Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"

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

---

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[4] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose At worst he got into an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile), but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating WP:3RR (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand WP:NONENG and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when WP:NONENG was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --Obsidi (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. fi (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only English source that he removed did not support the statement (sense been corrected by a different editor). --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely, 100% false as I've already explained three times now, here and on the article's talk page. fi (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per clearly WP:NOTHERE "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a WP:SPA purely to WP:POVPUSH his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure until reading the objections, but now it's clear that this is all pretty disingenuous, and that some people are just repeating the same falsehoods in defense of this user, no matter what anyone says. Five years is plenty of time for someone to change their behavior. fi (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia works best if people question flaky citations, and that is what Darkstar1st has been doing. Finx and Mrjulesd feel threatened by that and so are campaigning to have Darkstar1st blocked. This is wrong. Various editors have looked into their objections to Darkstar1st, and found that the accusations did not really stand up. Mrjulesd claimed that Darkstar1st was edit warring in a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI), but when I looked into the accusations, the case against Darkstar1st had been overstated, and Finx and Mrjulesd had edit-warred just as much on the page in question as Darkstar1st, and none of them had broken the 3 revert rule. As for accusations of POV pushing - Finx and Mrjulesd make statements like: "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians"!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the context on that quote, which is totally and verifiably true in context (as explained in the article on anarchist a.k.a. libertarian communism), see this discussion thread started by Darkstar1st's wanting to remove libsoc from the article on libertarianism. I find it hilarious that I'm supposed to be in some kind of conspiracy with Mrjulesd, who only stepped into this matter after seeing it on ANI, AFAIK. fi (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look if we're all wrong he really needs to come to ANI to defend his position, and give an explanation for his editing patterns. These are serious allegations, his lack of input here is plainly unsatisfactory. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Have we really been discussing this problem for five years? I think that's enough time to come to a decision. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support with WP:STANDARDOFFER, which would of course entail a topic ban if he were ever reinstated. If someone so clearly WP:NOTHERE is to get the message, he needs an indef ban. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, why are people complaining that Darkstar1st removed political labels which had no reference? Finx is adding labels with no reference or bad references, so Finx is breaking policy, not Darkstar1st. Spumuq (talq) 12:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Where have I done this? None of those labels were originally added by me and I was usually not the first to revert their removal. I did provide sources on four occasions: three from the concerned parties' own publications, one from a respected American academic and authority on regional politics and several others on talk pages (from pertinent and well known political journals, Kevin Carson's think tank, etc). I'm not sure where I broke policy. fi (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of articles about socialist groups are old and have few if any references. Your first example, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum) is entirely unsourced. Rather than improve articles on socialism, Darkstar1st has decided to remove any reference to libertarianian in them, believing that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible. He has also as mentioned above removed sources before deleting text, and argues that reliable sources are using incorrect translations when they call foreign groups libertarian. But it is no defense at ANI to say one is right - that is an issue of content that should be decided in the relevant content noticeboards. Right or wrong, editors must work collaboratively with others, which Darkstar1st vehemently refuses to do. TFD (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. If you look at (for example) Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party you will see useful collaborative behaviour by Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, Finx and other editors that resulted in better citations in the article. None of that would have happened if Darkstar1st had not questioned a the citation to the statement that the party were socialist libertarians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is just the latest in a succession of clueless campaigns of POV editing and WP:IDONTHEAR from Darkstar1st. For example he has repeatedly tried to insert ill-sourced contentious material about Paul Krugman and other left-of-center figures, and he tried repeatedly to portray Adolf Hitler and Nazism as a leftist socialist. Check his contributions if you wish to familiarize yourself with his history. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions are very rarely wise, and I see no evidence that this is an exception. Wikipedia does not benefit from removing editors of disparate opinions, and I see no reason why this should be an exception from that precept either. Collect (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Even if some edits aren't technically against the rules (such as deleting unsourced), Rules are principles, and the larger impact has been disruptive and not intended to improve the wiki. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment It looks like this will go the way of no-consensus. Perhaps ArbCom would be better if both sides of the argument have issues with one another? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Normally i would agree with you, but have you looked at his history? See the content in "Examples of past disruption" below. This is long term abuse. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's apparent from a little research that routinely getting honest editors banned is used as a tactic to remove them from the consensus pool, resulting in a consensus of a dedicated few for politically motivated bias in several articles. This attempt is just another example of this effort. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Blue Eyes Cryin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:BlueEyesCryin seems to be a single-purpose account, thus a tag seems appropriate per WP:SPA. El duderino ^(abides) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So far all you have have done is contributed to Talk:Libertarianism a few times, an active interest of User:Darkstar1st. And you support his views. That and two userspace posts, and this post here. Are you in anyway connected to User:Darkstar1st? It looks a lot like a sock account. Maybe WP:SPI will be interested. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then take it up with WP:SPI. Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned, too, strengthening the consensus for the politically motivated bias I pointed out above. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned" are you admitting it then? Btw can't you realise you've doing been doing wrong? It's one thing to have political views, but it's another thing completely to try to bias WP articles for your cause. If you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS you're in the wrong place. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Your false and dishonest accusations and bullying tactics won't work on me. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment just in case anyone thinks this is recent behaviour take a look at the archive [5]. Here are a few choice examples:

• Support the ban, clearly Darkstar1st is unable to edit neutrally on contentious topics. I recall seeing their name as a part of the (relevant?)Tea Party arbcom procedures where, afaict, they seemed to have escaped direct sanctions -- yet should have taken that inclusion as a clear warning. El duderino ^(abides) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Regrettable support All other measures have failed to deter Darkstar from tendentious editing. A site ban will prevent further disruption from him, and also deter future editors from following a similar path. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose nowhere has anyone shown that the edits were wrong. If we want people to be WP:BOLD and require WP:RS and removal of material that isn't sourced ought to be common practice - why we retain unsourced junk is beyond me, but no one's removal of it ought to get him or her banned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I echo Carlos S. Some of the evidence against Darkstar1 relates to his attempt to correct a listing of the World Socialist Party as "libertarian socialist." WSP is Marxist, yes. It is part of the Impossibilist tradition, for those of you familiar with the concept. It might even be spun as "Anti-Leninist" and certainly has taken a role critical of Soviet-style socialism. But "libertarian socialist"?!? I just had a look at the WP piece Libertarian Marxism and it is one of the biggest crocks of original research BS that I've seen on Wikipedia... All DS1 did is put up a "citation needed" template for that extremely........dubious....... categorization of the WSP. Kudos. I'd have removed it altogether if I were editing the piece. In short: this smells like the steamrolling of an inconvenient editor rather than addressing an authentic NOTHERE issue. I don't see anything rising to the level of a site ban. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the label or not, there's plenty of sources, from at least as early as 1963 calling the WSM and WSPUS "libertarian socialist." fi (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, but with a short leash attacked. Edit warring non-English sources out of an article is not a particularly good idea unless you're very, very sure they don't say what's claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Chaulin humberto tuteto

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

---

• Chaulin humberto tuteto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps creating problematic articles, then removing the various deletion templates that come as the result of problematic article creation.

• Removal of AfD templates: [6][7]

• Removal of PROD templates: [8][9]

• Restoring article after AfD result was to convert article to redirect: [10].

I seem to recall the user removing speedy delete templates, but I believe those might have disappeared when the related articles were deleted. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• As Chaulin humberto tuteto has been blocked numerous times in the past, it is evident that he has not learned his lesson. Therefore, I recommend for him to be blocked indefinitely. - Areaseven (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Minor nitpick: It's not against policy to remove a {{prod}}. "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." the template says. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A valid nitpick. Given the other behavioral matters, specifically his removal of AfD templates and CSD templates (which I can't find b/c I don't have access to deleted articles), what I'm painting is a portrait of an editor who submits sub-par content, has a personal interest in keeping it up, so he removes templates to support his personal preference. The user has not discussed any of these removals, nor has the editor participated in any of the AfDs. They're avoiding consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user also refuses to add sources when editing [11][12] in spite of numerous requests on their talk page to do so. The Toy Story 2 content linked here seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what sort of content is noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Reruns of an English language film on Spanish language network Telemundo does not qualify as noteworthy, particularly when there is no context to explain significance. WP:TVINTL discourages this for TV shows, and MOS:FILM#Release seems to discourage it as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user has also made an unapproved redirect of an article: [13]. - Areaseven (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing User:Chaulin humberto tuteto's editing history, I agree that their edits are problematic. And their persistent failure to discuss or communicate is the ultimate disruption. I have a placed a 3-month block on the account -- with some slim hope that they might begin to communicate with other editors. Should they return and continue the same behavior, I would have no problem extending the block for an indefinite period due to issues of competency. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:C.Syde65 Loves Me!

Hi

Can we block as impersonation of User:C.Syde65. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I left the {subst:ANI-notice} template on their talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely. Nakon 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an obvious sock of someone but I cant find the SPI to add it to the list of. Amortias (T)(C) 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A list of the other sock-puppets belonging to this user can be found here. They've been causing trouble for me and a couple of other editors of the Sims wiki. Since then, they have tracked me and another Sims wiki editor down here on the wikipedia. They have also tracked me down at ModtheSims, and various other wikis that I contribute to, including my test wiki.

I've already had to report this user to wikia staff. I can block this user and their sock-puppets on my test wiki, and I can add them to my ignore list at ModtheSims. But other than that, this is a situation which I am unable to deal with alone. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should file a sockpuppet report and get a checkuser involved, so that the underlying IP can be blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already reported him to wikia staff, and his IP addresses have been blocked across the wikia network, along with some of his accounts on wikia. However I don't know whether this affects his ability to edit in the wikipedia network. Also from what I've seen, 1) he probably edits from more than one IP address, 2) his IP addresses are dynamic, or 3) wikia staff have not disabled his IP range to the point where he is unable to edit while logged in. Who knows? I guess we'll just have to block each account of his that comes along. It would be tedious, but according to a message I got from wikia staff several months before, it does eventually help. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again. This user has been at it for months, if not years. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at these links, I see I am the third user to suggest filing at WP:SPI so as to get a check-user involved. Perhaps there's the possibility of blocking the underlying IPs or doing a range block. We can place blocks that prevent anyone from creating new accounts from a given IP or IP range. Blocks placed at Wikia have no effect on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I unfortunately don't feel quite ready to file a report at WP:SPI myself. I thought that blocks placed at wikia would have had no effect on this wiki. But it would be good to have a range block here, since what they're doing here is more annoying than what they're doing on wikia. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Blocks on Wikia have zero effect here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia and Wikia are two different websites hosted on different servers.

As for the SPI, I may file one myself when I have time. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I realized that, although I hadn't really given this fact some real thought until now. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The user's IP range was blocked from editing the Sims wiki. I repeated this action on my test wiki. It seems that they're still able to edit from their IP addresses while logged in, which creates the impression that they're managing to get around the range blocks. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because it's Wikia, not Wikipedia. Remember that they're two different websites. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I know. What I was thinking was that maybe if Wikipedia blocked his IP range, then it might stop him from disrupting us here. What he's doing here is far more annoying than what he does on wikia. Because it's obvious that if he tries to disrupt me on my test wiki, I'll just block him, and if he tries to disrupt anyone on the Sims wiki, one of the admins will block him. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP range block doesn't stop people from using proxies on a different range to bypass the block (proxies are, by the way, strictly forbidden here). Secondly, I'm not sure if you truly understand the severity of the situation, as this user is being more than just annoying. A number of their revisions had to be hidden due to legal issues. I did send an email to legalwikimedia.org but got no response.

Oh, and can you please stop mentioning your test wiki? Like, nobody cares what you do on your own little corner of the web. What matters more is what happens here. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• @K6ka:, @C.Syde65:, Found this: K6kaAndC.Syde65AreSexy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do understand the severity of the issue. My biggest fear was if they were somehow able to trick wikia staff into believing that we were impersonating them, not the other way around. The account "C.Syde55" was globally disabled because I asked wikia staff to do it. Think what might have happened if the imposter had beaten me to it.

The user is being more than just annoying, but as long as nothing they do works, and if the really bad things they do get removed from the public eye, it can't be fatal, can it? I wasn't fully aware that IP proxies were forbidden here. I know I shouldn't mention my test wiki, but I felt I needed another reference. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Wikia Staff aren't stupid. Since you have 1. No history of cross-wiki vandalism and 2. I've reported numerous sockpuppets to them already, you will not be blocked yourself if someone shows up with a username similar to yours, unless you openly disclose that said account belonged to you. A CheckUser will most likely prove that the account doesn't belong to you. If you have not been socking, that's what the CU will prove 99% of the time.

Again, saying that this isn't "fatal" isn't understanding the true severity of the situation. The issue is not physical abuse, but mental abuse and online harassment, which often flies under the radar. We have reached a point where I have had to send an email to Wikimedia's legal department. How is that "if nothing they do works [...] it can't be fatal"? The issue here is not a user going on a murdering spree, but the user cyberbullying online users. Cyberbullying is not okay, and it should not be taken lightly. Mental and emotional abuse takes time and is not immediately evident to other people, and even less so over the Internet. Someone that doesn't show any symptoms now could show those symptoms ten or fifteen years in the future. We're here to show this user that cyberbullying is not okay and what they're doing right now will have consequences. Annoying? Yes. Serious? Absolutely. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K6kaisasockpuppet. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just not easily shaken by cyberbullying, since I've trained myself to let it bounce off me, or otherwise just ignore it. I still understand that cyberbullying is not okay, and I wholeheartedly agree on the idea of trying to show this user that cyberbullying is not okay, even if they know it already.

So there's no chance of me being accused of being an im-poster. I thought it might not have been the case, but all the same, I couldn't help but feel a little concerned. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My main account is Fredfiggglehorn and all the socks are by him!!!!!! K6ka1 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author)

Note: Previous AN/I thread

Could an admin please visit this article and determine if temporary page protection is necessary while a BLP dispute is resolved? One editor appears intent on repeatedly re-inserting contentious, negative "opinions" about the living person simply because those opinions were found in blogs, op-eds, books, etc. Over the objections of several other editors, the editor keeps reverting any attempt to bring the content into BLP and NPOV policy compliance. When the problematic content was moved to the Talk page for discussion and dispute resolution, he re-inserted it again without addressing concerns. The subject of the article is a vocal critic of religion, most recently of Islam, so it doesn't help that this is a current event hot topic. This one editor has spent the past week inserting various forms of insinuated racism, bigotry, warmongering, Islamophobia, Jewish tribalism, academic dishonesty, right-wing ideologue fascism, etc., with no regard for impartiality or balance.

Disclosure: I'm one of the involved editors at the article. While there have been no technical violations of 3RR, there is still edit warring, and the ratio of productive discourse—to—reverting is not encouraging. And now there appears to be personal sniping. This matter is also related to the above open issue, but since no one reads the top half of this noticeboard anymore, I thought I would renew attention by requesting a single specific action: temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out that concerns have been made about that user's behavior just this morning in that previous thread. Despite being warned just a few days ago the personal attacks and defamatory comments have yet to cease and an administrator hasn't responded. You can view those concerns in the update section.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

I've noted this WP:FORUMSHOPPING thread and have no qualms about indicating that it is yet another iteration in a continual string of disruptive, POV pushing WP:GAMING in relation to the content dispute described by Xenophrenic.

This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it's kind of ridiculous for you to accuse Xenophrenic of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you brought the current debate on the Sam Harris article to this noticeboard first, don't you think? With regard to Harris article, I see one editor pushing a biased POV and one editor being disruptive by working against consensus and making spurious claims of bad behavior by other editors. That editor is you, Ubikwit. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11:} Don't you think one thread is enough?

You and I are obviously on the opposite sides of the content dispute, and you and Xenophrenic have been editing that page since long before I arrived (not the case for LM2000). Accordingly, you and Xenophrenic might be partially responsible for the promotional bloat of primary sourced text in the article, but you are certainly responsible for excluding critical material while including all sort of vacuous praise from like-minded atheists, etc. That is an inverse form of POV pushing, because the end result is that you and Xenophrenic and other people trying to exclude reliably sourced criticism in violation of NPOV are skewing the article. Remember, it was you that deleted a Political section including RS material related to characterizations of "right-wing neoconservative policies" and "the national security state" and replaced that section with a "Social and economic politics"[14]. I have already indicated to you in a very civil manner that you have a competence issue with respect to the article, yet you persist in trying to push your ill-informed POV at me while conflating religion and politics, disparaging academic sources and professors of history and theology, etc. I'm through talking to you per WP:DENY. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I've made a lot of edits to the Sam Harris article, but they have be mostly of the maintenance, copy-editing variety. I'm not responsible for any of the bloat in the article, nor am I really reasonable for writing much, if any, of the substantive content.

