or request for comment format. Also, essentially agree with analysis by HighInBC, at DIFF, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Dispute resolution about what? John Carter and I do not edit in the same areas, and even in those topics areas where there is a very slight overlap (I edit articles on biblical, Jewish and Christian topics, and JC very occasionally posts on these talk pages) the problem is not that we have a disagreement on content. John Carter followed me around for most of 2015 and reverted a bunch of my edits and caused massive ruckuses on talk pages and here on ANI, and I asked that he stay off of my talk page. He has refused to do so, while hypocritically imposing such a "stay away" restriction on me.[216][217][218][219][220] How on earth would "dispute resolution" solve an issue where there is no dispute other than a non-productive editor hounding a productive one? Further, if both John Carter and I want an IBAN (I think JC's last comment on the issue was I might also request an i-ban of him with me, but he might have said the same thing more recently), why should one not be put in place? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: Semi-protect Hijiri's TP longterm, officially warn John Carter that if he posts on Hijiri's TP again he will be blocked. Any discussion worth having can occur on article talk pages or other Wikipedia space. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• John Carter (talk · contribs), if that's you posting on Hijiri's talk page, please stop. You were asked not to and you have no choice but to obey. If you persist, you will be blocked--it counts as harassment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Renewed trolling on Constellation Brands and Accolade Wines

An individual with a many-year long bizarre fixation for trolling Constellation Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Accolade Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is at it again. This is a combination of vandalism / edit warring / socking so I'm bring it up here. The latest accounts:

• Wikiecontrols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bellademo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talatte120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Winestories (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admins have been periodically indeffing the socks and semi-protecting the articles. In 2014 there was Trojanhorse112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and looking back, various others. Blocking these accounts doesn't do a whole lot of good because they keep creating new ones. A range block perhaps? Plus time for medium-duration semi-protecting the articles. No point notifying the trolls. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of quaking going on. The newest incarnation is

• WikiBigdemon (talk · contribs), which seems to be impersonating wikidemon (talk · contribs) and is less than civil [221]

I think WP:SPI may be a better venue. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI is bureaucratic and process-bound. We know exactly what the issue is, nothing to investigate. What can be accomplished there? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. (assuming the question is rhetorical). Attention was payed, things got reverted, so it's time to close this request. Kleuske (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be rhetorical — but Floquenbeam answered it, below. I really don't want to provoke this person. Their behavior and language seem obsessive and irrational, and I do't want them fixating on me and my Wikipedia presence the way they have on this company. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• I semiprotected the two articles for a year. I can block these 4-5 accounts, but as mentioned above, this person seems fairly motivated, and will probably keep creating new accounts and getting them autoconfirmed. SPI allows a more structured way to keep track of future socks, and flag the attention of a checkuser when needed; I'd agree an SPI would be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If it happens, I hope it's possible to do so without alerting them to the SPI or my initiating it (see above). - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The User:WikiBigdemon account seemed already fixated on you, which is not acceptable. I've blocked that one per the username policy. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC).

Agree with Kleuske and Floquenbeam that WP:SPI would help here to compile evidence and have a formatted regular process to gain checkuser eyes and maintain analysis of sockpuppets going forwards. — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

If you'll look at this edit you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. WP:AGF speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's WP:NOTHERE on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground if and only if the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of irreconcilable differences.

Also, WP:AGF only applies to first-time mistakes, but not repeated vandalism like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction.

As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in English, from Beoƿulf to Cædmon's Hymn. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEAKENGLISH refers to Modern English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is made without evidence, and wouldn't even apply to User:Cedric tsan cantonais if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered more from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade here. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak Serbian at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an encyclopaedia.

Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed his contribs to article talk pages since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist User:In ictu oculi takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am very skeptical about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that clearly aren't there. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of personal attack.

You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is not an admin; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is here. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is not vandalism.

Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.

Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais

I'm usually not one for extreme solutions, but someone who has been on the project for over three years should not be demanding that non-admins block IPs, accusing those IPs of "vandalism" for apparently good-faith edits, accusing those non-admins of imaginary "crusades", or demanding that all IPs be banned from editing English Wikipedia, period, because of something that apparently happened on a different language Wikipedia. Looking at CTC's contributions, it's obvious that the "too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into" were not on English Wikipedia -- this user has made 96 article edits, only four of which were over 1,000 bytes. I don't know what happened to his edits on Cantonese Wikipedia, but it surely can't justify the likes of this edit summary. While it's possible this user has something to contribute (the clean block log on his main project is ... interesting), it's obvious that he is more of a burden on the project than a boon for the time being; indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks.

• Support as nom. Also pinging Walter Görlitz, since it would be pretty dickish of me to propose a solution, several days late, to a problem he reported without informing him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack and harassment by User:SheriffIsInTown

He had editing dispute with some users and he accused them of being internet terrorists. There was clear vandalism by an internationally known hackers and Internet terrorists network based in Mumbai belonging to this same very agency In the above edit made on 27th March, ShriffIsInTown has gave a link to some hacking website. I request users not to click the link.