Xenophrenic made it clear that he has created this thread in an attempt to renew attention to the issue since it may have been buried here. Whatever the case, you are evading the hypocrisy of your WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusation. Your claim about my competence is ridiculous. I am very well-versed with Sam Harris's work and its criticism. I understand that some people like to treat religion and politics as if they are two entirely different animals, but it is a fact the religions in questions here are political and that the politics of religious people are informed by their religious beliefs. More generally, just because different departments on a college campus tend to reside in different buildings, that doesn't mean the things they study are actually disparate. And we're not beholden to honor that academic silo-ing in every section of every article on Wikipedia, particularly when the subject is a person who has made criticisms of religions that focus in large part on the real-world, political impact of religion. I deleted the "Political" section because it was a poorly-defined, redundant concoction that you designed to serve as repository for an unbalanced assault on Harris that includes defamatory commentary. The consensus of involved editors at the article seems to agree with my assessment and action.

If anyone lacks competence, it's you with regard to your poor understanding and application of various Wikipedia principles, e.g when you claimed that my talk page commentary constituted original research—an utter contradiction in terms—or just now with your FORUMSHOPPING accusation, of which you either lack the sensibility to understand or the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I had NAC'd this because a request for arbitration was opened, but since that seems to be headed toward being declined (5 decline votes at this time), I've re-opened it for further community comment. BMK (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've withdrawn the request for arbitration. Is there any way to combine this thread with the related thread that preceded it[15]?
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to cut and paste that very long thread here. Links should be sufficient. BMK (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed another disturbing comment by Xenophreic that I missed

Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree?[16]

That kind of analogy is simply unacceptable. It is uncivil and represents a battlefield mentality. The fact that there was no BLP violation in the quote had already been determined on the relevant BLP/N thread[17], and the assertion that I was advancing a narrative of "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" is a personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you found a source which said "Willis Warf says George Gnarh is a pedophile" - would you find it remotely usable as a source for a claim in Gnarph's BLP "Gnarph has been called a pedophile"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for me in your edit summary. Your hypothetical scenario is not analogous, so it is curious that you would repeat the personal attack in order to try to defend Xenophrenic's grossly insulting and offensive post, which needs to be revdeleted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As I did not "repeat the personal attack" but you were the only one who "repeated the personal attack" I m a tad bemused by your post supra. And I believe if you want something revdeled which you iterate, there is a logical disconnect. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My question to you, Ubikwit, was absolutely civil and in no way a personal attack. If you find the analogies disturbing, then they have served their purpose in conveying to you how offensive some of your edits and proposed edits are. You have repeatedly argued to insert the caustic opinions of a few critics into a biography of a living person, with disregard for Wikipedia policies:

• On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like (insert opinion piece calling the subject a racist) [18]
• The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis. (insert opinion piece in which the writer says he doesn't want to discuss the subject's racism, but his bigotry and irrational anti-Muslim animus). [19]
• The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent. (insert quote from The Independent saying that someone accused the subject of racism) [20]
• Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. ... It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution. Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc. [21]
• As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. [22]

You inserted the contentious opinion that Harris is Muslim-bashing because he is Jewish here, and simultaneously edit-warred to categorize the avowed atheist as "Jewish". That's not a personal attack, that is substantiated fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am upset over the ArbCom forumshopping exercise and other examples of tendentiousness from one editor at this point. 40,000 characters cumulative edits on Sam Harris' BLP alone (much of which is essentially refusing to admit he has no support for his edits, so he keeps adding them in, over and over and over). 24,000 characters on noticeboards in 3 days. Over 60,000 characters on the SH talk page in under one week. When an editor hits over 120,000 characters in under a single week without apparently managing to get any support from other editors, I suspect "tendentious" is applicable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom as forumshopping, that's funny.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what it was. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Does an administrator want to touch this issue? DGG expressed surprise that this has been able to go on as long as it has. Ubikwit has already been warned in the previous AN/I thread but the behavioral problems have not subsided. Just to recap: we have now had two threads on AN/I, two RfCs, one declined ArbCom case, one BLP/N thread and nobody has voiced support for Ubikwit's edits. He edit-warred and attempted to reinsert contentious material into the BLP 16 times. There is a detailed account of Ubikwit's bad behavior personal attacks in the subsection of the thread linked at the top, this was compiled after Robert McClenon warned him. Ubikwit has failed to interpret basic policy correctly; besides the obvious DUE, BRD, CONSENSUS and NPOV issues, he accused Jweiss11 of WP:OR for critiquing his comments on the talk page. He has also claimed that practically everybody on the talk page is lacking WP:COMPETENCE. After previously being warned here that this was a content dispute in the first thread, he took this to ArbCom where it was declined for (among other reasons) being a content dispute; then he projects his WP:FORUMSHOPPING onto others.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic involves current events involving religion, violence and a bit of contention. That alone will ward off a lot of volunteers from getting involved, but it isn't as bad as some of the issues above. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources and other editors

First of all, I was not warned in the above-linked AN/I thread, so LM2000 is simply repeating the lie to that effect from his statement at the request for arbitration statement[[23]]. @Robert McClenon: suggested that the thread be closed with a warning to me before I responded to the concerns and posted more details about a couple of problematic editing issues. The thread was not closed, and calls for a BOOMERANG ignored. Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit[24] reverting to his preferred version including [[WP:PEACOCK|peacocky}} paraphrasing based on a one-off comment in a non-mainstream source, and a self-serving one-off quote from a primary source. The mainstream view is obfuscated by the text. Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)'s disposition toward advocacy on this article is revealed by the contradictions in his statement at the request for arbitration[25], which I briefly characterized in relation to his repeated removal of criticisms based on the political ramifications of Harris statements[26] because he doesn't like them. Regarding Collect's allegation of forumshopping at ArbCom, note that @NativeForeigner: has indicated that he would be willing to look at this in that forum should the community processes fail to resolve the dispute[27]. So I'm back here at AN/I working through the community channels, but the request was not seen as frivolous, just premature. I should hope that there would be some input from uninvolved admins here soon on this second AN/I thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Three uninvolved users told you that you brought a content dispute to AN/I, Robert McClenon described your behavior as a "tantrum" and suggested you receive a strong warning. He also gave you a warning on your talk page regarding your behavior on BLP issues. You acknowledged the warning but denied any wrongdoing and continued to edit war and dump massive amounts of contentious material into the BLP.LM2000 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are arguing semantics. That first AN/I thread should have been a wake-up call and unfortunately it was not.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement I made in requesting arbitration is here.

@LM2000: An alert regarding discretionary sanctions is not a warning. Your comment at ArbCom read, "Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning", which seems to link the comment in the AN/I thread with the "warning" per the recommendation made early in the thread.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context. First, Jonotrain inserted the Sayeed quote, as follows.[28]

According to Greenwald, Harris relies on this view of Islam to justify torture, anti-Muslim profiling, and the Israeli occupation. Greenwald sees the double standard in Harris' writings as a symptom of Islamophobia: "...he [Harris] and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism." Theodore Sayeed, another critic of Harris, also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

Second, When I moved the quote to the Political section, it was prefaced by the following text, which presented a balanced view of the debate in accord with NPOV.

Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated

It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism."

On his blog, Harris states

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".

Third, I replaced the text with the following quote[29] after the BLP/N thread, even though that thread found no BLP issue with it.

In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".

Fourth, it was me that removed the racism allegation from the lead[30], even though there are a number of sources supporting the allegation with respect to statements on profiling, etc. that Harris has made. The I started this thread[31] and commented on Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s UT page[32] after Steeletrap re-added it to the lead[33]./br>--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to dismiss peer-reviewed history book

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.[34]

@Second Quantization: does same, making incoherent claim about paraphrasing, misunderstanding NPOV and RS.[35]

Refusing to get the point, SQ continues to push ill-informed POV; apparently, he couldn't take the time to check the links I provided to Palgrave’s website, asserting that the title of the book was “controversial”[36]. [37] [38]

Finally, SQ falsely accuses me (“No offence”) of BLP violations, because he doesn’t like what the RS say (aside from the fact that he mischaracterizes my edits), but refuses to take claims to BLP/N. WP:NPA. [39]

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi, attempting to dismiss another source by an professor of history, and grossly misrepresenting my edits at the same time, while also stating

That is fine information for the Positivism article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information. [40]

An RS/N thread had to be opened to prove that the book is a peer-reviewed monograph.[41]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind so much having to repeatedly correct Ubikwit's misrepresentation of sources, it's part of the job as a volunteer editor. I should not, however, have to keep correcting his misrepresentations about what I've said or done:

Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit

Yes, check the edit and see that it was a simple BRD revert with a note directing you to the Talk page where that text was already being discussed - no flaunting involved. You are welcome to criticize my edits all you want, but you need not outright lie, Ubikwit.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context.

No "false allegations" cited by you in your comment, I see. That is typical. The issue you partially described was indeed long-ago resolved when it was discovered that you had taken a Harris quote out of context by cleverly omitting his disclaimer to the reader that the quote you repeated would sound "paradoxical" and that he was actually still "undecided" on that issue. And the BLP/N thread did not support your use of the Mondoweiss text.

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.

You need not outright lie, Ubikwit. Anyone who reads my response, which you linked, will see that rather than dismiss the source, I asked: What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? I did point out that the book was a critique of atheism written by a priest, and had never been cited, but rather than "dismiss" the book, I urged you to continue with your proposal to use the source.

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi...

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? That one is so blatant, you didn't even attempt to substantiate it. Your Lears piece does the insinuation. Here is exactly what I said about it from the article Talk page:

here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law.

Lies don't work, Ubikwit. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your statement about what I said is utterly bizarre (you do know that people can click and see what I wrote right?). This has been your approach in some of the things I have noticed:

1. You get a book that agrees with your point of view.

2. You don't mention it's written by a priest (in the discussion or the article) or that the book is just published. The book is also clearly for a popular audience as anyone can see from skimming it, it is not a normal academic monograph, even if it is peer reviewed (books for a popular audience are peer reviewed too).

3. You choose to include the most inflammatory statement you can find in the book and provide no context at all in the wikipedia article.

Further,

4. ... and accusing someone of denialism (rather than say just being bad at history) in your title is controversial.

Also, separately, what's most bizarre is that you seem to see no issue with adding statements which attempt to link someone with racism by association. Including that quote by Lear is clearly problematic. Second Quantization (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: The book is a peer-reviewed publication by an academic press by a career professor of history (forty years).

That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians", a group to which he specifically refers in the opening paragraph of the Intro and which includes Jackson Lears.

The title of the book and the statements it makes are not inherently "controversial" among mainstream historians. There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception. The book is a monograph on a very specific topic, your baseless assertion that it is "for a popular audience" is only indicative of the fact that you are a member of the so-called "popular audience", and your attempt to dismiss the per-reviewed book because of its author's religious affiliation is tendentious. I have mentioned competence to you for these reasons, as I see your training is in the applied sciences. Note that neither you nor any other supporters of Harris have produced a single peer-reviewed source supporting any of your groundless opinions. I, on the other hand, happen to have an academic background in history.

Linking the ideas espoused by someone with an ideology that "gave rise to" scientific racism and imperialism" is a fully valid criticism made by more than one RS and supported by mainstream historians. Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack. Next time, raise the issue at BLP/N, per policy. Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence. I would never do the same on an article dealing with physics.

And this is a personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 07:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack." That's a bit rich coming from the guy who is claiming I'm incompetent because I'm not a professional historian. Are you claiming to be a professional historian? Do you think we all need to be professional historians or else we are automatically incompetent? Does merely disagreeing with your use of sources make someone automatically incompetent? Does having studied history mean you are suddenly bias free? "Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence" You might want to look before you blab away about incompetence, because I haven't actually edited the particular source under discussion one way or the other.

" There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception." That's what you are meant to do before trying to stick a source in an article. Your problem is you are trying to stick the sources in before we've seen it's impact, which is what I stated from the very beginning, Second Quantization (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

...and FYI on another point you keep ignoring. You say "That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians"" but you simply aren't using the book for any historical fact in the article at all. You are using the source to insinuate that someone is a denialist without bothering to put in any reason why that conclusion follows at all. You are defending the reliability of the historical content of the book but you aren't using any of the historical content of the book. Second Quantization (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You should quit while your ahead. Don't misrepresent my edits, even if you don't understand them. Painter is a secondary source for Lears (on Harris), first of all. Both of them are "mainstream historians", academics. Note the quote from Harris; Painter is also a secondary source on Harris. You are correct that I don't use anything more specific from Painter, because I would want to read the book first, but he is useful for prefacing and supporting statements by Lears on Harris, and putting those in perspective.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists. Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

“ If history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us.
--Sam Harris ”

and then states that

his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

deliberately violating an apparent RfC consensus

Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC appears to me to show a clear consensus. Six editors !voted against using a source which was used for: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

This edit re-added the source [42] and added claims in Wikipedia's voice (changes bolded).

Some commentators have asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Harris broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats. Some critics equate his focus on Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims and support for torture with Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism] "Sam Harris, torture, quotation", Andrew Brown, The Guardian, August 8, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/sam-harris-profiling-muslims_b_1466349.html]End of Profiling: Letter to Sam Harris, Letter to Sam Harris, Michael Mungai, Huffingtong Post, July 1, 2012</ref><ref>[http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war]Sam Harris in full: court intellectual, mystic, and supporter of the Iraq war, Theodore Sayeed, Mondoweiss, Septemeber 4, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/sam-harris-racial-profiling_b_1472360.html] Sam Harris, Will You Visit A Mosque With Me?, Chris Stedman, Huffington Post, July 2, 2012</ref>

Note the fact references include the disallowed Sayeed source which we had a specific RfC on, an Andrew Brown commentary labeled as such, a HuffPo "blog letter" from Michael Mungai, and a nice screed by Chris Stedman also a HuffPo blog letter. The other refs added are [43] found through a google search for "Sam Harris" and "bias" but which unfortunately does not make the claim the editor wished for, and [44] (Aside: I love the really useful quote in it "Last question, Chris. Something on a hopeful note. You’ve been a reporter who actually has lived in the Middle East and actually talked to Muslims and seen them first hand. You have this rich tradition of learning Christianity, Christian morals, Christian ethics and seen the rise of the American Christian fascist movement. What can be done, on a global scale, perhaps, for Muslims and Christians – well intentioned ones – to wrest away the control of their religiosity and religions by self interested political individuals, like the ones you’ve mentioned. What can be done to reclaim the faith?") a pure blog post by Wajahat Ali. Patheos fails RS as it is specifically " the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Patheos.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Patheos_blogs each finding that the blogs are not RS, but depend on if the persons are notable. In the case at hand, the answer is "no".

So we have deliberate violation of apparent consensus, and use of a source specifically disallowed, and use of sources for contentious claims made in Wikipedia's voice using "commentary" and editorial opinion columns. I suggest that we have a problem here. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• The RFC is specifically centered around the quote from Sayeed, which Ubikwit did not restore in any form. What's the problem? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sayeed was not notable per most (5 of the six) opinions at the RfC. Collect (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If you want to achieve consensus to leave out the citation, you should start a new RFC that asks that question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you wish to start a debating society as to whether when 5 out of 6 people say the person is not notable whether that conversation is not actually part of the RfC but should be made a separate RfC to establish that it is the opinion of 5 out of 6 of those people, then that is a wondrously byzantine argument. Cheers Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's readily apparent where the byzantine arguments are coming from. What is the policy for people that know the rules but feign ingnoramance?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert at [45]:

Retains blog post from Patheos for which the apparent quote from a notable person would be "I mean Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. He has a long defense of torture. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist for pre-emptive war and also speaks in the crude, racist terms that Harris uses to describe 1 billion people – one fifth of the world’s population." which is used as a cite for an apparent claim of fact "After the attacks on the World Trade Center"(ref). As a source for that phrase, the blog fails, but it seems primarily centered on a quite inadmissible opinion of Hedges which would not be allowed in any BLP except absolutely cited as the opinion only of Hedges. It offers no actual support to the phrase for which it is used as a cite. It also reinstates the two HuffPo blog posts which do not actually support the claims of fact made. Adding specifically problematic sources to any BLP, after one has been told they are problematic, I find troubling indeed. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you took Sayeed to BLP/N, receiving a "no BLP violation". Now you are asserting that it is not RS?

And the column of Andrew Brown (writer) (also on the editorial board) and the individuals with official blogs on Guardian and Huffington Post are not RS for opinion?

You failed to wikilink Chris Hedges, who is also (block)quoted by Greenwald in the Guardian

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.[46]

. Hedges' book (academic press)[47] might be a good source, and here's another interview from Salon[48].

And the Patheos interview was not used to source "bias". I eliminated "bias", using "prejudice" instead, because there's a peer-reviewed source by an academic, quoting "Dr. Peter Slezak is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:TALK, non-stop tendentious reverting and gaming

Please check this thread in the Talk page, and the related edits/reverts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

4RR - and the complainant Ubikwit above is the blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally?

Note: [49] 15:48 25 Feb clear revert [50] 3:49 26 Feb clear revert [51] 8:56 et seq 26 Feb clear reverts [52] 11:49 26 Feb clear revert Making absolutely clear 4RR within 20 hours when he is making complaints here about the edits of others!

Will someone finally stop this edit warrior - this is well beyond risible behaviour. He wants this dealt with at AN/I per a number of posts <g> so he can not assert he does not know his own behaviour here is fully actionable. Collect (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? The first diff is me reverting my own insertions of a source because you objected to it.