Later on User:MBlaze Lightning filed an SPI where ShriffIsInTown started to support the sockpuppet and accuse MBlaze Lightning of filing a wrong SPI. See the comment history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VisionHawk. Even after the SPI result he started pinging administrators, requesting them to favour the blocked user, in the second paragraph of this comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ridiculous bad faith report that should earn the nom some sort of sanctionPerhaps the Nom should peruse history before reporting? Sherif was pointing out the fact that a couple of IP's have been quick to vandalise the article ever since new info was added. Well if someone calls a vandal as "internet terrorist" I am sure there is no harm, they are trying to destroy wikipedia so to be frank you can call them whatever you want. And this was not just an edit that was disputes, this was clear vandalism. As for the so called Pinging of admins to come and favor the bad bad user", the diff shows that Sherif wanted a "shorter block" not an unblock, and this is quite common across wikipedia, reporting this to ANI is beyond assuming bad faith , it is ridiculous and ****Y. Secondly Greek Legend himself wanted to "protect" or defend MBL as is clear from his own comments here on another user's TP. Now I don't want to assume anything, I am just saying that if someone beat you to the punch you should not cry and run to the admins asking for his ban, it is not Shriffs fault that you could not protect MBL from the "POV pushers", so please do not take it out on him. So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Protect? I didn't want him to be unblocked. And why did you say about the same comment Quite right User:Greek Legend has hit the nail on the head in the same user page. Greek Legend (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by this statement of yours that "you did not want him unblocked". You just wanted Kutilya to side with him on the SPI as is quite clear from your statement. Also you called everyone involved in the SPI as "POV pusherS" which is a personal attack in itself. Furthermore my comment on MBL's page endorses your statement that MBL should stay away from politics related editing, and has Literally nothing to do with this bad faith nomination. To be frank with a kettle as black as your editing history you are under greater threat of being blocked for canvassing as you did at Kutilyas TP and for calling other users POV pushers when nothing has been proven against them. Sherrif called some IP vandals as "internet terrorists" and you are all up in arms about it and you are yourself calling like 5 established users POV pushers and its all right. Bravo! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Anyone can check the timings and see that I made the comment after the SPI was completed. While you all were involved, when the SPI was going on. Talk pages are for discussion. And this user:FreeatlastChitchat is also part of the group in the above mentioned SPI who was accusing MBlaze Lightning of making frivolous SPI. And the last line of this edit So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. is a personal attack. If no administrator takes any action, then it would seem experienced users are allowed to abuse new users. And FreeatlastChitchat is also referring "User:Kautilya3" as "Kutiya". This is local slang word in Urdu. He used this word more than once. It can't be a simple mistake.Greek Legend (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend Yes you made the comment after the SPI, that is what I have been saying all along. You are so angry at sherif for beating you to the punch that as soon as the SPI is over you go over to K's page and say "OMG" we should have ganged up and defended poor MBL from these POV pushers. Then you vent your anger on Sherif by reporting him to ANI. HOW DARE he give his opinion against your express wishes? It is hilarious that you wanted to do something, but sheriff did it before you, so now you want him banned. Anyway as to your other comments. Firstly I accused MBL of a frivolous SPI against TalhaZubair and I was vindicated when the CU check showed that he had done nothing wrong. I have no idea why you are trying to add that information in this thread. you do realise that what you are linking goes against what you are trying to prove right? Secondly the word Kutiya means cunning, it is not used to denigrate anyone. Rather it is used by friends as a means of praise. You can see the use here tu bari kutti cheez hay yaar meaning that you are really cunning and astute. So that lays to rest your another assumption of bad faith. Thirdly I have now changed the word back to Kautilya so its no harm no foul. Lets get back to your attempt to canvas and your Personal attacks on user whom you call POV pushers. Also just when did it become a crime to call an SPI frivolous? You do realise that you do not own/run/have exclusive access to wikipedia right? It is a right of everyone to edit it and give their opinions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::: No it has some other derogatory meaning also. Greek Legend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend of course it does, as almost every single word in punjabi, but I have changed it back so please be kind enough to stop dangling the red herring. Why did you report sheriff for the exact same thing that you wanted to do btw? are you allowed to do these things exclusively? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::: This is my last comment here - You said above that I did the same thing. When and how I have made personal attacks against any user? When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user? (That was the original post). Bye and don't ping me again. Greek Legend (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend you asked two questions, let me answer them, then you wont be pinged further. You asked "When and how I have made personal attacks against any user?". Well calling users POV pushers is a personal attack and a bad one at that. You called almost half a dozen editors POV pushers at Kautilya3's TP as I have just shown. there is no innuendo or veiled reference, you outright called them POV pushers. Your second question was "When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user?". I have already replied to this that your anger stems from the fact that you got beaten to the punch. As is clear from your comments at Kautilyas page, you "wanted" to gang up and "defend" MBL but were not able to do so, and this is the sole reason for this bad faith joke of a report. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment again, but this use is repeatedly pinging me here, misinterpreting my comments and also making continuous personal attacks in this post as saying "you got beaten to the punch" along with other personal attacks mentioned above. No administrator took any action, that's why he thinks he can say whatever he want and get away with it. Greek Legend (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Greek Legend plz do explain what has been misinterpreted in this statement of yours"He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI". Please explain it to us so you can tell us what you meant by this. If you explain it yourself there will be no way anyone can misinterpret it as you will have given the explanation yourself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:: You are accusing me of Canvassing, which I did not do ever. Users can have conversation about anything. Yesterday I saw how a group was accusing MBlaze in that SPI. Today I found the SPI was successful and those users blocked. I found that he was right and all of you were wrong about the SPI. I mentioned that to Kautilya3. Do you have any problem if I saw anything to anybody when the SPI is over? I didn't ask Kautilya to comment anywhere. Kautilya never edited according to my request ever in the past. Kautilya edits according to his own will. You are misinterpreting my comment as you were against M Blaze in that SPI and you didn't like my comment on Kautilya's talk page. That's why you are making repeated personal attacks here again and again.--Greek Legend (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend: I don't see an accusation of canvassing on part of FALCC. I agree that users can have conversation about anything but your encouragement of MBL's battleground and edit-warring behavior and then calling his opponents POV pushers does not carry an image of a good faith editor. Your message while awarding him the barnstar tantamounts to "them vs. us". Your message "The way your opponents were screaming and shouting against you. " and "Let them push their POV." to him carries a sound bite of teaming up behavior. Please don't make it "India vs Pakistan", this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground, please keep it that way. As about the SPI, i already mentioned that i was talking about the "lack of evidence" and how "TalhaZubairButt" and "DelusionMBT" do not seem to be connected and i was proven right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::: Two times he has used the word canvas. If you don't want to read then don't read his long comments. Go through his comment history in this post again and you will find what you are looking for. Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not see Kautilya's TP before but saw it now. So, how do you explain your message "He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI." You were served ARBIPA notification by Kautilya on 23 February 2016. [[WP:ARBIPA]'s first decision calls for "Assumption of good faith" but you are completely doing opposite of it, you are calling your opponents POV pushers which seem to be Pakistani editors, you are leaving messages on talk pages of seemingly Indian editors and asking them to team up, do not leave your buddies alone. Are you some kind of assigned coordinator among them? Honestly, you should be coming under ARBIPA enforcement for this. This behavior of yours is against the principles of building an encyclopedia and should not be tolerated. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Guys, I will quickly address two points raised in this ANI. First of all, it seems like MBL is on the revenge again against an editor with whom he had disputes with. He couldn't get blocked one (TalhaZubairButt) now he is trying to get blocked the other. As you can see from my userpage User:SheriffIsInTown#Successful Sock-puppet Investigations, I have over 87% success rate of exposing socks and by looking at his frivolous SPI, I knew that TalhaZubairButt was not connected to DelusionMBT and I was proven right by CU. Instead of filing this report, he should be apologizing to TalhaZubairButt whom he accused of being a sock-puppet of Wikibaba1977 and LanguageXpert under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripWire#18 March 2017, another accusation proven wrong by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VisionHawk. He also filed a frivolous ANI at Edit-warring noticeboard against me which he had to withdraw. He is himself under violation of 1RR imposed on Pakistan, India and Afghanistan articles. He reverted twice the content in which Pakistan and India are both mentioned on Research and Analysis Wing but so for no action is taken against him. As for IP which vandalised Research and Analysis Wing was not an IP rather it was a network address and I have never seen a network address appear like this in the edits before. Notice 0 at the end of 101.60.229.0. It looked suspicious to me so when I searched for it on the Internet, I found that International Anti-hacker Alliance website has this network blacklisted and they claimed that this network was actually tied to known hackers and Internet terrorists and location of the network shows up as well so nothing hidden about it. Mind you that website is Anti-hacker and not hacking website as MBL claimed, two opposite side of coins. Its same like email spam fighting websites such as Blue Cop etc. I would request admins to block the whole network 101.60.229.0 since it's very dangerous to allow them to continue to vandalise Wikipedia. This frivolous ANI should be thrown out of the window since calling "a spade a spade" is no crime. It seems now MBL is trying to throw everything at me to get me blocked as he did to TalhaZubairButt. I requested for shorter block of DelusionMBT because I genuinely thought he did not completely understood the whole procedure and seemed inexperienced to me and was willing to learn from his mistakes. I also genuinely did not know that pinging admins to unblock a user was wrong but you can let me know If it was wrong and I won't do in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Note Sheriff does have seem to have a slightly unencyclopaedic view of collegiality. Not taking sides in this particular report or anything; but that User Page has some most peculiar elements. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Would you spell them out here? My user page is just for fun. It carries a police theme, its my personal choice, goes with my username, nothing to do with my editing and i never indulge on what other users have on their pages, your user page is for you to keep it as it pleases you. I have an incomplete Verbiage Keys section which might help you understand many things about my user page. Also, i would like to add that maybe, you want to suggest how to lay out my user page, do you want me to blank it out completely so that it does not bother you or you want me to copy your page to my page so it looks exactly the same as yours which should make you very happy. Let me know because i am all for collegiality! :) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since my name has been mentioned about a hundred times here already, I thought I would make a few remarks in the interest of drawing this discussion to a close. I have been editing India-Pakistan pages for about 18 months, and I can tell you that I have seen very few saints and very few devils. All the editors fall somewhere in between; they all carry some biases, want to push some POVs, take some short-cuts, play the system etc. That is the reality, and it is not all bad. When there are intense disputes between "biased" editors, the real truth can be slowly found. I only wish they debate a bit more coherently so that I can understand the truth faster. Both MBlaze and Freeatlast fall into this category. They have crossed the line and are currently undergoing a learning experience. Let them do it in peace and let us go back to work. We can spend our time more fruitfully by picking up those pages that are dying for our attention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat blocked for one week

irrelevant Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Comment SheriffIsInTown just saw that FreeatlastChitchat is blocked for one week and trying to divert the attention. I don't edit all these India-Pakistan war articles. Greek Legend (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This is again, "not an assumption of good faith". I did not see if FreeatlastChitchat was blocked. I do not follow others like you do. What do you mean by "diverting the attention"? If he is already blocked then he is already blocked. How would it serve me or him if i try to divert the attention? How this announcement of yours serve this ANI? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) :: Any experienced neutral editor can see through what is going on here. I can't just go on explaining again and again. I have other interests in Wikipedia than these arbitration topics. --Greek Legend (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:I made the above hatted comment after a proposal by Sheriff which he has removed. Greek Legend (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5

User:Cryptic says "It was declined because it was explicitly marked as a draft, which makes it not be a U5, until you edited that off. We have a word for people who people who edit a page that was not a speedy candidate to make it into one. That word is "vandal". If you don't want to be blocked like one, don't act like one." Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Sabesh1.2FEnhanced_efficiency_fertilizers

First, Twinkle automatically replaces the userspace draft header with the CSD tag like this [222], it is nothing I did intentionally. Second, I have yet to see another Admin say anything like this, and I've had many similar pages deleted WP:U5 Finally, I take this as a serious threat because he is an Admin and could block me, and it's not the first time he's made the threat against me. Therefore I'm bringing this for wider view. If I'm using WP:U5 incorrectly I'd like to know ASAP so I can change how I am doing things.

He reverted about 14 of my WP:U5 tags in a row including these other examples I've now sent to MfD that I believe are obvious uncontroversial WP:U5:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Aponiatowski11.2FRegis_Historical_Society
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Apcuser94.2FAPSU_1000_.28Austin_Peay_State_University.29
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:AppleSocialUK.2FJames_Kenny

Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is responding appropriately to sloppy inaccurate CSD tagging. Check the opening sentence of WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is an admin and has the right to decline them all if Cryptic doesn't think a page violates U5. I think your point is fair in that twinkle for some reason does replace the userspace draft template with the U5 notice but if it doesn't violate U5 to Cryptic, drop it and take it to MFD. Cryptic, I think the accusation of intent is incorrect but I think U5 is so badly worded and so misused, I'm barely sure when it's appropriate. I'd say that if Cryptic blocks for wrong U5 tagging, it would be inappropriate but there's numerous other discussions and antics going on, Legacypac, that a block could be justified, I'm just saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't any editor have the right to remove a CSD tag, with only some specific restrictions?

Weren't we re-working the wording of U5, I guess we got sidetracted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• If Twinkle does that automatically, I apologize, but it's a pretty glaring bug that needs to be fixed post-haste. (And it's not one that I've seen with other users' U5 tags.) This is no different than it replacing the rest of the article with "aaksjhkasjhas" when you add a {{db-g1}} tag. Re U5, this is the WT:CSD discussion; the language there is "Whether pages plausibly intended or explicitly marked as drafts would be eligible under the new criterion, and which". —Cryptic 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then, Legacypac, is this resolved now? I think we can have a further discussion at WT:CSD about U5 language and wording if you want but I think the discussions before was pretty detailed. The bug someone can take to WT:TWINKLEis it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, blatant misuse of U5, if other admins do use it as a blanket deletion tag for some proper drafts, they are the ones in the grey zone. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a misuse if the CSD is declined. You can call it mistagging but it's not like U5 was actually used to get anything done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant it in the context you said - something sort of like, using U5 to try and get them deleted which was wrong. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, a misuse of the CSD tag would be if the admin deleted it based on a wrong tag (say a ridiculously expansive version of G6). That's a contrast to a mistagging when a non-admin can do. Doesn't matter, I agree, it's still an accusation, whether it's intentional or reckless is another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Amol.Gaitonde/Songs I like is a page that was appropriately deleted per WP:CSD#U5. The content was a list of songs that the user apparently liked.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as content I agree; but that user has plenty of non-userspace contributions, another blocker for using U5. —Cryptic 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this on ANI? Did you try to explain to Cryptic that Twinkle auto-strips the template? Honestly Legacypac... where there's smoke there's fire. I like that you're being bold and mapping out the nuances of how different policies work, but it's getting to the point that your good faith conduct is becoming disruptive. You surely must expect some negative reaction at this point. Slow the hell down. Try to settle the dispute. U5 CSDs aren't generally urgent, so take a break from them. We can figure this out if we work together. Coming back to ANI again and again is only raising the temperature of this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