That would appear to be another attempt to game the system.

The last two diffs are removing promotional, primary-sourced blocks of text and general cleaning up of bloat and copy editing the article, not reversions. I suggest you read the edit summaries, for starters: "remove excessive amount of primary source-based material", "ce, removed primary-sourced UNDUE material and quote-mined phrase from Independent article".

I, too, would be interested to hear an admin's assessment of these edits regarding the revert policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I need help: A user is harassing me.

There is a user that continuously harasses me. This user has been giving me a very hard time recently (I refuse to give the username publicly; I will discuss with the helper who offers themselves to help me), and I request this user to be blocked or properly given a strict warning for several reasons:

• This user has been putting up campaigns against me to multiple people / makes biased statements. This user tries to campaign that I should be blocked for having a 'battleground' personality and putting up criticism that seems wrong (to him).
• This user has been stalking my account (I don't know if it is 24/7, but whatever I do, this user almost all the time interferes against me either by talking negatively about me among other people or revert edits with poor reasonings).
• As a follow-up, this user also does disruptive reasoning (I presume just towards me). Everything I do, this user tries to undo it, and wants to do so.
• This user has been reverting my warnings (literally, he wants me not to touch his talk page at all) on his talk page not to harass me in a very offensive manner. I told him not to do disruptive editing twice and not to stalk me, and this user reverted both, saying that he wasn't going to talk to me. Even though this user states that he has right to his talk page, he is ignoring my warnings and continuously acting against it. It is also the reason of why I am not notifying this user that I'm on an attempt to report him.
• As a follow-up, however, this user still believes he has the right to come into portals that I'm related in, and as usual, put up campaigns against me.
• This user was talks about me without notifying me in any way, and I find that as an unwanted attention, and therefore, harassment.

It would be great if anyone helped me settle this user into either properly warning this user or block him. I am mortified, and I need help here. HanSangYoon (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Related unresolved thread: I am here to report a Sock Puppet Account ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

To facilitate this, the editor he's accusing of "harassing him" is me. In the thread Mandruss is linking to, I wondered if this kind of thing crosses the line into a "personal attack". I would appreciate an admin looking in to this, as I feel this editor has crossed lines here, and I would like to see this resolved. But it's getting to the point that several editors now don't dare edit or revert anything this editor has done, lest he haul them up either before WP:SPI (which he's already done with three long-standing editors), or WP:ANI (as he's trying to do to me here). --IJBall (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have only requested an investigation; nothing wrong there, Mandruss. HanSangYoon (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HanSangYoon, you have removed another user's comments and I would suggest that you restore them. This was either malicious or more evidence of WP:CIR, neither looks good for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what should I do here? – Should I restore my comment? Or should I leave it deleted as potential "evidence"? TIA... --IJBall (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, do you not notice that the 'harassing' one I'm referring here is IJBall? One of my reasons of why I request this user to be blocked is because he is stalking me; should I leave his spam-like comment around as usual? This user likes to ignore and delete my warnings, and so I can't just get rid of his spam message. That's just plain ridiculous on my side, Mandruss. I do not want this user to stalk around of what I'm doing. But why am I being ignored of my help request? HanSangYoon (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If I was more active and had more time, I'd block HanSangYoon myself. Honestly, if this hasn't stopped by tomorrow I might be persuaded to dust off the ole block button. What needs to happen next is one of the editors in conflict with him needs to start a subsection here requesting a block or some other administrative action for HanSangYoon. Keep it simple, state the problem clearly, and provide diffs clearly showing the competency issues and edit warring. AniMate 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand your logic of why you would want to block me. After all, I'm reporting a stalker, and you're simply saying that I should be blocked for no reason...pity. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for WP:BOOMERANG sanction

I have clearly made the case for the OP's WP:Incompetence in two threads including an earlier one on this page. The user is showing very poor editorial judgment, failing to adequately defend his actions, and being extremely obstinate about the whole thing. I see multiple editors strongly opposed to his actions and none supporting. Failure to respond to such opposition is disruptive by definition. I have not been around for any of the supposed edit warring, but the preceding alone should warrant some boomerang action, and I feel it's a day or two overdue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Admins can feel free to look into the OP's "charges". But his recent campaigns against other editors (e.g. here, and at WP:SPI) is troubling, to say the least, quite aside from the WP:CIR issues that Mandruss references. --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. I tried to extend the olive branch and help HSY fix up with some of his other projects that were unprofessional like Template:Busan Metro Line 1. However he still will not compromise and insistent that his bland pictures replace quality pictures that other editors have worked hard to make. One minute he is begging for help on something the next he is stubbornly challenging seven other editors that are all opposed to his changes.Terramorphous (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. I was simply making edits when IJBall and Terramorphus came in to undo my edits without a proper explanation. I tried discussing with IJBall, but he was simply under denial and deleted my comments immediately (even warnings not to harass me at here and here), while Terramorphus acts without discussing fully. I tried to conversate with these users, but they don't seem to even consider it importantly. IJBall's campaigning against me is a type of bullying (as it harasses me), and as an administrator quoted, "IJBall showed a high level of incivility in this case. He accused HanSangYoon of incompetence numerous time both here and at the ANI. That is not a good practice at all. Competence is required, but it is not inherited. IJBall, if you find out that the user is acting wrongly, try to help him, to teach him, and not to accuse him of being ignorant or dishonest. Acting like that only makes the situation worse." ( -Vanjagenije; evidence is here). IJBall has also been previously criticized by another user that he "shabbily treated" me (evidence is located in the same page as given).

With Terramorphus, the undoing of metro stations became a pain in the neck as I requested for him not to revert but to discuss, and he simply ignored my advice and went on to continue reverting the edits (which goes against the Wikipedia policy of necessary revertings and explaining (at least). Terramorphus not only refused to discuss, but also sent a challenge of getting me into trouble as a replacement response. These two editors has been very obnoxious to my contributions, and rather I'd like to point these two users out that they're the one that's causing me trouble. On top of that, I request an IBAN on IJBall (instead of a block, actually). HanSangYoon (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: You have not adequately explained how, in an article about a train station, a photo of a sign can be better for the infobox than a photo of the station. Infoboxes should illustrate the article's subject to the best extent possible with available images, and these are not articles about signs. I don't even need to point to a guideline that says this; it should be intuitively obvious. It should not be necessary to "discuss" this concept one article at a time.

You have consistently disregarded the attempts of more experienced editors to provide advice and guidance. An editor with about 900 edits should be capable of deferring to the judgment of multiple editors with thousands of edits each. You are not. Most experienced editors are willing to forgive the mistakes of newer editors and to provide assistance. When the newer editor repeatedly and defiantly refuses to accept the guidance, the desire to help them ends.

You have removed another user's comments on this page, citing as justification the fact that they removed your comments from their user talk page. This shows that you do not understand talk page policies at Wikipedia.

All of this, combined, points to WP:IDHT, failure to respect WP:Consensus, and WP:Incompetence. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I may not be a hardcore Wikipedia article editor as you said, but I do am a mature human with lots of common sense; seeing bunch of users trying to reason that they're more experienced in editing article truly makes me facepalm, first of all. Even if I was an experienced editor (which I'm not), I'm sure my usual personality of being strict on format is not gonna change, and I hope you're not trying to question my personality here. I have seen Wikipedia for more than a decade, and as a 'experienced Wikipedia user' (as in using it), I know what I want for articles that I edit. I'm pretty sure you're tired of my blunt and fixed attitude, but that is just me, after all. If there's someone who could properly cooperate with me, then I'm willing to fix my attitude FOR that cooperator. Take the otherwise, then it won't go well with me. That's that. No battleground attitude, no issue.

And let's see about the platform views that you're trying to get rid of. London Undergound, NYC Subway, Seoul Jihachul and Tokyo Chikatetsu. I am pretty much a huge fan of subways. The common thing of these four huge metro system is that in their encyclopedia pages, they show their station mark as the title image. You have the red-blue roundel for London. Seoul and Tokyo takes their modern style of placards, too, from rounders to hangar signs. New York? They take the track view image WITH the placard (black square). I like the formats of putting in placards because it shows UNITY. It shows standardization of the metro system, and boy have I repeated this multiple times. Of course, there will be people not agreeing with me, but then what am I? I have a special connection with subways, and my strong opinion is nullified? It makes absolutely no sense to me that my own contributions for the better should be taken down by some another user who doesn't seem to have a legitimate reason to back their actions up.

That's why I was so fired up with SecondaryWaltz and IJBall in the first place. I criticized Secondarywaltz because of the strange follow-up that occurred with the revertion, and with suspicion, I tried to put up a report on him, and because I did the right thing for myself, I was bombarded with negative users, finding it beyond ridiculous of how misunderstanding these users are.

And not trying to be disrespectful, but you seem more and more biased as I explain more and more of my position in my own issue. You may be a professional editor, and I respect that. But what I do not respect is the wrongful position you are currently standing at. I've shown you the best reasons of why the Wikipedia policy and my contributions cope with each other above. But why is it ignored? I've proved myself, and sometimes sure, they reply well. But at the end, they either just ignore the discussion or say something totally unrelated, which rises my impatience with these users. The two users that I criticized above are examples (and I also explained it well, too). I believe they were doing disruptive editing, and so I tried to show them of what I thought of their actions that outraged me. And I guess that's what you see as a disruptive editing...on my side.

You can look into talk pages or records of me hotly discussing about these placard sign images, and my reason for why the images should be up (if gathered) is abundant. Therefore, my position on the issue that escalated in the beginning is the same: Platform images should be up there. Doesn't matter if it contributes little, cause it still contributes something. Deleting that isn't the policy in Wikipedia (as I explained), and on my side, the one who should be 'getting the point' is the one who cannot fully continue the discussion I tried to resonate multiple times. HanSangYoon (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are full of holes, and they continue to show a closed-minded ignorance of Wikipedia editing concepts (see WP:Other stuff exists for example), but I am through wasting my time arguing with you. If I hadn't seen that thread at the Help Desk a week ago, I wouldn't be involved in this or even aware of it. This noticeboard seems decidedly uninterested in this, and I've learned to avoid being a lone crusader on things like this; it just doesn't pay. I'm going to pretend I didn't see the Help Desk thread and let the rest of the community deal with you as they see fit. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You started this discussion, but I'm not sure what you actually want. Do you want to ask administrators to block HanSangYoon, or to warn him, or what? I agree with you that HanSangYoon is acting disruptively, but I don't think he should be blocked just for making wrong editorial judgments. @HanSangYoon: In the future, if other editors revert your edits, you should calm down and try to discuss that with them on the article talk page, or on the WikiProject talk page, or on their user talk pages. You should not make the same or similar edit again unless you reach a wp:consensus with other editors. You should not report them to administrators, WP:SPI, or anywhere else. You should not accuse them of stalking, bullying, harassing, etc. Just calm down, and try to discuss the issue with them. So, my advice to you is to immediately stop accusing other users, and to take time to read WP:CONSENSUS and especially this page. I call on you to promise here that you will not make any contested edits in the future without reaching consensus first, and that you will not make accusations against other editors just because they do not agree with you. I believe that is the only way to save yourself from being blocked, as otherwise you are very close to that. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I would be satisfied if this user would do three things.

• Reverse all of his additions of sign photos.
• Agree to follow WP:BRD procedure from this point forward. He may try his sign photo additions again, but if his edit gets reverted, he must not re-revert unless he first gains consensus for the change in talk. It will be his responsibility to start the discussion. If he is unable to get consensus after making his best argument, the sign photo stays out. He should understand that endless, circular WP:IDHT argument will not be tolerated.
• Agree that other editors may be watching his activity for awhile to be sure he is honoring his agreement, without accusing them of stalking.

If the user cannot agree to all three items, then I'm requesting a one-week block, during which time I and possibly others will reverse his sign photo additions. If he then returns and starts this all over again without following BRD, he should expect to return to this page, this time as the subject instead of the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not your intention, but that comes across as "Please block him so we can undo all his work and then get him blocked again when he comes back". You might want to moderate your position a bit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: My intention is to turn the clock back to a time before all of this user's disruptive activity. A reset, if you will. My hope is that no block is necessary, not once, let alone twice. If necessary, I'm willing to do the reset myself, but I don't want the possibility of edit warring while I'm doing it; hence the need for the block. I hope I have clarified my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposed again. I believe my edits were rather contributive, not disruptive as Mandrus's claims. I have been adding information and describing well of why Mandruss's criticism against me is excessive above. Also, to Vanjagenije, I have already said that I am the one who discusses with users who revert my images and contributions. It's them who either run away from the discussion, or suddenly talk about something else, totally unrelated. Mandruss showed an example of one right now, claiming that my explanation was 'full of holes' (which I strongly disagree) instead of actuall countering them. And for what reason am I being close to being blocked for? These unreasonable criticisms truly angers me. There is no reason to get rid of them, and it also breaks several Wikipedia policies. I stand by my defense. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S, I was/am/will continue to discuss with people before doing reverts (as Vanjagenije said). Such warning should be towards the other side, not my side. Disruptive editing isn't what I'm doing. It's what they're doing. Reverting my contribution with lack of reasoning...it's really angering.

• HanSangYoon, please read WP:BRD. If someone reverts your bold edit, discuss your proposed edit on the talk page. Don't edit war or get angry, just deal with it and try to come upon a solution. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid:, I have followed the bold edit of whenever I have doubt, I edit. I contribute. I try to have consensus and discussion, and it's the users on the other side that either ignores it and pushes with their edit warring, or all of a sudden, talk about something else to cut off the the discussion. What was I supposed to do? I dealt with so many obstacles these users placed in front of me, and I truly had enough. These users needs to be aware that I have good faith, and their offensive actions of condemning whatever I do threats my good faith. I face palm whenever I get warnings of criticism from people, in which sometimes it seems ironic. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This response simply demonstrates you do not understand BRD. You accuse others of edit warring after your bold edits, but it is you who is edit warring, not others. If you get reverted don't reinstate it: that is edit warring. Discuss proposed additions on the talk page if you are reverted. If you follow BRD properly edit wars cannot happen as reverts lead to discussions. If you are discussing issues with other edits and it gets no where, that means that no consensus has been formed and it's time to walk away and do something else. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose formal sanctions, but strictly warn the user about ownership behaviour in articles and paying heed to consensus in talk page discussions. HanSangYoon wishes to contribute images to LA Metro articles, but discussion has determined that the images are unacceptable, either because of poor quality or incorrect context. There seems to be agreement that there should be images, but that better ones should be found. Rather than accept this result HanSangYoon has battled on the talk page and elsewhere insisting that the images must be their contributions; if not these, then other images they will collect in the future. That is inappropriate. HanSangYoon: Wikipedia values your contributions but you do not own them, and sometimes the community decides to go in a different direction. Some other alternatives were suggested to you (such as submitting the images to Commons, which you have done) but you cannot insist that your images (and/or only your images) must be used in any article. Continuing to do so is disruptive, and you will be blocked if you refuse to listen to criticism and cannot contribute constructively. Ivanvector (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the user should be very strongly admonished for suggesting that another user's argument is racist, with no shred of proof. Completely unacceptable. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks

Dear all, I am requesting that User:Medeis be banned from removing or hatting anything on the reference desks. I have problems with her other contributions, but this is by far the biggest, and the only one that really warrants a solution. (Note: I believe Medeis has previously said she is female, hence the pronoun "she"). Her removals and hattings are objectionable to many people, and take up a lot of time on the ref desk talk page. Every time I read the talk page, there is another long thread about something she has removed. This costs an inordinate amount of time, and always results in a deluge of words, and a lot of tension. The latest example is this:

• First deletion: [53]
• Second deletion: [54]

Furthermore, the edit summary for the first deletion said: "I am not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theory: {{WP:DENY]] this is not he first trolling by noopolo)". This contains the accusation of "trolling", which is bizarre and unsubstantiated in this case. The question by Noopolo strikes me as incredibly legitimate, and very interesting. What's more, it was answered well, with posts that I found highly informative. I have for a long time wanted to know the nitty gritty of these things, because I trust that holocaust deniers are wrong, but I think it is better to be armed with facts, and whilst I can consult the articles, ref desk posts give me a pithy initial summary, for the sake of a quick overview.

Another problem here is that Medeis claims to be following Bold, Revert, Discuss, as witness this diff: [55]. I do not see anything resembling BRD here - Medeis has been bold twice in quick succession, not at all the correct procedure.

The thread on the ref desk talk page is becoming very long. Furthermore, all these problems seem to cause enormous tension among editors, but they always seem to start with Medeis. Some people agree with her deletions, so I say, if so, let them take the lead. Consequently, because of the enormous amount of time constantly consumed by Medeis, I request that this user be indefinitely banned from hatting or removing posts on the ref desks. This is the only sanction I request, and it would not stop her from requesting hatting or deletion on the ref desk talk page, or contributing to such discussions.