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

---

User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [223] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [224]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much Calidum for the link) [225]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful hound, and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See User:Lips Are Movin for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making false sockpuppeting accusations to clogging up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he took this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes WP:POLEMIC writings about me on his user page, and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to WP:DOX my country here. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin accepted stuff like [226] and [227] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing for this AN/I here, here, here, here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another policy vio just committed: editing my comments in this ANI here. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another comment and observation: Does MF really want an IBAN? This comment on my talk page and this comment on Chesnaught555's talk page doesn't cause me to think so. The continued responses to me in this filing fall into that, as well. Then there's this comment in the subsection below ("No opposition votes yet, yay!"). It has since been removed by MF. What I am seeing (especially with the "Yay!" comment), is a desire to WP:WIN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it be an issue? Further, this comment from you, "to be at the center of drama for whatever reason" makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Official discussion

• Support - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. This message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, MaranoFan. It was not appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page after the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, Serge, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I know Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am not an admin, Sergecross73! The Support !votes only slightly outnumber the Oppose ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide Support majority later... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - If MaranoFan wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--ML (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Is this enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable here. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [235], this diatribe [236] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [237]. Calidum ¤ 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if Winkelvi sees faults with MaranoFan's editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read WP:CANVAS and WP:ADMINSHOP closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like WP:TPO which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and frequently correct critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [238] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your competence because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, possible boomerang based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. WP:BOOMERANG applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that you get your facts straight. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then Chesnaught555 started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Mandruss. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply informally staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- MrX 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. only (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--MaranoFan (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit as of 09:41, 30 March 2016 proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.

I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.

Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.

I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen here) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [239]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is not wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.

There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, "In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN." No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the previous proposal a year ago by Calidum, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for months. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and highly provocative behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required.  — Calvin999 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle, you are both black.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist.  — Calvin999 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable Adele song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [240], [241], [242], [243], [244]. And calling Winkelvi a "very placid, calm and peaceful editor" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required.  — Calvin999 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with.". Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, Softlavender. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus" Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into boomerang territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.

"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick" Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

K. Here's one, in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was, "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick". I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: "I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings.", and then further claim that I stated I "...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request" Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"No one is keeping score, here" Sure. No one is keeping score. That's a laugh. Obviously, you're thinking of what happens at the My Little Pony and Rainbow Unicorn Noticeboard at Cotton Candy-pedia rather than ANI at Wikipedia. And yes, you have mischaracterized what I said. Several times. Which tells me I need to stop saying anything to you because every time I have responded to you in this report, you've turned my actual words and obvious meaning into something else entirely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Block for MaranoFan whose behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with Fortuna here... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur, Mirela. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: A sub-section, yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Mirela and Fortuna - filed as subsection below. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. SSTflyer 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't see any recent edit warring from me, SSTflyer. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Neither of these editors have clean hands in their interactions with each other, so a two-way IBAN seems to make the most sense. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially agree with WP:BOOMERANG analysis by EvergreenFir (DIFF), and harassment analysis by Chesnaught555 (DIFF), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support an IBAN, but I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. Softlavender's characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of christ... "someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. Drmies, Bbb23, NeilN, Ritchie333: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style." Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to point out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan

Suggested by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who stated that MF's "behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times". MaranoFan's canvassing of other editors and lack of evidence supporting a reason for an IBAN between them and Winkelvi calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions - not to mention the uncivil behaviour over on my talk page, which MF has stated was directed at me simply because I wanted to archive an escalating thread: Here and here. Posting now to avoid edit conflicting - will edit this post as time goes on. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as co-proposer, if that is a word. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Marano's actions don't especially seem worse than any of the other 3-4 editors involved in this. Unless we're doling out blocks to everyone involved and meddling in all of this, this is not a good proposal. (An iban solves this issue better.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross. An interaction ban would solve pretty much everything, I would hope. Of course, if the ban fails to gain consensus and shenanigans continue - yes, blocks (for multiple editors) would likely be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. MF has done nothing to warrant a block. She was provoked by some comments made about her, but "gossip" does not justify what she is asking. That said, asking for something you're not entitled to doesn't give rise to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion is about an IBAN for WV and MF. That's it. If anything grows out out of this discussion then an IBAN for WV and MF is what is needed.--ML (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - A block is not justified and would only address (roughly) half of the problem.- MrX 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MrX notes, this would solve only part of the problem (though I reckon one-fourth, not one-half). Calidum ¤ 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MaranoFan, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the Oppose !voters. This will not help your case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This isn't a court case, MaranoFan. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC) And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User AmitPaul23

Disruptive user 103.41.212.74 (talk · contribs) who later created account AmitPaul23 (talk · contribs) to circumvent semi-protection:

• 13:51, March 28, 2016: "Muslms cannot be trusted" (link)
• 14:43, March 28, 2016: Blanket revert (link)

I left a notification for the above user on his talk page here: User talk:AmitPaul23#Administrators' noticeboard.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I diocussed in talk page, your the one andalsi who reverted without agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitPaul23 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a brand new editor, those who edit using an IP are allowed to register and this is not "circumventing" anything. They've made one edit to List of expeditions of Muhammad. They seem to have a relatively low level of language ability in English, but you should try talking to them about consensus, no personal attacks and neutral point of view before coming here so quickly. Fences&Windows 18:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Regarding my "circumventing" comment: An administrator intervened earlier and restricted article editing to autoconfirmed users. That is when AmitPaul23 appeared. This is the only reason why Amit abandoned IP editing and transferred his editing to the registered account. Notice that the user made zero contributions on the talk page besides inquiring on ways to revert content, because "Muslms cannot be trusted". After a comment like that, I do find it strange that you fault me for failing to welcome and educate the "newcomer"! Meanwhile, another blanket revert has been made Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree and disagree with Fences and windows. This appears to be a new user with possibly limited English skills, but this user has made it obvious that he is unwilling or unable to understand WP policies by using edits to ask How do I...? and Why can't I...? question and even to make complaints about WP process (see [245],[246], [247], [248], [249]).
• Since the user's most recent edit[250] is a reply on his own Talk page we know the user is now aware of it and thus has seen some of the helpful posts put there for new users as well as some of the rapidly accumulating warning templates. It may be that he never knew to look there and so I am going to assume good faith and say the clock starts with that edit [11:43, March 28, 2016] now that we know for a fact he has seen the Welcome advise.
• The reasons I disagree and why I use phrases like "appears to be a new user" and "possibly limited English skills" are these more sophisticated edits here and here which demonstrate better than average understanding of WP templates and table syntax, knowledge potentially far beyond the level of a user who uses article talk page edits to ask why? and how?.
• Additionally it cannot be ignored that this user is not as new as one would think since the AmitPaul23 account was actually created January 2, 2016 and the first and only thing the user did back then was create a substantial (albiet off-topic) Talk Page section on our beloved Main Page[251]. I think it is also notable that this single edit was done twenty-four days after creating the account, very non-typical behavior.
• Finally, and of great concern, is ANY user making edits on Islam-related articles while simultaneously leaving comments such as those in this edit which is both Islamophobic ("Muslms cannot be trusted") and a personal attack ("What kind of name is Andalusi, seems ISsupporter"). THAT behavior is potentially an ANI issue.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: There have been some rumors on possible links between that user and Misconceptions2 (who has a sock puppetry history), I think that would possibly, if true, coherently explain your 4^th point. I think investigating about that may reveal some possible connection.

20:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Since I am unfamiliar with these "rumors" please open an SPI on the subject at your convenience. Thanks. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry allegations belong at WP:SPI not here. Otherwise the first comment is approaching WP:NOTHERE levels. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Ricky81682. That is why I told CounterTime to open the SPI per procedure. User @MusikAnimal: may also be interested in this discussion for other reasons. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm monitoring the page and am not blocking anyone just yet... It's true that previous protections were with the disputed content intact (protecting current version is procedural). When it the content gets removed, we see new editors show up. AmitPaul23 in particular has now been given fair notice about relevant sanctions and warnings for edit warring — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  This had better do the trick. Page protected, this time with the disputed content removed. I want to see the other side engage in discussion, and when the time comes, seek formal closure. This has gone on long enough. Sockpuppetry or not we will find a true established consensus and put an end to this edit war, once and for all — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ricky81682, above, that the best place to present evidence for sockpuppetry would be to file a new case page at sock puppet investigations standard processes, where it will trigger analysis from outside admins to investigate the matter further. — Cirt (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten off-track. This ANI was opened about disruptive behavior, not socking. I agree an SPI, if needed, belongs elsewhere but that does not dismiss the legitimate original question on this page of editorial misconduct such as the all-too-clear anti-muslim comment ("Muslms cannot be trusted") and the thinly-veiled personal attack against Al-Andalusi, implying he/she might be an "ISsupporter" (terrorist) simply because their username sounds Arabic (see racial profiling). Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Mansfield Town F.C.

Conflict of interest paid editing account User:Matthewjoule is being used only for promotional purposes on Mansfield Town F.C.. Slow edit warring, adding the same promotional info without any discussion on the talk page, article ownership issues. Has been blocked before for his behaviour and repeatedly warned but carries on regardless. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't look good. From their talk page "As part of my role, I am required to keep the Mansfield Town FC and John Radford (businessman) pages up to date. Therefore, I will be continuing to edit the pages." As they have been reverted multiple times by several different users, yet continue to make the same edits (at least 10-15 times), I suggest a month-long block for now and an indefinite topic ban from Mansfield Town-related articles if other admins have no objections? Number 57 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 30 days. No objection to the topic ban. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for record, this editor has a major COI with this article as a simple search reveals they are the Media and Communications Assistant at Mansfield Town FC. Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If he can post accurate information and sources on the talk page, and let others post the information after it's verified, I've got no problem. But "It's correct because I say it's correct" just ain't gonna fly. I'll watchlist and see what they do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this analysis of best practice and suggested talk page usage by Ultraexactzz, above. Good recommendations. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Content removal

To ANI,

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

taking into account the previous warnings the editor has had on edit warring, I provide the following for the attention of those concerned with this issue:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Parsley+Man&project=en.wikipedia.org:

Total edits: 3,645,

Reverted edits: 68,

86.8% of edit total are Article edits.

Most edits done by this editor (first three listed):

• 369 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge -"The occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was an armed standoff in Harney County, Oregon, United States, between armed anti-government militants and county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies."
• 208 2016 Brussels bombings
• 177 2015 San Bernardino attack

I think this editor is dealing with subjects which complement each other, and keeping this editor would prove to be of benefit to wikipedia, because he has chosen to largely specialise in an area of editing which I've indicated. Unfortunately he has for some reason removed content, which to me seems unjustified in at least this particular case:

edit 20:21, 29 March 2016 - His father was born in 1949, in Oran, Algeria. (ref name=" Christophe273 ")

I decided to retain this information, and the reason I chose to give was "the french version has this info" - Le père de Salah Abdeslam est un Marocain né à Oran, en Algérie française, en 1949 - L. Christophe, « Salah Abdeslam, d’un vol raté à Limelette au carnage de Paris (PORTRAIT) » [archive], La Libre.be,‎ 19 mars 2016 (consulté le 27 mars 2016).

The editor in question has removed additional content which I see no reason to omit.

sincerely, 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just thought to add, my experience of this editor in contribution to Salah Abdeslam (please see https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Salah_Abdeslam&project=en.wikipedia.org - Top editors), prior to this issue, is he (/she...) has made a positive contribution to the editorial process. Which is of course a given, or else a notification would have been posted here earlier. This was his first edit on the article 02:20, 18 December 2015‎ Parsley Man (talk | contribs)‎ m - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salah_Abdeslam&offset=20160320010010&limit=500&action=history - 115 edits, 7 minor edits since then. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How is this an AN/I issue? Discuss it with him on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Content dispute. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and the heading of this page. Unless you are accusing The Other Editor of some sort of unacceptable behavior and provide evidence gor those transgressions in the form of links, this does not belong on WP:ANI. The fact that you don't see a reason, does not mean there aren't any (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP). Kleuske (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I started a discussion regarding the material I deleted on the talk page here. Parsley Man (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

About a Range block due to a "Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese)"

Hi. Note that I don't know much about range blocks. I accidentally tried to edit while logged out (which I never do for years) and I noticed that my IP is blocked. It is a range block, discussed here recently, at Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Six (at archive #918). The requested range was "2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*", and I sure do not know if that is a lot or not. But I do know that at least some of it belongs to MEO (Portugal), one of the largest ISPs in Portugal, because mine does. If the range is wide, it means that we are blocking non logged in editors from a possibly large portion of Portugal, for the duration of one month, because of some persistent disruptive user. It may be a bit harsh, no? (Again, kind-of-disclaimers: I don't know much about range blocks; and I am obviously from, and at, Portugal) - Nabla (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(pinging everybody, please add if I forgot someone: @Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, EvergreenFir, Oshwah, and Materialscientist: @SLBedit:)