Note this previous attempt to deal with Medeis, just one among many: [56]

Thanks all, IBE (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When did you last participate in a ref desk talk page discussion on these issues? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem on the reference desks for a long time. μηδείς/Medeis deletes or hats questions or discussions that they decide are inappropriate, even in the face of overwhelming consensus that the material in question should be allowed. I do not understand why this has been allowed to go on for so long.

There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from any modification of another person's comments. The reference desks are full of trustworthy people who can and will deal with those comments that really need to be removed or hatted, such as asking for legal/medical advice. We simply do not need μηδείς/Medeis as the self-appointed sheriff of the reference desks, constantly making contentious closures. The word "loose cannon" comes to mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There has been ongoing debate for many years about when or if to hat/delete, and in fact there are ongoing discussions about it right now at the ref desk talk page - which is what that talk page is for, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe further research is needed. Forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposal to deal with Medeis in this manner. What we have here is an editor who pops up with an assertion that some IP editor is some well-known miscreant - and without evidence or discussion either deletes, hat or harasses that person. Medeis is trying to take the role of an Admin, without going through the necessary hoops to gain that status and without understanding the mechanisms by which sock-puppetry is dealt with. I'm quite sure that this is well-intentioned, but very often (at least half the time), the community consensus is that Medeis is incorrect or has overreacted. That causes yet another huge debate about her actions to break out on the talk page, typically resulting in widespread condemnation of Medeis' actions. This is evidence (IMHO) that this is a case of WP:DISRUPT that should be dealt with accordingly.

However, (as I've frequently stated) the underlying issue is that the reference desks do not have a simple, comprehensible, set of guidelines as to what to do with problematic posts from possibly dubious editors. So it's hard for the community to say "Medeis: You broke rule 27(b), please don't do that again." - or "Admins: This is the 23rd time Medeis broke rule 27(b), please apply a topic ban." Our inability to get the community to get into a goal-directed discussion about a decent set of guidelines, despite the evident relish in fighting each action on a case-by-case basis, is puzzling and extremely frustrating to me.

So while I definitely support dealing with Medeis, she is just the outlier in a spectrum of confusing responses to inappropriate questions at WP:RD. If we had those clear guidelines, then an admin would have taken action a long time ago.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, all very pertinent, Steve, but you have said before that the problem is that people disagree on the interpretation anyway. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting you, but somewhere you said to Medeis, when she advanced a similar-sounding idea, that you disagree with almost all her hattings.) The point is that people always claim to be following certain rules (as interpreted by them), so I don't see how to get a single set of effective rules in place. We would need a competent authority to carry them out, and the devil here is in the detail - deciding what counts as this or that problem (per your flowchart on the ref desk talk page) is (I believe) a big part of the problem. If you want to revise those guidelines and include the concept of some kind of chain of command for more drastic actions (a bit like the suggestion of letting only admins hat or delete) I'd be interested. At the same time, let's remember it's complicated in its own right, and should be discussed as a separate proposal. This one is only about one editor, and you have summed up my reasons very neatly, better than I could have put it. IBE (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All of this needs to be handled on the ref desk talk page. Dragging it here is nothing more than grandstanding. There are a few different areas of conflict:

1. There is a rule against giving professional advice. Medeis errs on the (sometimes extreme) side of caution. If there is disagreement about it, that's what the talk page is for. Where it gets complicated is the involvement of users who range from not going to the extreme, all the way to disagreeing with the rule itself.
2. Random trolling is another negotiable matter for the talk page. There's a risk of "feeding the troll", but generally there's consensus on obvious trolling.
3. Banned users are not allowed to edit. Again, there are persistent arguments which seek to ignore that rule. But again, that's negotiable. The complication comes with editors who are less experienced in dealing with banned users and are unwillingly to show good faith toward those who know the M.O. of these users. And then it gets messy and annoying, as all the back-and-forth does nothing except feed the banned troll.

You can talk about rules and guidelines and decision trees every day and twice on Sunday, but none of that fixes the core problems I've listed above. If you're going ban Medeis for executing the "Bold" part of BRD, then you should also ban the users who insist on the "R" part as well. The solution would seem to be to decide on when to bring a hat or deletion to the talk page. This does not belong on ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Our guidelines say we don't engage in debate or speculation, but the first two diffs provided above start with "I am not a holocaust denialist but..." whereas me saying their are certain editors who show up only to criticize me and a few other editors (and I am not talking about the person with whom I am engaged in an IBAN) isn't even a matter of dispute, it's an observation by me. The problem in general is that we come to conclusions on the talk page that trolling should just be deleted without comment, because a talk page discussion draws more attention. Then, when that opinion is followed, someone complains there was no discussion and the cycle goes around and around.

As for myself "acting like an admin", I am not the only person who follows the guidelines about removing material by known block-evading trolls, etc., and I follow consensus of the desk when an edit I make is reversed. See, for example, this thread on people with Autism and Down's Syndrome where I suggest half way down the thread that the person may be trolling us, only at the end for him to admit it and mock us, before I then closed the thread.

The ref desk needs objective rules that apply equally to everyone. Some of those rules already govern all of main space, no BLP violations, No professional advice, comments by banned users may be removed on sight. Other issues are judgment calls and I do not reverse them when consensus is against me at the talk page. If one of them is to be that only an admin can hat or delete a discussion, that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - Per Baseball Bugs. I can begin imagine (but will not make) a good-faith (though not necessarily good) case for 1rr on the refdesks, but Medeis usually does removals or hatting that needs to be done. Sometimes overly cautious? Yes. Disruptive? That's certainly an "it takes two to tango" deal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see your point about "it takes two to tango". A large number of people have expressed their dislike of Medeis' hatting. You give no examples about what constitutes being merely "overly cautious". I said in my OP that it is one editor consuming a huge amount of time from excessive hatting/ removal. The case I gave is a classic example. There is nothing resembling excessive caution there. It is just an absurd reaction to the question, containing as it does an unsubstantiated accusation of trolling by Medeis against Noopolo. Perhaps there is a history there, but nothing was offered as an explanation, other than the characterisation of "trolling". I see no "tangoing" and have never had any desire to engage Medeis in confrontation. Neither have a number of editors who have used the legitimate processes to deal with another editor. My claim about wasted time by many editors amounts to exactly that complaint, that we desperately don't want to tango, but we don't want the nuisance caused by a single outlier either. If you believe in the hattings, I said that it would be fine for others to take the lead. This doesn't look like an attempt to tango, I feel. IBE (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If BRD is followed, Medeis hats or removes, it is reverted, Medeis might choose to discuss, no one is forced to discuss, and the hat/removal fails for lack of consensus. No one's time is "wasted" unless they choose to "waste" it, beyond the time it takes to perform one undo (about 15 seconds including the editsum). Medeis says that she follows and respects this system and I haven't seen anyone bring proof that she does not. Sorry but your argument is full of holes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave the example in the original post. Two removals, in quick succession, and a direct claim to be following BRD. But I might have messed something up, so please quietly alert me to a blunt error, if I have made one. IBE (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I wondered whether I should say this, but I decided it was so obvious as to be unnecessary. We don't drag people to ANI for one or two (or even three over a period of time) lapses of judgment. Show me a pattern of misbehavior, please, where BRD has been violated in hatting and removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is only a few instances, spend some time scanning the ref desk talk page archives for the past five years. Or just google /reference desk talk medeis delete/. You can also or restrict to inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, etc. E.g. here [57] [58] are a few hits, and I especially like this one, [59] where Medeis goes off in ALL CAPS about how a question is an "invitation to debate", when in fact it is a question about specific citable historical facts, asked by a well-established and productive editor. Here's a talk thread about bad hatting and deleting by Medeis from 2013 [60]. This archive has lots of Medeis not acting like a pleasant team player [61] I have better things to do than google trawl for every time Medeis has caused disruption based on aggressive policing, but if you're genuinely curious, WP and google have all the history you need to get the example behavior straight from the source. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been under the mistaken impression that BRD has been in place at the refdesks. Taking in all of this discussion, it appears that's not the case. You can't fault Medeis for the fact that there have been no clear rules; that is the fault of the community. I'm proposing the use of BRD and Medeis has made a very clear statement below (02:59, 23 Feb) that she will abide by BRD if it is accepted. If the rules are clear and Medeis breaks her own promise to follow them, THEN you have an ANI case. Not until then. That should be all that is necessary to end this discussion now. And Medeis is spot on when she conditions her promise on application of the BRD rule to everyone. If you bring her back to ANI for BRD violations and she can show spotty or selective enforcement, the case should be thrown out. That is the only way this can work. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Its use is inconsistent. Also, BRD is not the way to deal with a banned user. As has been said numerous times on the ref desk talk page, by various users, removal of questions by banned users should be as low-key as possible. The newer users need to show good faith in the editor doing the removal, rather than arguing about it as too often happens, thus feeding the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pro-tip When someone says "I am not a <thing>" and then starts to argue about said thing, they are probably not being 100% honest. While Medeis is cautioned not to edit war or ignore consensus I think the whole ref desk area is a bit permissive of trolling. Oppose topic ban and 1RR restriction, our rules against edit warring can be used to keep this in check and frankly the idea of cutting these thing off early should be considered per WP:DENY. Chillum 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1RR mentioned by Ian.thomson. It seems this is something regularly brought up at the refdesk talk page and has made its way to ANI at least a couple times in the past. Each time -- of those I've seen and/or were part of -- there seems to be a great deal of support for the idea that Medeis should exercise more caution in hatting and/or that his/her aggressive hatting is disruptive. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen anyway, Medeis is persistent in defending his/her actions, so I'm not sure what good more cautioning could possibly do. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that Medeis dedicates a lot of time to the refdesk and hats appropriately a lot of the time, so a 1RR seems like a good solution to prevent the more disruptive instances of hat-warring without preventing hatting in the first place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I do not support 1rr, I only mentioned that as the farthest I could see this going. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all Support 1RR - As Rhododendrites states, Medeis does a lot of good work and 1RR seems to be a good solution, a second revert in this type of situation would be questionable at best anyway. Further discussion has changed my mind. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It can very easily be questionable both ways, however. If we are going to go with 1rr, I'd at least suggest that it's under the stipulation that it must be more than one user who reverts Medeis, not the same user over and over. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1RR She treats any topic she find distasteful as a troll and hats or deletes it. Imagine if we did that with Wikipedia articles. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is simply untrue StuRat and here is an example where SemanticMantis hatted you because he didn't "like" your comments on tax policy. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=next&oldid=647749876 uncovered your comment leaving only the argument between SM and yourself hatted, since your original point was relevant. How does that amount to my hatting things because I dislike them? What evidence do you have of that? μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Others have already provided numerous examples on the Ref Desk talk page, for years now. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - I think at most a stern warning from someone scary with an admin hat is warranted here. Maybe also a trout or possibly even a rather smelly mackerel (The Mark of the Mackerel), though not a whale. Anyway, first and last warning. On a side note, for the purposes of keeping things from being chaotic, can we !vote (or is this a vote?) on one thing at a time? I'm not even sure if we're saying 1RR for Medeis or for the whole refdesk (the latter ought not to be discussed here). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The community already has a version of 1rr, in that I don't rehat discussions when my hatting is questioned and there's no consensus for it on the talk page. No evidence has been provided otherwise, which is what would have justified bring this here now. But what about cases like this, where my long attempt at engaging with a question was twice hatted, and I removed the hats 12. Would that be a violation of 1rr? Would any actually banned user like Light Current and Bowei Huang or the IP from Toronto who eventually went to my talk page asking me if, as a negress, my intelligence was substandard be allowed to restore a personal attack I deleted? Would I have to come running to ANI every time something like this occurred to get it rectified? And why are we talking about this sanction out of the blue if there's no evidence above of a current problem? As for being consistent in "defending my actions", even if that were true, it amounts to saying I'm guilty because I defend myself. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would Support Medeis' proposal that only admins are allowed to hat or delete RD threads. We have several admins who are active on the reference desks, so there wouldn't be a problem with lack of coverage. However, this rule would need to be strictly enforced, even for the most egregious violations - is the community prepared to apply such a restriction? If so, let's make it official. Tevildo (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose admin-only closure - Yes, we have admin coverage, but it's still kind of like letting admins be the only persons who can remove vandalism from articles. I could begin to consider the idea that admins are the only users who can delete threads that have received responses, and that admins are the only persons who can re-hat de-hatted threads -- but I'm still not suggesting that. Quite frankly, there are a number of refdesk users who are bad at spotting trolls and love giving them attention (hell, I'll even admit that I'm not entirely innocent there). Restricting others from dealing with trolls goes against WP:DENY, WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR. We don't need rules saying you can or cannot remove a thread if that rule is going to enable trolls and punish those who remove trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose admin only closure, support disallowing Medeis to revert when someone reopens her closures. That seems to be the reasonable solution. We should not create situations where admins are allowed to do things that normal users technically can also, but then only allow admins to do. If and when Medeis closes a thread in good faith, if it is reopened Medeis should not close it a second time. That stops all edit wars, and would really remove the locus of the problem. Medeis closes threads in good faith; the issue is the repeated closure of those threads after others disagree. If consensus supports Medeis, others can reclose a reopened thread. If consensus does not support her, she should not be reclosing them. --Jayron32 00:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support Jayron32's proposal if "someone" were changed to "anyone". In default of Medeis' threshold for hatting being voluntarily aligned with that of the community (which, IMO, is unlikely to happen), we need to find a method of minimizing its disruptive effects. Would it be considered too inequitable to have a simple "Medeis is not permitted to hat or delete anything" rule? If, as I suspect, it would, allowing any user to revert her misjudgements in this area seems like an acceptable solution, but only if it's understood by all concerned that such reversions are not open to subsequent discussion, and, of course, that it doesn't apply to hatting or deletion by users other than Medeis. SteveBaker's proposal for an unambiguous set of rules might be theoretically superior, but generating those rules isn't going to be easy. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Mandruss and I just edit conflicted, so other than emphasizing that the same rules should apply to everybody (assuming disruption is disruption no matter who does it, Tevildo), I will let his statement below stand for mine. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thankyou, Tevildo, for a very fair comment. The reason for singling out Medeis was given in my first post here, announcing the ANI. It is because of constant misapplication of the rules, and overzealous hatting/removal, costing enormous time. No other editor costs us this much time. Hence I claim that there is nothing inequitable going on. It would be the same for anyone who acted this way over a long time. It is also a minimalist suggestion, designed to counter only the specific problem. IBE (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this rationale. Exceptional behavior merits exceptional treatment. Minimal changes are best at this point. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support BRD at the refdesks - where a hat/removal is the B and the hatter/remover is the one responsible for starting D if they feel it is important enough to pursue. If the D feeds some trolls, so be it; there is no perfect solution. If Medeis already follows this system, causing no more "disruption" than one revert per problem thread, then this ANI complaint would appear to be without merit. I think a clause against thread double jeopardy would be necessary; if a hat/removal attempt failed, that thread would have to be immune from further hat/removal by the same user, regardless of what happened in it later. Again, not perfect, but better than unlimited bites at the apple. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all as not having any sufficient necessity. unhatting takes but a moment if one is concerned, and there is no strong argument for any punishment for the behaviour which annoys some editors. And I am tired of some of the same folks seeking the same remedies on a monthly basis - all it is, is drama for the sake of drama at that point. (Drama gratia dramatis) Collect (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no "drama for the sake of drama". The "same remedies"? No, I think different ones. Can you substantiate this? If I knew about a previous attempt at this remedy, I would not have filed this post. My suggested remedy is a minimalist one, and I have never heard of it before. You are welcome to be tired of us, but there are many of us, and it is because of outlier behaviour, which does not seem in keeping with the need for consensus. Unhatting only takes a moment, but people will rehat, and that causes a nuisance, as I said above. Some of us find the hatting more than vexing, because we can sense the willpower behind it, a feeling that is borne out by later developments, including rehatting and insistent, illogical debate on the talk page. The thread about holocaust deniers, which I linked, is a classic example, including accusations against people for being IPs, and claiming that the thread consists of nothing but debate. It is these later developments, and the sense of a lot of willpower by a single editor, against community consensus, that is causing us extreme annoyance. IBE (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose admin only closure. There are plenty of legit closures by other editors, like duplicate Q's. Just because one editor doesn't know when to close a Q doesn't mean all should be banned from doing so. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the whole history of thread-hatting and removing in recent months, but the removal of this particular question strikes me as completely appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Its appropriateness was for BRD to decide. I'm defending Medeis in this thread, but I don't defend that particular case because it violated BRD. For now, BRD/consensus is the best available solution to this problem, and it needs to be observed. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support preventing Medeis from deleting/hatting posts on the ref desks. Asking nicely, trouting, etc, has proved ineffective, though I do wish that would be all that was necessary. Most every time Medeis does hats/delets, at least one other regular user disagrees, and a bunch of arguing ensues (sometimes it is me who argues about Medeis' shutting down threads). I see this as very disruptive, and often times troll feeding, despite the intent. We have plenty of other users who make deletions/removals that are not contentious. Medeis should let them handle it. Since asking hasn't worked in the past, I suspect sanctions will be necessary to stop this pattern of disruption. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Topic ban for Medeis, Medeis often has good and useful responses. Often times not, but that behavior can just be ignored, while hatting/deleting disrupts the desks for everybody. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that we are only discussing topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from hatting or deleting other people's comments while allowing her to do everything else she normally does, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, I thought "topic ban" meant banning from the ref desks. Now stricken. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Admin-only closure - mostly just because I honestly think deletion causes far more strife than any trolls. Trolls hate AGF, good referenced answers, and being ignored. Deleting is none of those. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I very nearly ignored this, but I'm alarmed at some discussion above that sounds like a back-door plan to introduce some sort of policy, or unneeded admin oversight, at the Refdesk. The only thing wrong on the Refdesks is when people try to play admin. Dumb, incomprehensible, or troll questions can easily be ignored; they're just "roughage" and no real problem to anyone. Either you waste your time answering or you don't. Is it bad for Medeis to play admin? Yes. But not any worse than when anyone else does. Whoever comes in with big plans for reform this, ban that, enforce this, block that ... they do nothing but harm. So make your decision about Medeis personally as you see fit, but please don't mess with the Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wnt hit the nail on the head. There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from deleting or collapsing other people's comments -- there are at least a dozen well-respected users who are doing that without the controversial decisions -- but all sorts of potential downside to changing how the refdesks work just to deal with one disruptive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board? What exactly are you pointing to as a problem here? Wnt's opinion that the medical industry (see his comments on testosterone) is a monopolistic scam are well known. Where have I acted according to our medical disclaimer, then refused to accept consensus when my action has been reverted? Where is any evidence for this entire thread so that uninvolved admins can observe it? μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe what some people are suggesting is that they'd prefer if you didn't care at all about (micro-)managing the desks, and limited your contributions to the reference desks to answers and questions, but not hatting and removing (and, to a lesser degree, not adding mid-thread comments on a question's appropriateness or a querent's sincerity). The reason some editors are suggesting this lies in the number of your interferences that have irritated (and sometimes been reverted by) a number of regular editors. The fact, that you don't mind adding opinionated comment when you so see fit has added to some contributors' irritation (or resignation). I find it hard to understand how you couldh't have noticed this by now. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying some ref desk regulars would rather not enforce the rules against professional advice, for example, then you're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you telling me that editors working at the Reference Desk are okay with giving out professional advice, even when they have no professional credentials? This really opens up problems for Wikipedia and does no service to readers who come there with questions. There should be no shoot-from-the-hip answers to medical, legal, business or career questions that come up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, this isn't the issue. Most of us are happy with the current guidelines at WP:RD/G/M. The problem is with Medeis' hatting and deletion of "trolling", as she perceives it: her standards of what constitutes "trolling" do not match those of the majority of Reference Desk regulars. If Medeis would restrict her actions to medical and legal advice as defined in the guidelines, the problem would be greatly reduced (if not entirely eliminated). Tevildo (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There are also editors who are perfectly willing to allow banned users to edit. And when an experienced editor recognizes such a user's M.O., you get some editors exhibiting bad faith toward the editor who recognizes it, and start talking about starting an SPI, which is a fool's errand and only feeds the banned editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well, yes, Tevildo, this is exactly the issue raised above. Liz, we have various editors who argue regularly that a question is "interesting" and that if it had been worded in some other way it wouldn't violate our ban on giving professional advice. We recently had a discussion Snow Rise started at the reference desk talk page about whether licensed veterinary advice was a violation of the Wikipedia:General_disclaimer even though the opinion that veterinary advice is forbidden has been consensus since at least 2007.