• Nabla: It appears to be a soft rangeblock (rather than a hard rangeblock), so that means anyone who wishes to create a registered account from that IP range still can, and can edit that way. So no one is actually blocked form editing -- they are simply blocked from using IPs to edit. Also, your WP:PINGs didn't work, because you have to type four tildes at the very same time as you type and post the pings (and no, adding the tildes in a later post won't make the pings work.) Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, I did not knew that about the pings, thank you. (I'll re-read it). And so, here they go again. @Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, and EvergreenFir: @Oshwah, Materialscientist, and SLBedit:) Hi! Sure, the warning message said I/they may edit if they create an account. Nevertheless, it is allowed to edit using only an IP, and a potentially large part o my country lost that "right" for a month, because of some guy. It may be common blocking policy, that is something I don't follow often, but it looks kind of harsh - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Only ten IPs have edited using that range since September and they appear all to be the one person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Could be that the range covers a relatively small area - maybe the disruptive editor it is the guy next door to me :-) Anyway, if the edits are that rare, why a one month range block?... Maybe protecting a couple of pages would do. Oh well... I am not going to complain much about it. I just hope that people is aware that it is a ISPs IP, and the range MAY be a large part of a medium sized country. (Would we block a large part of, e.g., North Carolina, USA?) - Nabla (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Way too many pages to be protected, and, like Malcolmxl5 said, that IP range appears to have been used by the disruptive user only, since September. SLBedit (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A large number of IPs doesn't always mean a large number of users are affected. I've come across /16 IPv4 ranges where there's one, maybe two people on it. Since it's anon only, those with accounts can use it. If anyone wants to edit, they can go through the account creation process as noted on the block template. I don't think a month is too long of a block. Mike V • Talk 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is particularly true when we are dealing with IP v6 ranges, as we are here. For some reason that I don't understand, some ISPs allocate huge batches of IP addresses to just one connection, so that blocking a large number of IP addresses may actually affect very few people. I didn't place this block, but I have in the past placed blocks on very large IP v6 ranges, after I have checked the history, and found that all the edits that I can see from the range have clearly been from the same person. I have just checked the editing history of a couple of dozen IP addresses in the blocked range, over a period extending back to February 2015. By no means all of them appear to have been the disruptive editor who the block was intended to stop, but of those that weren't, every single edit that I saw was either vandalism, spam, or point-of-view pushing. That doesn't necessarily mean that there have been no constructive edits in the range, but it does suggest that if there are any then their number is very small, so that any collateral damage will probably be tiny in proportion to the benefit of the block. @Nabla: The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

IP: 86.154.103.86 / 81.131.172.210 / 81.131.171.81

An IP user with at least three IPs (86.154.103.86 / 81.131.172.210 / 81.131.171.81 ) has been persistently undoing the implementation of a long-discussed plan to consolidate redundant material that existed in a range of different articles. The plan was to remove the redundant material and place it in only one article, with links to that article from the others. An anonymous user who is obviously new to Wikipedia should not be allowed to disrupt this process.

Here are his attempts to block implementation:

[252]

[253]

[254] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBRV (talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi GBRV, the correct way to deal with an IP-hopper who is repeatedly disrupting an article is to go to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the article, explaining the reason. This will prevent IPs from editing the article. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• I semi-protected the article for a little while. But can I just say HOLY MOLY GBRV, you could have been a lot more clear. It's not until the last revert that a talk page is indicated where this discussion is to have taken place; there is nothing on the talk page of this article. You managed to place a templated alert on a bunch of IP talk pages, but on what IP talk page do I see an attempt to, you know, talk? Like to a human being? Because that's my last point, "an anonymous user can't just undo this agreement". We're all anonymous here. My real name is not Drmies. And there is nothing that somehow would allow a non-anonymous user (you mean "user with registered account") to undo some agreement--at least in this case, IPs and registered users are equal. Now please go and engage in conversation, not just in reverts and templated warnings. Why didn't you even mention the article in this posting? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: First of all, thank you for protecting the article. Secondly: The discussions occurred at the following subsection of the talk page, although it's mixed in with a lot of other stuff and doesn't mention the "Chronology of Jesus" article by name because there are so many articles which all contained the same material that needed to be consolidated (we didn't need to mention each article individually): [255]

But my objection to this IP's edits stemmed from the fact that he was trying to nullify decisions that had been made in a contentious debate that has gone on for months in several different articles, and which he had never bothered to participate in. If any random person can single-handedly nullify decisions, that pretty much negates any reason to negotiate these things in the first place. That's why his edits have been reverted by three different people. It's tremendously frustrating to have all this effort undone by one guy who doesn't even bother to take the time to register, and yet the rest of us are expected to spend extra time debating him and gaining his approval? Thank you again for protecting the article. GBRV (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

K.C. Pant and Sureshpandey

Sureshpandey (talk · contribs) has been editing the K.C. Pant page disruptively for more than a month now. Back in February, I tried to report him at AN3, but my report was not dealt with. Since that report, the editor has disclosed that he is part of a team of historians dealing with the Pant family, and has made multiple attempts to stop editors from editing his pages of interest (the sections below the one referenced to are also of use). The page history shows that Suresh has made edits, logged in and out, continuously reverting corrections of the issues on the article -- my particular vice is the look and feel of his edits. Here is his request on my talk page to stop me editing the page. Any help, action or advice would be appreciated. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly a good faith effort, with a lot of cultural misunderstanding (both internationally and regarding WP culture). It's good that they're archiving these photographs. More power to them. But I think there's a bit of a difference in expectation regarding online clutter. In my experience Indian sites do tend toward this kind of uber clutter as a norm, where western sites are more minimalistic. Maybe could use an RfC or something similar to bring third parties to bear? Probably good to explain WP:OWN. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm not entirely sure I agree with Malcolmxl5 in assuming WP:COI and discouraging editing at all. Seems a little WP:DONTBITE. Being an expert in a field doesn't automatically imply a necessary COI. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected if my reading of the situation is wrong. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the extended issue last year with No Gun Ri and CJHanley (ANI is buried somewhere here), where a lot of it boiled down to funneling behavior productively. But, just my two cents. I'm nobody important. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're as important as anyone on here. :) I'll remove my comments from the user's talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If standard dispute resolution processes have not yet been attempted, I would suggest Request for Comment process on the article talk page, with pre-formatted sections on the talk page when you start the RFC one for previously-involved and another for previously-uninvolved-editors, to gain some further insight into the article and how to hopefully constructively move forward with additional outside input. — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, maybe not so good faith, there seems to be IP edits that are editing only K.C Pant or LLa Pant and KC Pant that pretty much revert back to the version Sureshpandey put in, I saw at least 3 of them, all trace back to New Delhi, all edit no where else except K.C Pant and/or Lla Pant | this one edited K.C pants 1 time and no where else , | this one edited Lla Pant and K.C Pant, 1 each and no where else , | this one also edited only K.C pants and reverted back to Sureshpandey's version . The | history of that page shows more I.P reverts, interestingly enough, Sureshpandy's behavior is to post as sureshpandy, but most of the time, revert with an I.P, some of the edit summaries say they're reverting someone and they always revert back to sureshpandy's version. Since there's no hardcore evidence this individual is socking deliberately, I'd recommend semi-protection due to edit warring on this article for a bit. KoshVorlon 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPI would be a good place to investigate that type of sockpuppet behavior pattern further by additional eyes. — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I am more familiar with the user's behaviour at Govind Ballabh Pant, where he has also added image clutter that swamps the page [256]. Any attempt to delete the images meets with a form response on other users' talk pages, and the user reinstates all of them immediately. This is an WP:SPA that cares nothing about Wikipedia consensual editing. Some form of warning to the user to seek consensus would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, he is trying to be contributive, but for the sole purpose of the Pant family articles. This leaves room for some dogged-ness over the content, which could make agreement difficult, but there is also the fault on my behalf for neglecting paths which are more constructive than continuously reverting, and perhaps leaving an explanation in the edit summary, where it is necessary. If this continues to occur beyond this, I will be clearer about the issues and the consequences of ignoring my concerns. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that the photographs he's uploaded are legit and usable, may be a fair compromise to put one of those mini galleries at the bottom of the pages. No idea what they're actually called. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

They are just called galleries (using the <gallery></gallery> markup), but Wikimedia Commons itself serves the purpose of a gallery. There is an additional issue of copyright here -- have images like File:Mr._K.C._Pant_with_Mikhail_Gorbachev.jpg really been published under CC-BY-SA 4.0? Or did one just 'tick all the needed boxes'? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an unknown category? Honest question. My few WM uploads have been pretty cut and dry. What happens when I get my grandma's old pics and upload them? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is the opportunity to place them in a new category, so K. C. Pant or my grandma's old pictures for example. Then, you can link to these images at the bottom of the Wikipedia page (have you seen this before? I don't know the template name to do this though). ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 05:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

[1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please look at this edit in particular [257] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [258]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [259]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [260] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[261]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [262] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.

You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [263] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [264]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [265] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [266] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.

And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.

As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[267]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)

But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [268]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[269] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.

I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

A month ago I was blissfully unaware of Jytdog. Then he caused a car crash at the RepRap project article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [270][271] and this ANI thread. Today he's suggesting I need to get a "Moron Diploma".

Both of these show just the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with editors and their work dismissed as "Garbage content based on garbage sources".

I noticed this today at User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning. As those with long memories will know, there is little love lost between Wtshymanski and myself, but I've always recognised that he knew his subject - a courtesy clearly not being extended by Jytdog here.

As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with beryllium. He proceeded to 4RR edit war to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the vast numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.

The main problem though is less what he did and more how he goes about it. Just take a look at the talk page comments, accusing Wtshymanski of edit-warring and my talk page (14 posts tonight!). See also WP:RSN#Documents uploaded to ScribD. This battlegrounding is just not acceptable here - other editors, even myself, just do not deserve this bile from Jytdog. This is far from a new problem either, ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.

I removed one sentence (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - here is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.

As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has commented there many times; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which he had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.

As I did at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and not follow me around picking fights. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.

About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page here his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I had written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was here. I removed it before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it). His inappropriate comments still stand.

And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.

Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It is true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.

I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Does this look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. here is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-in-the-citations content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Possible trout in response to Jytdog's initial action(s), boomerang for the filer of this report as frivolous and pointy as well as his own obvious battleground behavior that escalated things needlessly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well hello again Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media.) Andreas JN466 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not what he does that's the problem it's how he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is not the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.

Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply wrong? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on acute beryllium poisoning is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is not a positive outcome to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For a complaint about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... WP:BATTLEGROUND-y. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• FFS. Guys, the content looks perfectly acceptable but it does not seem to me to belong in the lede, as it's distinctly niche. Please read WP:LAME, bury the hatchet and move on. We have enough trouble fighting off the nutters without taking lumps out of each other over things where reasonable people might differ. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of CaptainYuge over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that he had decided were unfit to edit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment
  • Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
  • Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
  • Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad (version before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS (version when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You say " I have no desire to be in this discussion. " at Talk: as if that's a good thing. You're great at seagull management, but you refuse to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.

As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an occupational condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.

This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will just say here that you are getting no traction with this vitriol, and if you continue like this, you are heading for a one-way i-ban. I don't want to edit anywhere near you, or interact with you. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the comment by Alexbrn who aptly stated regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND problems with the filer of this report: "For a complaint about BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... BATTLEGROUND-y." In addition, Winkelvi is correct by pointing out that WP:BOOMERANG could be applicable here regarding the filer for WP:POINT disruption. I've looked over the relevant article history and evidence presented above and agree with Jytdog that these comments DIFF 1 and DIFF 2 on the talk page are disruptive and harm the community's ability to improve the article. Jytdog should be commended for efforts to improve the site with regards to application of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic long-term IP editor

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

---

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

This user performs lots of mildly constructive edits, frequently peppered with unsourced and incorrect information. Has received many warnings on their talk page, but there has been no response or change in behavior. Examples of bad edits from just the last week or so: [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] A block of at least 48 hours or so might help send the message. Toohool (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, he's received five TP warnings, including two final warnings, in the last three weeks. So unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance (like he comes here to this thread and agrees to stop the problematic/disruptive editing), he probably does need a block or else he's just going to continue. He also needs to always leave an edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours to prevent further disruption. Listef (klat) 10:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs)

Topic-banned SPA. Persistent blatant incivility. IMO this response must be the last straw. WP:NOTHERE Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The only edit that isn't immediately obvious WP:ADVOCACY is this one, and this response has me wondering about that. This makes it pretty clear that's what they're here for, but that's before the topic ban. This and this are absolutely unacceptable, and I'm leaving them a message about that.

The incivility started after the topic ban, and although related, is technically a different problem. I do agree that they're WP:NOTHERE and will be indefinitely blocked shortly, but I'm inclined to give another foot of WP:ROPE so as to leave no excuse.