We have three issues here. (1) A total lack of evidence that I have recently or materially violated BRD, or am acting in bad faith. (2) A significant number of contributers here who think that questioners who can be "ignored" (although they never are) who never disobey policy, only regulars following policy that is a problem, and (3) a "content" dispute over posts which certain people would rather settle by limiting my editting rather than having a set of rules that apply equally to ("at least a dozen well-respected users") all.

The solutions are twofold: an objective set of criteria, and equal application of those criteria to all, including those who ask at the desks, and those who work there. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Re: "So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board?", No, I am suggesting that you get out of the business of deciding what stays and what goes. You are really, really bad at it, and there are at least a dozen people who are good at it who should be allowed to do -- well -- what you are doing -- badly. You would still be allowed to call for something to be deleted or hatted. You would still be allowed to answer or ignore questions. You just wouldn't be allowed to do the one thing that you suck at. How many different editors have to take you to ANI before you get the point? Just stop, now, voluntarily, and save us all another million words of debating. --07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. In mainspace, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, when followed and enforced, do a pretty good job of protecting articles from editors whose edits do not improve the encyclopedia. Can they be gamed? Absolutely. Anything can be gamed (and whatever Medeis's shortcomings, I don't see deliberately gaming the system as one of them, in any case). We don't selectively exclude editors who agree to observe BRD, no matter how bad their judgment. Medeis has agreed to observe BRD provided it applies to all, a perfectly reasonable expectation and condition.

What is the absolute worst case result of this proposal? What is its maximum downside? Well, zero discussion is required to simply allow a disputed edit to fail for lack of consensus. Medeis can open a discussion, but no one is forced to participate in it. If she then hatted or removed every thread on every refdesk, and if every such action were inappropriate, the time cost would be less than 15 minutes per day, the time it takes to undo approximately 56 edits (8 threads times 7 desks). That's your worst case, and one that we would obviously never approach. We have already spent more time in this discussion than we would likely spend reverting Medeis in a month.

We need to take a collective deep breath, stand back, and give existing processes a chance to work as they were designed to work. As far as I can tell this has not been tried consistently and evenly at the refdesks; correct me if I'm wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep citing the disclaimer, at strongest, the disclaimer should be taken to say "We aren't claiming this is professional advice". A disclaimer would be something like "Enter at your own risk", which would mean, you assume risk by entering; it would not mean, "People inside will prevent you from entering, and are obliged to do so", or whatever. I'm not even saying your general point was/is wrong about the issue you are referencing, but please stop citing a disclaimer as if they were rules - or, if that is how Wikipedia really means them, let's rename the page, because that's not what a disclaimer generally means.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on μηδείς. Boldly hatting is fine and there is really no evidence of disuption or edit warring. Relegating a simple task such as hatting to "no big deal" admins is ludicrous. Close/ --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support for TBAN or one-revert limit for Medeis, with regard to hatting discussions and removing the edits of another contributor - As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme.

Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately.

Thoroughly oppose (policy-inconsistent) suggestion of admin-only closures First off, since no one else has pointed this out, I think it needs to be recognized that we, the small collection of editors in this discussion, do not have the authority to implement such a ruling to begin with. The standards which govern when it is acceptable to close down a discussion or to alter the contents of another editor's contributions are the subject of broad community consensus and we are not allowed to create idiosyncratic approaches to these situations which limit or modify those standards in a given space without soliciting broad community discussion to reach a new consensus and alter the relevant policies accordingly (regardless of whether said change in policy applies to all areas of the project broadly or just specific scenarios/spaces). Deciding to apply a unique standard to our area of operation is not allowable and is a notion that ArbCom has already had disabuse several WikiProjects of in recent time; going down that road here is not only a non-starter, but likely to amp the drama up another few notches. Nowhere on the project, that I'm aware of, have these actions been regarded as the sole purview of administrators.

But even putting aside the fact that this procedurally not allowed, I don't see the utility either; the vast, vast, vast majority of our contributors at the Ref Desks who have occasionally hatted a problematic discussion do so only on rare occasion and without creating a ruckus. I dare say a majority of these actions are found to be in the best interests of the project and consistent with our guidelines and are not reversed. Medeis' suggestion of "fine, but if I can't do it, then the standard should be shared by all and no one should be able to do it" does not hold water to me, as this discussion is meant to consider whether her behaviours in this regard are problematic, not whether such actions are ever appropriate from editors without admin privileges; policy and the community consensus clearly say that they sometimes are, but that these actions should be approached with intense caution and reservation. For the rest of our contributors who, by and large, observe that restraint, these actions are not problematic and I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here (again, if we were even empowered to in this discussion, which we are not). Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support 1RR for ALL editors, not just singling out / scapegoating one. But make an exception when the edit summary is WP:DENY, which telegraphs the removal of comments by a banned user or perennial troll. That type of removal should NOT be reverted. Some discrete discussion (probably off-wiki) could be had with the user who removed it. Arguing about it on the ref desk talk page is counterproductive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Singling out is exactly what this thread is about. There is no scapegoating, it is a simple fact that Medeis has dozens of times deleted/hatted things inappropriately, and many of us find that to be disruptive. It especially disruptive since it is an ongoing pattern of behavior. It is even more disruptive because all polite requests to stop doing that have been ignored. If one of my students acts up in class, I deal with that student, I don't change the rules for everyone else. It's really simple. Most of the ref desk regulars do not have multiple complaints about their behavior, and Medeis does. This outstanding behavior is exactly why Medeis is being singled out. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Even so, if you impose 1RR on Medeis, and not on the other editors, it IS scapegoating. The original complainant here hadn't even commented on the ref desk talk page recently. It's grandstanding, an "end around" play. In short, it's a bad-faith complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, another editor pointed out some typical debate-seeking questions from a Toronto-based troll, or "Toron-troll". Dollars to donuts, someone will revert my hatting on some ridiculous grounds. And if they do, those folks should be sanctioned for it. Their lack of vigilance does not serve the ref desk well. Medeis sometimes over-vigilance doesn't really bother anyone except the troll enablers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you know what scapegoat means. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, putting aside for a moment why you think all editors should be held to the same standard we are trying to apply for one editor who is particularly disruptive in this area, you need to understand that this is just not an option that we are empowered to mandate here. Wikipedia already has standards which govern when the average editor can and cannot perform actions like hatting and removal of another user's comments. The editors in a given content or discussion space are simply not allowed to create unique rules governing such behaviour that apply only to them in their favourite space. In order to affect that change, you need to seek broad community involvement the alter the relevant policies. We cannot simply decide to change the rules on our own, whether it means make the rules more permissive or more restrictive. That's just not the way Wikipedia works. We obey the same rules as the rest of the project and only in cases where policy says as much do separate rules apply to separate spaces. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to call to everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Help desk, where we manage to get by just fine without any self-appointed sheriffs deleting questions that they don't like. these include:

• Legal threats/BLP issues: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 February 5#request for correction of errors and defamation
• Misplaced vandalism reports: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 12#"Sickle"
• Misplaced content disputes: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 20#"HANDS UP" FALSE NARRATIVE
• Requests for medical advice: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 1#Audio illutions
• Questions written in other languages: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 November 24#لماذا تم حذف صفحتي؟

What few content deletions we have are 100% uncontroversial and generate zero drama.[62] In all other cases, the question gets answered, even if the answer is "You are in the wrong place; the right place is X" or "That's not a question Wikipedia can answer".

Perhaps western civilization won't collapse if μηδείς/Medeis is banned from deleting questions/discussions that she doesn't like... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this thread should be put to bed. It's especially objectionable when we get sarcastic remarks like the immediate above that offer no evidence of edit warring on my part to be met with "hear hear" by SemanticMantis who calls for sanctions against me for hatting, yet here he closes part of a thread he doesn't like even after participating in it himself.

For those uninvolved admins unfamiliar with the so called toronto troll, the user's MO has been start threads about "why do blackk people..." "why do Jewish people..." and then segue into offensive material. I've never (I believe) found it necessary to hat that user, but one can look at the question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Medeis&diff=prev&oldid=583257615 "How does it feel to be a negress? Do you find it hard on yourself because your race genetically has average 85 IQ?" on my talk page from a bit over a year ago. This is the kind of user whose Ref Desk questions we are told should be ignored, rather than deleted or hatted.

I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins this archived discussion "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_111#my_stuff_keeps_getting_deleted My stuff keeps getting deleted" where a now indeffed user complains his edits about making water come out of his mouth by inserting water up his anus were hatted, Tevildo repeated the recent decision that such trolling should be deleted without comment: "these things only work if we _delete_ the offending content and _don't_ have these endless post-mortems about it". I did only then delete the thread, but User Wnt, who wants me sanctioned above, called us "the ethics trolls" and proceeded even further against consensus to answer the question not on the ref desk, but the talk page.

I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins there's currently 33,000 bytes of discussion going on at the Ref Desk about hatting, etc., with all sorts of rancor, none of which accuses me of any wrongdoing, and in which I have not participated since I am under inquest here.

I'd also like to point out that the IP from Toronto who asked me about my intelligence as a negress has apparently returned here with a race baiting question about how dangerous Sweden is because it allows mixed race dating, yet SemanticMantis unhatted another post on the same board as part of his dispute with BBB, while I remain silent.

Before getting into TLDR, let me summarize. There's no evidence of my edit warring or acting in bad faith. The rules call for hatting or deleting certain questions. Those rules can be changed or borderline questions discussed if necessary; content disputes don't belong here. There's a 33kb discussion about this elsewhere. We simply need clear rules that apply equally to all. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you think this is about edit warring just shows that you don't get it and likely never will without being topic banned from deleting/hatting other people's comments.

Snow explained it better than I could in his comment above:

"As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme."

"Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately." (quote from snow, 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) )

μηδείς/Medeis, do you have any response to the above? Do you deny that it is an accurate description of the situation? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to call me Medeis, the Greek letters are simply to make it easier for me to find my comments. Rather than answer your rhetorical lawyering (since expecting me to argue endlessly is a trap) I would ask you how you respond to Ian.thomson, Inediblehulk, Mandruss, Chillum, Mlpearc, Flinders Petrie, Baseball Bugs, Collect, Liz, DHeyward above, and even SteveBaker (who properly argues for clear rules for all) above? (That's rhetorical, so please don't.) I will point out that the Ref Desks are not talk pages, and they are under the same restrictions as mainspace; BLP, etc. I'll also repeat that I am happy to follow the same rules as everyone else, assuming we adopt 1RR or deletion by Admins only, or keep the BRD status quo. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Evasion noted. I won't bother you with such questions again. I think the reader can easily figure out whether the above is an accurate description of the situation, and further comments by me are unlikely to change any minds here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support any and all proposed limitations on Medeis be that a 1RR without exceptions or a complete ban on hatting/closures. Oppose admin only closure/hatting idea as being fundamentally opposed to the way wikipedia works, and the purpose of admins on wikipedia. Also weakly oppose a 1RR for all editors.

I haven't posted yet, primarily because it didn't look like this discussion was going anywhere. Also, I did entertain the notion of bring more evidence to, but decided I couldn't be bothered, and the state of this discussion meant it wouldn't be useful.

I will say I think Medeis is being misleading when they suggest they already follow BRD. This example shows a double closure, there's at least one other very recent case here [63] [64]. It's true that in that case the editor who reverted Medeis was the poster themselves, but that's still beyond the BRD cycle. Now the IP in this latest case is a well known RD troll. (I use the term loosely because I'm not certain if they're a genuine troll, or just a racist editor who likes to call people negress although I suspect they are a troll for a number of reasons.) However it wasn't entirely clear at the time if it was the same editor. More to the point, Medeis's stated reasons for closing didn't mention that, but the suggestion the IP was trying to draw us in to an off wiki debate. That didn't make sense for numerous reasons, including that the blog itself is largely dead. (It also doesn't seem to be part of the trolls MO.) It got even more confusing when I reversed the deletion since Medeis said that they thought the IP was trying to draw traffic the blog which as I explained there, made no sense. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 112#Closure reverted.

It's true sometimes trolls and other problem editors hang around and revert any attempt to remove their trolling so it's completely normal that editors may sometimes have to revert the original editor. But Medeis's judgement is so poor they really shouldn't be removing/hatting anything, let alone doing it twice no matter who the person who reverted them.

As a loosely related example which I'm only using because I just saw this [65] comment is weird. While I have no problem with the removal of the question from a blocked editor, there's nothing in the OPs question to suggest anything similar to Bowei Huang. (Bowei Huang did occassional ask about stuff relating to the world, but not anything like potty training.)

There is a complicating thing on the Ref Desk namely that there is no status quo. In the case of an article, while it can be complicated, generally BRD means you stay with the status quo, whether someone deletes something, or adds it to the article, that's the bold part which may be reverted leading to discussion. On the Ref Desk, if someone adds a question, or a response, that's not counted as the "bold" part. Removing this response or question is. The upshot of this is that when someone reverts your removal of their response or question, it's much difficult to say that editor isn't following BRD themselves unlike it would be in the article (not that that justifies you not following BRD anyway).

Another difference has already been hinted at by other editors. If someone goes around making bold edits throughout the encyclopaedia, but then never bothers to justify them or when they do, has really poor justification, this isn't generally going to be taken well. Yet Medeis and others above have suggested that it's fine for Medeis to go around making these edits, because they're only bold, and they're in fact probably not going to bother to discuss it. I'm not saying this is wrong, simply that we have to be careful in understanding how BRD works and why it works differently.

Anyway back to the main point, while these are only 2 examples, I'm fairly sure there are more relatively recent cases. And definitely there are way more poor closures from Medeis.