EDIT: I see that some incivility has come up before, but they're now at the final warning for that and for the topic ban. If they cross the line on either and I'm on, I'll block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to waste more rope... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I don't agree. It's been about a week since the TB was enacted, and all that I see in this editor's contribs is some attempts to appeal or fight back against or figure out the scope of the topic ban. I don't think we should consider that as necessarily problematic. I do agree that this editor is probably NOTHERE, but I generally disapprove of the idea of penalizing editors for requesting review of administrative decisions except where there's been a pattern of abusive or vexatious requests (and even then I'm not crazy about the idea). If Beautifulpeoplelikeyou keeps mucking about in content areas connected with the topic ban then absolutely lower the boom. But until that happens—and I think the Rare earth industry in China edit isn't obvious enough to count—we should give another foot or so of rope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When an admin explains that no, they really *will* enact the topic ban, and as a result gets called a "worthless idiot", that's evidence that the user has absolutely no intention of becoming a constructive contributor. Even fighting against the limits of the ban just shows that they intend to try to circumvent it, or make it smaller by Salami tactics. It is clear evidence of bad faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an argument in there, but in my view it's entirely dwarfed by the problem that we'd have by rendering topic bans not subject to appeal. Things happen. And editors with low levels of experience in administrative matters are going to make mistakes in trying to appeal things. I cannot see enforcing a topic ban solely on the grounds that he disagrees with the topic ban once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Appealing against a topic ban, and throwing insults around you, are two different things. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• comment His incivilities bother much more than anything here. Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They bother me, too, which is why I'm still keeping my finger on the trigger. While I am not 110% in agreement with Mendaliv, I do see the incivility and the topic ban as two issues they're at their final warning on. If they were at final warnings for a couple additional problems, I'd add them up. But right now, it's not enough IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, my personal view on this is that sanctioned editors are expected to kick back against the admins, and we are expected to have a fairly thick skin, but not infinitely thick. In this case I would be wary of taking action unless @Spartaz: asks for it. This is at the outer edges of "mere vulgar abuse", if Spartaz requested a block for NPA then I would support it, but otherwise I'd leave the guy to burn out on his own. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree with Guy, responding to this rather childish behaviour simply validates his narrative and I left it because I'm happy being the better person here. My guess is that they will fade away on their own without need for us to give him more drama to react against. That fading will be quicker if they are simply left to vent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Spartaz: Your points seemed much interesting to me. Being the better person! Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Guy and Spartaz. People get pissed off when they get sanctioned. If he keeps it up, then we can look towards further sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• His mind is being controlled by some electromagnetic torture. Cut him some slack. There are lots of eyes on him now. A new faux pas can garner a block, now that he has been warned on all fronts, but for now just keep an eye out. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

178.217.194.100's long-term edit warring and continued addition of unsourced statistics

Last year, Jolly Janner and I repeatedly tried to explain to 178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at User talk:178.217.194.100 the need to source additions of statistics to demography articles. The editor largely ignored our advice, and engaged in edit warring. As well as adding statistics without sources, their additions are often poorly formatted, they have ignored repeated advice about the correct use of commas for thousand separators and full stops for decimal points, and the edits are likely in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I noticed today that the editor has resumed their behaviour, restoring unsourced material that was recently removed from the Demographics of France article and re-adding statistics about England and Wales to Demography of England that were previously removed. I think that enough is enough and some action needs to be taken to stop this disruptive behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that wasn't reverted? Jolly Ω Janner 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to advice about correct formatting, suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a fairly long block and a six-month topic ban on stats charts. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch not abiding by consensus

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

---

We have clear consensus HERE to replace extremely cherrypicked content of Ms Sarah Welch with some basic content from 2 academic books. However Ms Sarah Welch refuses to abide by the consensus.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, you do not--you have one drive-by commentator who agrees with you. And might I suggest toning down the rhetoric a bit--"extremely"? Since you do not have any clear consensus, this is a content issue--good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a content dispute, where @VictoriaGrayson has argued, "WP:CONSENSUS does override Wikipedia policies. See WP:IAGR." Such right to revoke wikipedia's core content policies/guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:LEAD etc, for specific wikipedia articles, just because one relatively new editor agreed with @VictoriaGrayson, is unusual and needs community wide discussion at the very least. Few days ago, I already invited @VictoriaGrayson to add Nicholson's view to the article. Before this ANI was filed, I have offered to do that, if @VictoriaGrayson wants me to add summary from Nicholson. I suggest we let this content dispute return to the article's talk page, and let it get resolved through the due process and a collaborative effort. FWIW, I believe @VictoriaGrayson is a valued contributor to Buddhism/Hinduism/Indic articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Long Page is Long

This page is longer than normal, someone more competent at wiki type things than me should archive some of it. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@86.170.7.13: Hello! This is no need to archive this page, (if this is the one you are talking about), because it is automatically updated by a bot. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 19:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This. Also, this time of year is generally a little busy, with kids on spring break, April Fools running about, and general chaos. The bot will sort it out - maybe twice or three times, for extra excitement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine I suppose. Bonus Question - why is there no article about longcat? 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody has made one yet. ansh666 22:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another user posting Personal information on my talk page

A previously unknown user has requested I send them a Barnstar. I am mindful it is April 1st, so I posted that I would not unless they were Rachel Riley (relating to their username), and posted their phone number to me. They have posted a phone number, which I suspect needs to be be removed. I'm not asking for any other action at this point, so I have not pinged the user. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully Oversight will get back to me shortly. I've notified them of the situation. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there is no way that phone number could be the phone number of the person who is the subject of the BLP. It's at most just the phone number of the editor who posted it voluntarily, so there's nothing to oversight I think. I've deleted the whole thing. I think it was just April 1 trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is the phone number of the user (rather than the BLP subject), it is personal information. In the case of young editors, this information is suppressed as soon as possible. I am unsure what the procedure is when the user is ostensibly over the age of majority. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh I see! I had not considered for one second that the number was the real number of the BLP. I was more worried that the number might be the real number of the User and I thought this was contrary to policy about posting personal information. I'm happy whether it is deleted or suppressed. My motivation here is to protect the user who I suspect might not be aware enough of WP to protect themselves. 21:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It could be either/or, DrChrissy. Not sure if this was a mistake, but your name is not displayed within your above comment. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that the editor could be a minor, but the editing history is entirely about trolling. Perhaps a block actually should be considered, even though it is not why this filing was made. The simplest solution would probably be for an admin to revdel what I already deleted, and then everyone just moves on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoken like a true ARBCOM member (hee hee April 1st)[280]. I agree with that entirely. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, that's insulting! Now we need revdel! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

<outdent>Revisions deleted. Any personal phone number is generally oversighted, so we await OS action. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I stand corrected. (And not for the first time, either!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New user, same troubles.

Recently blocked user Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs) (see thread) has created a new account: Nouman arbaz khan (talk · contribs), continuing the same behavior, and also writing on the old users user-page, asking to be unblocked. I pointed him at the talk page, but I doubt it will help. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that any assumption of good faith has gone out of the window now. An indef block is in order. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's bad faith, it's lack of WP:COMPETENCE. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)