Which is my final point. While experienced editors have no problems finding something from the history (although if you don't know who posted it it can be difficult as the RD is fairly active), nor reverting hats or closures, it's likely confusing, not to mention uninviting to newbies. I'm all for removing genuine trolling etc, to the disagreement of an number of other RD regulars, but I also do appreciate the harm such actions can cause newbies. So we shouldn't think of a bold closure or removal which is very poor as having no impact, just because it's trivial for experienced editors to fix.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Call for Close

As is our tradition, no admin at ANI is willing to stop μηδείς/Medeis from continuing this behavior, a large number of other editors are unwilling to accept the behavior without asking ANI for help, and a slightly smaller but still significant number of editors are perfectly fine with the behavior. The traditional parallel discussion at the ref desk talk page is, again according to our longstanding tradition, going nowhere. We might as well close this discussion and wait for the next one, then the one after that, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia

Hi. I am involved with this article and the ongoing dispute in which User:Director has pursued a curious position for years now, whereby the list article includes various offices in various states in its scope, with little regard for verifiability. I told him that back in 2011, to no avail. He has continued to advocate this position, with no improvement with regard to WP:V, and recently engaged in an edit war with User:Timbouctou over it. User:Tuvixer also chimed in with a few reverts of their own. Once they finally got off the edit-war-wagon, there was still no resolution to the issue - the article remains in the state where its basic premises in the lead section are not supported by any references, and the page history is littered with insults. This has gone well beyond a simple content dispute and into an unambiguous violation of numerous policies.

On the Talk page, when I recently tried to say something, I was summarily needled by User:FkpCascais as if I was condoning this whole process by not intervening in an issue where my intervention would be seen as a trivial violation of WP:INVOLVED. This whole exercise in ridiculousness really needs to end. I'm hoping another admin can intervene instead of me and dole out some bans and blocks that are apparently necessary, because I'm not seeing that any further discussion is going to be preventing further blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, behavioral or content.

For example, I'd give:

• a month-long block to both Director and Timbouctou for the egregious and persistent violations of the edit warring policy, coupled with WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, ... violations
• a ban to Director on the topic of the Croatian head of state, broadly construed. Not sure about the duration, because it's been 3-4 years since this started - I don't think it's likely that a short ban would accomplish anything substantial, but it does seem fair to at least try something other than indefinite.
• a final warning to Tuvixer with regard to WP:EW
• a final warning to FkpCascais with regard to WP:DEPE

And that's just for what I saw they did at this particular article. I noticed there have been some disputes on other articles, but I haven't had the time or stomach to analyze it all. There could well be grounds for even stricter sanctions. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The citation that Socialist Republic of Croatia and Republic of Croatia are the same state and the same country can be easily found in the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. I was going to find all citations necessary and put them on Talk page of that article, but now I see that we have come to a time where it is implied that fear should be the guide in editing certain articles. I don't know if that is what Wikipedia was intended, but I will still find the citations, and with your permission User:Joy, put them on talk. Not today, but during next week. Now rule by fiat and martial law is in place on those articles, which is sad and dangerous. That is all from me. I hope no user will be banned, of course if they stop edit warring. Maybe to protected the article for a month, so we can all resolve this on the Talk page of the article, what do you say? I think that is the best solution, because banning users will just make it worse and allow one user to edit the whole article without any consensus. So I think the article should be protected for a month. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit history on the 17th Feb makes intersting reading. WP:25RR anyone? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not indeff blocks all-round, while we're at it? Yeah, you can tell old Joy here is WP:INVOLVED..

Timbouctou and I don't get along, that's an established fact (we had an interaction ban). And the knee-jerk edit-war really is inexcusable, I don't pretend otherwise (in fact I said so myself earlier in a pretty amiable chat with Timbouctou). But the thing is - this report is about the article, not me or Timbouctou: there is no edit-war over there now for days, and we are discussing the issue amicably, with several editors contributing their opinions - and its not looking like it'll turn out the way Joy wants. Claims of WP:V violation are opposed on the talkpage as unfounded, and the proposed changes to the article do not have consensus. Last I looked, three users (myself included) currently oppose any changes - this is not a clear-cut issue, at the very least. And as Tuvixer in part points out - this is a political, left/right dispute at its core.

What this really looks like - especially the topic ban - is a means for Joy to circumvent user consensus, and get his way content-wise. The topic ban is especially suspect: I do NOT consider myself the owner of the article nor do I in any way adopt such a stance - but I hope I am allowed to point out that I did pretty much write the thing up (alongside many other officeholder list articles). Now I'm to be topic-banned essentially on the basis of one bout of edit-warring? And that's justified and fair? Nah. That's Joy removing me from the picture over there (ironically while citing DEPE).

So in summation: yeah, I screwed up - big time. I should not have edit-warred, its a silly, stupid, childish thing I did, and I'm ashamed of it - even more so for being around here on Wiki for so long. I blew my top. I apologize, throw myself at the mercy of the court, and plead temporary insanity :).
What I do not like, however, is this one incident of my reverting Timbouctou's recent changes (against consensus mind you!) being blown out of all realistic proportions, turned into some kind of "pattern" - so that it can be used to permanently get me out of Joy's hair. -- Director (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Seems kind of pointless blocking anyone for edit-warring five days after the incident. Not to get into the idiocy of the meritum here, the whole thing started with Direktor flipping out and provoking an edit-war with the exact purpose of drawing attention from admins to use it to his advantage in a content dispute. The "consensus" he talks about regards his wholly original view of the chronology of officeholders on one of the articles he passionately owns (there are dozens of others, but who cares - certainly not admins, that's for sure). The issue has been raised before, several other editors tried to reason with him over the past several years, and this (uninterrupted edit-warring) seems to be the only way of making him participate in a discussion (I think all my previous blocks were because of him on articles he owned and continues to own). He simply doesn't hear anything, instantly throws hissy fits and throws insults right and left against whoever is "against consensus", or as he calls it, the "longstanding version of the article". In short, he is not here to edit, he is here to censor other people's edits. And has been doing that for years. Tuvixer is a relatively new addition to the project, an editor with WP:COMPETENCE issues who does not hide the fact he is here with a political axe to grind, and who learned all he knows about Wikipedia from following Direktor's lead (currently his obsession involves edit-warring over the description of Ivo Josipović's profession and similar bullshit). I guess that's the thing with trolls - to fight one, you have to become one, but if you don't fight them, they just multiply. And I'm just too old for this shit, including the bureaucracy which is required to fight vandals who only need a mouse click or two to cause damage to articles. Where was this promptness and eagerness to help when I was dragged to ANI three times over the past month or so by two puppets on an unrelated article? There are veritable psychopaths up in here but getting them blocked would require like 300 hours of my time compiling evidence, posting diffs, reporting to 17 different noticeboards and enduring 900 pages of rants and essays, explaining the gist of Balkan politics to admins who earned their mops via exemplar and thorough editing of articles on Pokemon. So excuse me if I decide not to follow this thread any more. I have better things to do with my time. Direktor certainly does not. 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

Yes, I flipped out - you remained perfectly cool. In every sense of the word. Of course :). And even though I basically wrote the entire thing, I'm not there to "edit", only harass and censor. Only a WP:OWN-addled, "flipped-out" madman, or some "troll" or other, could possibly oppose that small article being split into three or four non-notable fragments... -- Director (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I could start a thread about an admin not being competent that would get looked at pretty quickly, with plenty of mutal back-slapping... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the window closed on any chance of the (exceptionally strong) remedies you are seeking here days ago. If you had brought the matter of the edit warring here or to 3RR as it was happening, I can't imagine either Direktor or Timbouctou would have escaped a block (after-all, the situation speaks for itself). But at present there discussion ocurring on the page which (while still well short of the collaborative spirit we might want to see there) is at least meeting the basic demands of WP:C and seems as if it might work out a reasonable compromise solution. Forestalling that with blocks seems counter-intuitive. Mind you, being familiar with some of the parties here and the history involved between them, I can well imagine that this could slip back into incivility again (and I trust you'll keep us informed if it does) but at the present moment, don't you think it makes sense to try to give this unlikely truce a chance to bear fruit with regard to the content? Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 17:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see it - there's been no change to the Talk page in the last few days, nor has there been a substantial change to the article. I just don't see the potential for a resolution when nobody has actually backed down from their prior unhelpful stances. Rather, it appears they've just backed off into their corners as if we were in a boxing ring. Classic WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may add, it seems to me that we've allowed the normal editorial process to effectively be taken hostage by these incidents. The chance needs to be primarily given to policy-abiding editors, not to any and all of them indiscriminately. Have a look at what User:Tomobe03 wrote in that Talk page discussion, and what, if any, was the response to his arguments. It seems fairly clear to me that they have been dissuaded from actually working on improving the article. A person who has made huge contributions to a gazillion good articles, including many involving Croatian politics, suddenly won't edit this one list article. Admin effort should be spent unclogging these kinds of stoppages. We shouldn't be enabling them by pretending we don't see this kind of an elephant in the room. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh stop grandstanding, Joy. Nobody's there atm. But Tomboe not being there obviously means he's been "taken hostage", while others not talking means they're WP:NOTHERE as part of an elaborate scheme to avoid the indeff blocks or whatever else you so solemnly proposed? The difference seems to be whether or not they agree with your apparent views on the issue. Nobody's being "bullied" there, and you really seem to be doing your best to blow out of all proportion what amounts to little more than a half hour of craziness... -- Director (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're just continuing to prove my point that preventative measures against further shenanigans are warranted. (When's the next half hour of craziness scheduled?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess logically we can best determine that by looking at when the latest occurred before this one. When was that?

And that's the point, of course: with melodrama you're trying to turn this into a "pattern" of some sort, and paint the most productive editor at that article as "disruptive", based on his opposing a change that you openly support ("he has continued to advocate this position [in this dispute I'm shamelessly misrepresenting]"). -- Director (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Productive? The list article we're talking about mainly consists of an unreferenced list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous and you know it. Nobody in their right mind could seriously doubt those people held the offices as described there. But for the record, if nothing else - I did not compose that list, I placed it in the table. So yeah, I increased the article's size in bytes about three or four times. -- Director (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you did there... yes, nobody in their right mind could possibly object to your ideas. It's just un-possible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you obviously don't "see", because I just pointed out that's not "my idea". -- Director (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to contact Timbouctou yesterday, directly on his talkpage, to see what his current position is; he has not yet responded: I'm "WP:HERE", not in any "corner". And there's been much discussion since the edit war... The last thing that happened is I pinged FkpCascais and Tuvixer on whether any changes at all are necessary, Tuvixer replied "leave it as it is".

As far as I can gather at this point, Tomboe and Timbouctou want to split the article into three(?) other articles, FkpCascais wants to split the wikitable in the article into two sections (which I don't really mind), while Sundostund, Tuvixer, and myself oppose any changes. Feel free to interpret that for me? I personally call that "no consensus after a decent response", and want to remove the opposed tags from the article... but that's me. -- Director (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're continuing to present this is as a rather frivolous content dispute about the editorial notion of scope, and ignoring the glaring verifiability issue. That's just another proof that you're continuing to be disruptive and that preventative measures against this are necessary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

During the past week I have not edited (at all) simply because RL stepped in. The issue at hand is verifiability. I'm not bent on applying one formula or another to the article, rather applying verifiability policy to the material presented. It appears that opposition from Director stems from asserting ownership over the article - they explicitly refer to several articles as "my stuf" (referring to themselves) copied from this particular list (see [66]) - claiming consensus or lack thereof somehow invalidates WP:V (see [67].--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joy. This is a "frivolous content dispute about scope". Exactly. That's my opinion. Because regardless of whether all those republican heads of state constitute "presidents" in a general sense to your satisfaction - if we want the article's scope to include them, we can. And that was the scope since the article's inception in times past beyond memory. Moreover, all those people had the title "president", formally. I think its really strange for someone to demand "sources" and cry "WP:V" in order to allow the article to continue listing (e.g) the "President of the Presidency of Croatia" alongside a "President of Croatia".

I'm not going to further argue against these vague assertions. It's just meaningless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure; but lets remember its you who brought up the content issue. -- Director (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tomboe is latching on to a truly pathetic, out-of-context fragment of a sentence, in brackets, where I refer to the general set up of a wikitable which I used in several list articles, and wonder who has copied it to the Slovene list article. But maybe its a window into my psyche? Who can say, really...

As regards the rest - yes, if we want the article to continue to list Yugoslav-era presidents over there (as opposed to creating fifteen political POVFORKS), we're free to do that. -- Director (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement I referred to was not out-of-context and it is confirmed yet again in this ANI where you referred to yourself as "the most productive editor at that article" (see here [68]) - paraphrasing "I created/wrote the majority of this article." argument provided at WP:OWN as an example of statements used to imply special privileges regarding a specific article and assert its ownership. I see no purpose of this type of arguing when the matter is clearly addressed by existing policies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page

• Angelo6397 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ron Henley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the page about the chess grandmaster and businessman Ron Henley is well established on wikipedia, and was created back in 2005. Recently Angelo6397 (talk · contribs) hijacked this page by moving it to Ron Henley (chess), an edit which he marked as "minor", then editing the resulting redirect with details about a Filipino hip hop musician. Several chess-related articles link to Ron Henley, so I moved the new article to Ron Henley (musician) and tried to move Ron Henley (chess) back to Ron Henley, but this was not allowed by the software. As an interim measure I set up Ron Henley to redirect to Ron Henley (chess).

I need some admin help to move the Ron Henley (chess) article back to its rightful place at Ron Henley. Also, please explain to Angelo6397 that hijacking articles in this manner is absolutely unacceptable. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, a WP:BOLD move of an article is not in and of itself a problem. It only becomes a problem if an editor makes a lot of Bold moves that are bad choices, contested, and have to be moved back, or if the moving editor starts move-warring, or moves it again against a talk page consensus. Then it's worthwhile dealing with the disruption that's being caused -- but a single Bold move is not a matter of concern, however annoying it may be at the moment. BMK (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I'd suggest you place {{db-move|1=Ron Henley (chess)|2=response to this [[WP:ANI#User:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page|ANI thread]]}} if this is noncontroversial. (I think it should be restored too, but others might not agree.) OR, we could keep it as it is, and add {{redirect|Ron Henley|the musician|Ron Henley (musician)}}. Either way seems fine to me. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The other Ron Henley is a Filipino rapper. It doesn't appear to me that either is the most obvious target for "Ron Henley", so I've converted Ron Henley from a redirect to Ron Henley (chess) into a dab page. This, of course, can be undone as the result of a RM discussion BMK (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the talk page of Ron Henley is directed to Talk:Ron Henley (chess) and I'm not sure how to break that link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to have fixed that problem. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy with Ron Henley pointing to a DAB page because several wikipedia pages were already pointing to the page for the chess player. Moving the page to Ron Henley (chess) should never have been done. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a valid complaint. The number of links is not great, but it's more than a handful, so rather than sit here and change them by hand, I've moved the current disambiguation page (Ron Henley) to Ron Henley (disambiguation) and changed Ron Henley to a redirect to Ron Henley (temp) which redirects to Ron Henley (chess). The bot should come by fairly quickly and fix the double redirect, so that all links to Ron Henley will go to Ron Henley (chess). Then the dab page can go back to the main page and the linking problem will have been fixed. BMK (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bots usually pick up on the double redirects pretty quickly anyway, but I've left a request at AvicBot to do this one. BMK (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot that handled it did not do what I've normally seen done -- that is, it just changed that article title levels without fixing the double redirects at the level below -- therefore, I did the changes manually myself. I've also undone anothher editor's changes of the disambiguator "chess" to "chess player" because it fucked up everything I had just done. BMK (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The musician seems non-notable or barely notable, and the article about him is badly written. I'd go back to the chess player on the main title, with the musician as "see also" or AfD. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he is non-notable, but that gets taken care of with one of the deletion processes. In any case his non-notability wasn't immediately apparent to me -- he's got a major label release -- so as long as he's got an article (however poorly written), this seems like the best arrangement. If his article goes away, that's a different story. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC calls for more than one such release. I agree that the musician article shouldn't be deleted without normal process. I'm saying that between the two articles, it looks to me based on the musician's marginal notability that the chess player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore the musician article (if it's not deleted) should get a hatnote rather than a dab. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that mistake, I thought it was non-controversial. As I searched in Google, there are 515,000 results when I search Ron Henley as a rapper, and as a chess grandmaster it only results about 50,000. So I think that's a large margin. I'm sorry if I'm wrong and for the mess I made. Anybody can revert my actions freely. Thanks! -Angelo6397 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's contested, but not necessarily wrong. That remains to be seen. BMK (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't also think so that it is eligible for RfD. He has almost 100 million YouTube channel views, he also has 3 major album releases and including 1 EP that is popular here in the Philippines. -Angelo6397 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how the procedure works formally but the next step is to decide (through concensus) what Ron Henley should point to. Internet hits aren't everything, published books and videos must count for something too. We need to decide, should it point to one article or the other, or should it point to a DAB? BTW there's another musician called Ron Henley, he was a member of the Liverpool Five. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Where would a conversation like this happen, MaxBrowne? Liz 15:45, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

The easiest thing would to have it on one of the two "Ron Henley" article talk pages, and put a link to it on the other article talk page. Also, put neutral pointers to the discussion on the talk pages of all Wikiprojects listed on both article talk pages, and list it on the contested moves section of WP:RM. I think that would cover it. BMK (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To avoid confusion as @MaxBrowne said there is another musician with the same name. I moved Ron Henley (musician) to Ron Henley (rapper). It's like this article --> Abra (rapper). -Angelo6397 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect and disambiguation muddle

A network of redirects and disambiguation pages has become very muddled and I fear it will take someone with admin tools and a clear understanding of the system to fix it. It's arisen because of Bolterc's desire that AAP should redirect to Aam Aadmi Party (that's a fairly new Indian political party which has recently won a landslide victory in the Delhi state elections). As a result of several changes in the last couple of hours, we now have:

• AAP disambiguation a disambiguation page which lists about 30 articles
• AAP (disambiguation), a redirect to AAP disambiguation
• AAP a redirect to Aam Admi Party
• Aaaap a redirect to Aam Admi Party
• AAAAP (disambiguation) a redirect to AAP
• Aap (disambiguation) a redirect to AAP.

Can anyone set all this to function normally? NebY (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AAAAP (disambiguation) tagged as R3, that should shift one of them. I'll take a look at the others. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaaap also tagged as R3 4 to go. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the tagged pages, please let me know if any other administrative action needs to be taken with regards to the articles. Nakon 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bolterc has been a disruptive nuisance from the outset, has been blocked previously and has had both the caste and general India/Pakistan discretionary sanctions warnings. They don't seem to be learning a thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I spotted this through CSD. I've moved the dab page back to AAP, and have protected it for the next week. I'll do some more tidying up of the various redirects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my apologies. I can't see the sanctions notices, although I could have sworn I did only 15 minutes ago. They've been a nuisance nontheless. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Bolterc has made one constructive edit. But they're determined that Aam Admi Party should begin by saying that "AAP redirects here" (because their opponents' article says "BJP redirects here") and not say "for the Pakistani political party, see Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)" (because that "maligns" the Aam Aadmi Party), so they keep breaking things. NebY (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the Election Commission of Pakistan website. The party in discussion here is a namesake party which was not even given a symbol to contest elections. http://ecp.gov.pk/Misc/Parties-with-Symbols.pdf Bolterc (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think the Pakistani party is notable then the correct course of action is to take that article to WP:AFD. As long as it exists, the disambiguations that existed before you got involved would appear to be correct. It is no good complaining that "Modi Bhakts" ("Modi admirers", a reference to the main BJP opposition party at the moment) are manipulating the articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You have now AfD'd the thing but have done so incorrectly. I've tried to fix the mistakes but I too seem to be hitting problems (see this attempt in the log entry.) I've become far too reliant on WP:Twinkle but hopefully someone can sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the AfD nom now. I note that after yet more disruptive editing from Bolterc, Aam Aadmi Party has now been full-protected by RegentsPark. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've protected it for the very short term and would prefer not to see a longer term protection. Bolterc, I suggest changing your approach, your current one is not working and will end up with a block. And that is never helpful. --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are nonsense. You are the one contributing to caste articles and the person who added the hatnote is a veg supporter obviously caste worshiping people. You guys are bjp supporters whether you admit it or not. Bolterc (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a BJP supporter. I am not even Indian and have never voted in the country where I do reside. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ya seems Legit. This is like Dummy Wells claiming i have no idea or nothing to do with illegal use of Copyrighted images on Quora. Bolterc (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by that comment. Can you please explain why, after Mike Peel kiboshed your efforts to create AAP (disambiguation), you have today created Aap (disambiguation)? - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, You want to get me blocked. Try things. Bolterc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aap (disambiguation) was deleted on 20 February 2015 by Bkonrad. You recreated it and it was deleted again on 22 February by Nakon. You have now recreated it yet again. Why is that page so important to you that you would jeopardise your ability to press for the deletion of Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)? NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PM of India is a Criminal accusing AAP as naxalites, but people voted against the corrupt criminal. In a similar way some of the editors are trying to put AAP as a party of Pakistan Origin. On Wikipedia the hatnote has made the visitors of Aam Aadmi Party page misdirected to the pak fake party page. Check my comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aam_Aadmi_Party_(Pakistan) Bolterc (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a serious case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and lack of competence going on here. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There has been a bit of name-calling but perhaps this is the clearest demonstration that we have a POV pusher here. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about your rules and corruption within administration. My question is why did you allow in first place the hatnote on aam aadmi party page to be added? Will you allow the same if a pak guy creates a party with name similar as some american party. Why not add those hatnotes as well. Remove hatnote or prove the pakistan party's originality. How many votes did they get in the pak elections? Prove or remove hatnote. Bolterc (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the AfD, where you also raised a false argument based on a 2013 source, these parties were not formed until 2014. To the best of my knowledge, the last general election in Pakistan was in 2013 and thus they have quite likely not yet contested even one constituency unless they have been involved in a by-election or some regional assembly election. As I also said at the AfD, there are plenty of parties whose name is similar but who operate in different countries; in such circumstances, dabhats are valid. It seems that you are simply not listening or not understanding, although you are very free with your accusations regarding the conduct of others. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what is valid here. Wikipedia is misdirecting the new visitors who wants to learn about AAP to some wasteland which i strongly believe the hatnote maligns the name of the new hope party of India on the Internet search market. There is proof of those stats. We will see. Bolterc (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

At this rate, I see a block coming. It's obvious Bolterc is an advocate for the Indian AAP and is prepared to edit war over a hat note that may tie the Indian party to the Pakistani version, however remote a possibility that may be. Furthermore, it is obvious there is some misdirected nationalist fervour going on here. Bolterc, if you don't want to see an indefinite block coming down on your disruptive editing, you're going to have to put aside your nationalist thinking and listen to people. The majority of non-Indian editors here will have few concerns about the politics of your homeland. What they do see is your constant disruption to the project. Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty (unresolved)

PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Akafeatfausty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are obvious, newly created sock puppets, specifically vandalizing articles I edited.

The nature of their edits is exemplified by nonsensical and bogus edit summaries, such as "Visible anchor, mentioned an impt point with source but tangible" [69] and "Grammar check" when just removing spaces and a line break [70] and "incorporating some changes from Kristina451" [71] when he has incorporated nothing but has simply reverted my edit, and "Fix verb tense" when re-adding the same falsehood to the article that I pointed out on his talk page before. [72]

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty are making identical edits, like replacing the term "high-frequency trading/HFT" with "predatory". [73] [74] Akafeatfausty also uses bogus edit summaries, like claiming to make an edit according to the "Last version as per talk page" when there is nothing even remotely about that on the article's talk page. [75] All within hours. Kristina451 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks have now simultaneously restored their vandalism. PortugueseManofPeace from 03:10 to 03:12 UTC, and Akafeatfausty from 03:15 to 03:18 UTC. Please block indef and roll back their edits. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I met Akafeatfausty (MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect discussing an incident on WP:COIN#Kristina451_and_High-frequency_trading regarding Kristina451. Kristina451 has been mass-undoing revisions from:

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

David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

under all kinds of nonsensical reasons claiming a lack of references, while he/she seems very happy to approve any kind of references or lack thereof that smear the reputation of a specific group of traders. We noticed that Kristina451 claims to be a "professional trader", which probably indicates a personal reason for his/her strong POV and marginalizing behavior against this particular group. We agreed to insert a few true statements into these articles to see if Kristina451 repeats this pattern of flagrantly undoing revisions so long as he/she could keep often false content that was accusative towards high-frequency traders.

For example, in Quote stuffing, Akafeatfausty made the correct call that Citadel LLC is a hedge fund and according to Bloomberg [76], Citadel Securities LLC is a brokerage firm and investment bank, not a high-frequency trading firm as Kristina451 puts it. Kristina451 reverted Akafeatfausty's changes without even bothering to truth-check those statements just because in that sentence, Citadel Securities was being accused of market manipulation and this was another chance for Kristina451 to smear the reputation of high-frequency trading.

I would say this experiment was a success. I think Kristina451 should be spending his/her doggedness, reference-checking skills and wit towards the betterment of other Wikipedia articles, and not waste so much of his/her time on such a juvenile way of smearing the reputation of his/her personal competitors.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify that David Adam Kess and 190.10.199.189 are unrelated to this incident. MelissaHebert is obviously another sock related to the socks PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty. Kristina451 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Akafeatfausty is MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from what I can tell, maybe she didn't want to be known by her real name? You can check our IP addresses if you like. We divided the labor so I was monitoring Flash Boys, Virtu Financial, High-frequency trading and Front running because those were longer and I was more familiar with editing while Akafeatfeausty volunteered to do the rest. There's no overlap between our edits because they're on completely separate articles, why I would need to sockpuppet on completely separate articles? I could have handled all the articles by myself if I wanted to. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you know how to use other IPs and therefore mention it can be checked. But it does not have to, the behavioral evidence is crystal clear. Kristina451 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what behavioral evidence is crystal clear? You obsessively policing every single sentence in every single article that mentions high-frequency traders. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

focusing on a particular topic or aspect is not an issue in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks were signed up in short succession: MelissaHebert on 21 February 2015 at 09:18 UTC, PortugueseManofPeace on 21 February 2015 at 23:01 UTC, Akafeatfausty on 22 February 2015 at 22:56 UTC. The first edit was made by MelissaHebert. A rather interesting first edit for a 'new user', a COI filing against me without notifying me about it. [77] The ploy obviously was to try to provoke me with the other two socks to somehow 'show' that the COI filing was justified.

I think it is time to end this. While this ANI was open, almost certainly the same person responsible for the three socks above created another sock [78] that tried to impersonate David Adam Kess on my talk page and signed with David Adam Kess, who I still think is not involved in this incident. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've caught you red-handed trying to undo all these factually correct edits, such as the one on Citadel Securities LLC, out of your personal spite and conflict of interest. Now you're trying to divert attention from your own wrongdoing with this conspiracy theory about sockpuppeting. I suspect you're the one who created this Shazam puta character yourself to try and falsify a case against me. I'm not surprised:

Upon closer look into your history,

1. Your first edits were of promotional content to an IEX article, which appears to support your agenda against high-frequency traders. This was flagged by MrBill3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

2. Your next edits were of promotional content, which was flagged by Sophie.grothendieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for WP:COI and harassment, which led to WP:functionaries intervening to remove your violating harassment.

3. Then you went on a long hiatus and came back to revenge report Sophie.grothendieck on WP:COIN although it was months since this user last made an edit.

4. Then you went on a mass-undoing spree against David Adam Kess, whose edits seem valid, just because he didn't share your anti-high frequency trading position.

You have a history of dragging everyone into your childish disputes, each time ending with intervention from administrators and functionaries.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You now made it apparent that (you) the puppet master is Sophie.grothendieck. This also explains your untrue claims that you have a history of making, for example here [79] on my talk page. You also created dozens of other socks (I maintain a list of them), most of which are stale. I think the 'whole thing' needs to go to SPI. There is however something that can be handled right away. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.

- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?

- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.

- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.

- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?

- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?

- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.

Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to take some (simple) action

Please block these obvious, recently active sock puppets per WP:DUCK and the comments above:

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

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

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

Shazam puta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This would finally allow me to move on with article work. For obvious reasons, I am reluctant to get into content disputes with socks here at ANI. If any established editor wants to know why the sock edits should be undone, please feel free to ask any question. Thank you, and I hope this will get resolved soon. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators, I want to bring to your attention that Kristina451 deliberately edited this section to remove evidence that I presented which demonstrated that Kristina451 is Shazam puta. Look in the revision history for this section for proof. I think I just caught Kristina451 red-handed again and he/she obviously wanted to hide this. For your convenience, I have readded the content that he/she removed below:

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: You'd think that you would at least try to make this Shazam puta character more convincing. Here's what you posted on my talk page two days ago.

Hello, I'm Kristina451. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Here's what you posted on your own talk page using your Shazam puta account.

Hello Kristina451. I am Shazam puta and really just wanted to take the time to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Contrast this to what I wrote on David Adam Kess's account recently:

Hi, I am PortugueseManofPeace. Thanks for your editorial work on Wikipedia! There is an incident on the administrators' noticeboard discussing how Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing your contributions on the High-frequency trading article that I would like to notify you on.

It doesn't require much semantic analysis to realize that Shazam puta has your writing style, not mine. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You have added this in between my comment and have changed text I wrote. Stop doing that. Add it at the bottom and it is fine. Just so you know, you are comparing the text of a canned template that I posted to your talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451 background

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries forced him/her to change his/her account name just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing.

- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again.

This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles. I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. Please don't fall for this. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You are making it more and more clear that you are Sophie.grothendieck. Kristina451 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See above.

You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.

- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?

- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.

- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.

- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?

- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?

- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.

Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You edited Brian Lee with your 'Sophie.grothendieck' account [80]. The obvious reason for your socking is to avoid scrutiny, and to try to disguise that you are involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [81]. This easily explains all your HFT related POV pushing. Kristina451 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.

[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading

[Akafeatfuasty's version 648283904] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity

[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,

[My version 648385500] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,

This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and that's why I was helping her! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported

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

---

I started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an editor. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "I am evading a block". This is an important point to be clear on. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My cellular IP changes all the time and I never know when as it used by millions. But I went back to check on a SPI I started and found that the last SPI had been deleted quickly. I went to see what happened by looking up a contentious article that existed for 9 years and was deleted based on ideological push. I noticed my notice of an SPI to other editors involved in a lengthy and heated deletion discussion (names I got from the deletion record) were deleted by User:Chillum. I also noticed he falsely accused me of being a sock for starting a SPI. So here I am squawking about it and evading his block, although unknowingly when I first started editing today. I turned myself in, but showed the reason I was blocked as well, as Chillum has attempted to bury that. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

172.56.6.142, what specific action are you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the Cultural Marxism article has been discussed to death. I don't believe it's fruitful to debate over whether it was "salted for Marxist ideological reasons" or "It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins". Particularly given that none of the 3 closers of the AGF were Chillum or RGlocester. Also, one of the results of that long discussion is the article is at Draft:Cultural Marxism. You should instead be worrying about bringing the draft up to a standard acceptable to the community, presuming you're allowed to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, I have deleted a copy of the article at Talk:Cultural Marxist [82]. It's clear by comparing to [83] that a lot of the content originated from the older article. Please remember our copyright licences require attribution. If you are going to be copying and pasting (regardless of whether you modify it) content to other locations, you should be properly attributing it to the original article so the original contributors can be properly attributed, and as I said above that is currently at Draft:Cultural Marxism. (Although if Cultural Marxism was attributed, at least you would have made a good faith effort to attribute.) See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more info. There should also be a good reason why you are copying and pasting the content around. In this case there is none since any article development should happen at the draft article. I would like to think 172.56.6.142 is simply unaware of the draft article, but I'm fairly sure [84] is the same editor with a different IP. Yet the content was added to the talk page [85] after they edit the draft page. This seems to suggest the reason they edited the talk page rather than the draft page was because they weren't getting their way in the draft page and were hoping they could target an area with less attention. I would of course be willing to WP:AGF, if they have good explanation why they copied content to the talk page of Talk:Cultural Marxist rather than continuing to edit the draft article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the orange box when you edit and the red text in the box before you edit are quite clear that you need to notify edits on their talk pages when bringing them to ANI. None of User talk:RGloucester, User talk:Jobrot, User talk:John Foxe or User talk:Chillum seems to have been notified and I did look for deleted messages. I have notifed them for you, but failing to do this basic step isn't generally a good look for any ANI complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• A fine example of confusing wiki lawyering. I self reported and stated my reason for block evading because I was falsely accused and blocked for properly initiating an SPI. The sock subjects were informed of the salted SPI as were several other editors related to the deletion that the meat or sock puppet first appeared. Do your home work. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What specific action are you seeking here? NebY (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the SPI? There isn't a requirement to inform people of opening an SPI and I never said anything about the SPI since it was irrelevant to the points I was making. There is a requirement to inform people when you open an ANI discussing them, and you cannot assume people will know that you are opening an ANI on them because you previously opened an SPI which was deleted. (Frankly that's ridiculious.) And I still can't see any evidence you informed people who you discussed in this ANI, the fact you appear to have evaded the point on not informing people when opening this ANI suggests you did in fact fail to do so. Or perhaps you simply have problems understanding simple instructions (like the orange box when editing this page and the instructions in the page header) and my comments which I felt were clear enough that I was referring to ANI (particularly since I didn't say SPI anywhere before this comment). Either way, this strongly suggests to me your complaints are without merit, without having to even look at the SPI (I'm not an admin so I can't). I don't get the relevance of your other points to my comment. Are you referring to someone else? It may help if you are specific as to who you are referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the title. I self reported for block evading because I was banned for starting a SPI. I care about the SPI because I got blocked for starting one and accused of being a sock by Chillum. Chillum never specified any sock in particular nor did he start a SPI that I am aware of. He just tossed an accusation as a way to justify blocking me, that is what is known as a convenient excuse. It has no merit and I am here for that reason. If he never blocked me I would not be here. Do you understand That? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The SPI was completely irrelevant to my original comments which were concerning your failure to notify people despite opening this ANI thread on them (and other stuff, none of which related to the SPI), which the orange box when you edit, and the red text before you edit make clear you need to do. The SPI was irrelevant to my points, and so you mentioning that you informed people when opening the SPI was irrelevant, and not something I cared about, or I'm guessing anyone else. If you truly care about the SPI, you should be giving yourself the maximum chance people will actual pay attention to you. That means you should be doing what you are required to do when opening the ANI. And it also means you shouldn't be mentioning irrelevant stuff like you informing people when you opened the SPI when someone mentions that you failed to do the basic task of informing people when opening the ANI. (It also means you should be concentrating on the SPI, not how the deletion of the cultural marxism article was some great evil which is what a lot of your original comment appeared to be about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but my guess is that the IP is confusing the AfD for "Cultural Marxism" with WP:SPI, and likely some of the talk page from the old article where this was discussed. The AfD was closed by 3 admins, and then deleted. Afterwards, a redirect was created. There were attempts to restore some of the talk history - but in the end: The whole thing was a huge mess. Note that there is now a "Draft" at Draft:Cultural Marxism, and a great deal of discussion there. I think what happened was that this editor had his IP address changed, was mistaken either for another editor, or as someone attempting to avoid scrutiny, and an IP was blocked. It appears to be a T-mobile IP, so perhaps part of the confusion is the changing IP addresses, and it's become a vicious circle in him/her trying to explain the situation. — Ched :  ?  14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No confusion between AFD and SPI. The action I am seeking is 1. Look at the reason I was blocked, it is clearly for initiating a SPI. 2. look at the SPI I initiated which was well laid out and then quickly closed and salted. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you link to the initial block and SPI report so we can assess the situation objectively? --Jayron32 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my edit summary which is now missing the SPI investigation but clearly shows I informed the parties and those affected by the meat puppet. [86] SPI summary User:Jobrot claims to be a Noob on their user page: [87] Jobrot first edit 8 Dec 2014 was to a heated discussion to delete and article that existed for 9 years: [88] On the same day Jobrot starts using wiki technical jargon of why the article should be deleted. Clearly not a noob and demonstrating the clearest example of using deception to avoid being caught as a sock or for meat puppetry which is treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I edit analyzed every editor involved in the AFD review because of comments made about new accounts, etc. Only one showed a remarkable similarity to Jobrot and that is User:RGloucester. [89] Of 529 total edits made by Jobrot nearly all are linked to RGloucester who claims to be a Marxist on their user page. Jobrot is editing as a SPA and only in closely related Marxist articles to the deleted Cultural Marxist article. There is no way Jobrot is legite and clearly a meat puppet. The facts speak for themselves and I was banned for doing my homework and starting a SPI. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For admins: [90] - for non-admins: [91] submitted by: 172.56.15.36 — Ched :  ?  14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - OK - the first thing I'll note is that you (IP 172) can NOT go around calling editors "paranoid" and such. Not seeing anywhere you impersonated Chillum though, so I'm not sure where that came from (we'll have to hear from Chillum for that I suppose) — Ched :  ?  15:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - OK, I've looked about as much as I intend to absent further requests by others:

1. NEVER speculate about mental health issues of another editor: (see: WP:NPA)
2. I don't really see anything in regards to John Foxe issues seem to be addressed in other venues.
3. I don't really see enough in the SPI to validate a block of either user, although I agree that ...
4. Jobrot is a new account seemingly devoted to the topic of Marxism, but that's not a violation of policy
5. Jobrot has more knowledge of wiki than is expected with the amount of experience that account has: BUT - again absent other evidence of wrongdoing, there's nothing blockable there either. WP:MEAT and WP:SPA may apply to some extent, but not to the extent that anything is actionable.
6. I think Chillum may have been a bit quick on the trigger with the original block, and a bit more WP:AGF would not have hurt.
7. The second block was valid because the first IP was blocked, so indeed it was block evasion. However, given the circumstances I'm in favor of overlooking that.
8. You're (IP 172) not blocked at the moment, so perhaps best to just take this all as a learning experience, and visit another topic for a bit until the fires of this die down. I understand your frustration, but I feel you've gone as far as you can in regards to pointing out issues on the Marxism topic and similarities of agreement between the other two editors.

That's just my two cents worth after having a look around. — Ched :  ?  15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging the SPI had merit. 1. It should of been looked at by more people and not quickly salted. 2. The analyzer does not lie about interactions. 3. Chillum admits to smoking herb on his user page and I am unsure of his mental state or whether he was under the influence at the time but I saw his block as either paranoid behavior or malicious behavior. Because I am an IP I know many have biases towards IP's and as a result exhibit paranoid behavior towards IP's. That was lesser than malicious although it may have been done for that reason instead. 4. Jobrot clearly is not legite based on their clear deception and jumping in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing. If anyone should of been blocked as an obvious sock it would be Jobrot. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate in this discussion (so admins feel free to blank anything I've said, if it's not allowed) - but the reason I appear to have become so quickly versed in wikipedia "alphabet soup" as the accuser puts it, is that I've been editing as an IP for substantially longer than as a registered user. The idea that I jumped in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing is a misapprehension. I walked in... from considerably further away... and I read the signs as I went. --Jobrot (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then why do claim to be a Noob which clearly you are not. Not even close. And that edit analyzer shows almost all your edits are with one other editor, no one else comes close. That is very strong evidence of a meat puppet. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I originally blocked this IP after they engaged in edit warring and disruption at the cultural Marxism draft page/talk page using multiple IPs and also filed a frivolous SPI report. Our sock puppet policy does not allow the use of alternate accounts to file complaints against other users. Disruptive edit warring and political rants while changing IPs is also a violation. I blocked the user for multiple violations of the sock puppet policy, their interpretation of the reasons for the block seems cherry picked and over simplified.

The IP is mistaken about me deleting the SPI, another admin deleted it likely because it was ill formed and without merit or evidence.

Never said you deleted it. It is about you unfounded accusation that I am a sock. It is not my fault you do not understand that by now. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The user came back under another IP, proceeded to impersonate me on several user talk pages by repeating my warning to him to other users including a copy of my signature[92][93][94][95]. This gave the appearance that I had left block messages to all of these users accusing them of using multiple IPS. At least one user thought I was accusing them[96].

Nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No one impersonated, enough with the paranoid behavior. I highlighted Chillum's unjustified block and brought Chillum under scrutiny. It was reposting what you said to bring you under scrutiny. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I blocked that IP for block evasion. The users stated position is that they will use their dynamic IPs to evade block and encourages a range block in the hopes of collateral damage, I think that clarifies if this user is acting in good faith. Not what I said. Another lie of Chillum, I said You could at least block my current IP and all the other one for a least a year or permanently. That would be screwing some other unfortunate sap who just wanted to edit anomalously and highly unlikely ever affect me after tonight due to the thousands of IP the carrier randomly assigns. I was pointing that out so you did not do another knee jerk reaction that would screw millions. I made my point and it was effective and likely the only reason you did not do a knee jerk range block. I was taking care of others and being a smart a$$ to Chillum who blocked with the accusation I am a sock. Again Whose Sock am I supposed to be? Where is the investigation? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I am blocking the reporting IP for block evasion, a short block as the user has made it clear that he is using a shared dynamic IP range and they intend to evade further. I think that since this user seems only interest in certain topics it will be easy to recognize them and that a range block is not needed. As always I welcome scrutiny of my actions. I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny. I suggest they create an account, I did not put an autoblock on this latest IP. If they are able to behave under that account in such a way that does not result in a fresh block then I consider the matter settled. Chillum 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) What subjects would that be? Again more nonsense by Chillum. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) That is a manipulative way to force editors to register, I am glad you are no longer claiming I was logged out to post as a sock as you did in the original block. That is why I brought this here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user appears to be trying to re-created deleted and salted content - Draft talk:Cultural Marxism --Jobrot (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Chillum you a liar and a blatant liar at that. No one impersonated you, as made clear I reposted your comments on other pages involved and made my comments. There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR. You are fabricating to cover up your unjustified block for starting a SPI. I entered a SPI and you blocked me. You continue to lie and are you not one of the "neutral" admins who deleted and salted the article. It seems you are abusing your admin privileges to abuse and silence dissent. Your an obvious liar to anyone who looks at the record. I do my homework and you just go about abusing editors. The admin who looked at you said you did not assume good faith. I thinks it is much worse than that. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I will leave this to another admin to resolve, it is clear this user will keep evading their blocks. It seems they are taking my response personally so another admin handling it may diffuse the situation some. Chillum 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I've just blocked 172.56.16.85 for block evasion. If they carry on with this, the edit filter awaits. -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Not to mention violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV (speaking of "blatant"). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I am glad you brought that up. Is it civil to accuse someone of being a sock and then block them without evidence? Whose sock am I supposed to be? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I suggest you take a read of Wikipedia:Edit warring again. There isn't any requirement to break 3RR for there to be edit warring. Note I'm not commenting on whether there was edit warring, simply that the claim "There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR", fails from the get go, and is actually another one of the several things which suggests your complaints lack merit. For the same reason and more, I also strongly suggest you tone down your language. It's not helping anything. To be blunt, it'll probably be best to drop the SPI. Several editors have suggested that there wasn't enough evidence to merit action. Regardless of whether it should have been deleted, there's no point making a big deal about it. If you want to have any chance of continuing to edit the draft cultural marxism article, you really need to start editing more constructively with others, regardless of whether you believe them to be socks when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate they are. (Note the socking issue is basically irrelevant to the AFD. It had quite a few participants, even if your claims are correct about the 2 alleged socks, the chance they had a significant influence is very slim. This doesn't mean socking is acceptable, simply that even if the wrong decision was made in the AfD as you appear to believe, the purported socking was surely only a minor component.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) The AFD was nearly tied to keep or delete. Socks had a big effect on the outcome. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Once again, you need to reread stuff. This time the closing statement Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). None of the 3 closers said the AfD was nearly tied. Actually, this is incredibly unlikely since if it was nearly tied, then it would almost definitely have ended up as no consensus rather than delete. If you don't understand how WP:Consensus, or WP:AFD works, perhaps you need to re-read those as well. They aren't a vote so numbers being tied may not indicate the outcome is close to tied. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Given comments like "it is what you can expect from an avowed marxist as marxists are nothing more than sophisticated thieves and you can never trust a thief"(referring to Jobrot/RGloucester on my talk page[97]) I am retracting my above offer "I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny". I don't think this user's strong opinions and attitude are compatible with a neutral point of view. Chillum 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That is after you blocked me not before so it has no bearing on your original decision to block. I was perturbed at your abuse of me for being an IP. Apparently Chillum has no clue as to how cellular IP's work. That is his problem not mine. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I'm involved as an editor at the draft cultural Marxism page, so I'm not going to take any steps in this case as an admin. I see some priority in getting a solid, scholarly article on the "cultural Marxism" meme, following the recent controversy, etc., with the article. If I weren't involved in that way, I might have considered reducing the length of the original block if I'd been asked - it seemed a bit harsh for the behavior up to that time. In particular, the SPI was without much merit (the two users concerned have very different styles and modus operandi), but evidently sincere. Also bear in mind that this editor was not the first on the talk page to delete large chunks of material by others. The excuse used on both sides was that the material took the form of political ranting and that talk pages are not forums for political discussion. That's true, but the material by the people on the other side has been almost as bad in that respect. I wish everyone there would calm down, stop pushing their pet POVs, and concentrate on producing the best possible (neutral, informative) article, since it will be exposed to scrutiny from the community at some point. (I actually think the current version of the article is pretty good and would be fine in article space.) All that said, this editor has come here with a culture warring mentality and has been increasingly uncivil. Having seen how they interacted with User:Chillum, and now some of their language on this page, I now don't have a lot of sympathy. It would help if they would create an account, establish an identity here, and try to get along with others by editing articles in a neutral, incremental and civil way. Although they have a strong point of view, they actually do seem to have some relevant knowledge that we could use. But if they are here to use Wikipedia as a battleground in a culture war, I don't think there's a future for them. Metamagician3000 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Increasingly irate for being blocked after starting a SPI and being accused of being a sock and then blocked. Again WHOSE SOCK??? Their is no merit to Chillum's accusation it is just a convenient excuse to abuse and block an IP because they are an IP. Very cultish behavior in my opinion. People are free to edit without harassment to become registered. Treating IP differently and insisting they register is harassment. I know, I have dealt with it for 10 years here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Enough group think. Bottom line is Chillum blocked an IP for starting an SPI and he keeps fabricating lies to justify it. He accused me of being a sock. Well whose Sock??? That is the hole in Chillum's thinking and easily proves his maleficence. His behavior was either paranoia, inability to handle admin duties, or maliciousness. You decide. Hot off the press is the events of the fiasco posted here: [98] Look it over and it will be clear there was no edit war or sock as he accuses with no evidence. I have always been an IP and I am not easily pressured to join because of relentless requests (kind of cultish behavior). Here's an article to consider creating the Cult of Wikipedia. Chillum considers abusing IP's to be acceptable behavior and he lacks integrity. He has lied and repeated his lies and I have pointed that out quite thoroughly at the above link. I will not stand for his lies and abuse, Chillum must be someone special in the real world, kind of like the comic guy on the Simpsons. Of course I do not mean to offend Comic Book Guy. 208.54.32.236 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I've removed a bunch of comments from the IP above which were either inserted in the middle of someone's signed comment. Or were inserted between signed comments, which may be fine, if the IP had bothered to sign, but they didn't. See [99] for what was removed. This created a very confusing thread where it wasn't clear who had written what. Ignoring the block evasion, the IP really, really needs to learn how to participate in wikipedia discussion (like signing comments, and not inserting their comments in to the middle of someone else's signed comment), if they want to continue here. I did this manually because when I tried to undo one of these changes, the most recent one, it couldn't be done. I think I got everything though. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I reinserted my responses in the ANI I started.172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) And I reverted you. If you want any chance for your comments to stand, fix the issues you've made. Don't expect anyone else to fix your mess, particularly when you're a block evader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you for signing. There's still no excuse for you inserting your comments in to the middle of others signed comments though so I've reverted such comments. Please fix that issue if you want your remaining comments to stand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) When the IP is blocked, will some revert the IP who is still insisting on inserting their comments in to the middle of existing signed comments [100]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Would some please look at the four times User talk:Nil Einne reverted my comments. He is clearly edit warring at ANI even after I put a warning on his talk page. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Comment, I dont know if this IP editor is way off base here but the circumstantial evidence he posted on my talk page certainly seems to warrant a checkuser. Would it be kosher for me to file it on his behalf? WeldNeck (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Feel free to file if you think that there is enough evidence to conduct the checkuser. It looks like there might be from my read of the discussion. Mamyles (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Does evading a block count as a "good faith" act? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user is on a dynamic IP shared by many users, I doubt a CU will show much. To clarify it was the use of multiple IPs while edit warring, posting political rants and posting frivolous reports. It is not relevant if they have an account somewhere, and the technical evidence is unlikely to reveal concrete evidence against a user given the changing nature of the IP. The relevant parts of WP:SOCK are Editing project space and Avoiding scrutiny. If you look at all of the IPs this user has used then it is behavior that would not be tolerated by a regular user if they had not been engaging in evasion of scrutiny. Chillum 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you meant a CU against RGloucester/Jobrot then you can try. I personally did not think the complaint had much evidence at all. Chillum 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Okay I am seeing the IP has posted about 20k of comments on your page, more than was in the SPI. I am tired of reading this users very long posts but if you see evidence then I see no reason not to proceed. Chillum 15:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note I have unblocked the original IP based on the fact that they are changing IPs. This should be seen as unblocking the IP not the user. Note the most recent incarnation was blocked for disruption here by another admin. Chillum 15:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck: If you mean you want to start a SPI on Jobrot/RGloucester, I don't think it's appropriate to initiate a SPI on behalf of a blocked editor who can't seem to learn basics of how to collaborate and discuss, particularly when they already tried once and it was rejected and deleted due to I believe insufficient evidence (even if they have more now). As always the case with blocked editors, anyone including you is free to initiate a SPI (or whatever) on their own behalf using material a blocked editor has presented to them. This means they will be taking responsibility for it, not the IP/blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) BTW, Chillum, I'm not sure if you saw the IP's insertation of comments in to the middle of your comment above [[101]]. I haven't bothered to revert now that there are more people here, but if you want to I think you're completely justified. I've tried to convince the IP they shouldn't be doing this, but to no avail. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the evidence should be viewed for what it is and I was taking the temperature of other editors to that end. Do you think it has merit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Einne I saw that, and I reverted/moved the comments a few times. If this editor wants to switch ips and mangle my comments all day then then is not much that can be done short of semi-protecting this page. If it becomes disruptive to the noticeboard someone may decide to do that but no need on my account. I have reverted it again because this thread is already unclear due to the changing IPs scattered contributions and my posting being mangled makes it far less clear. Chillum 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck I don't think it has merit. Post the SPI if you think it has merit but only if you think it does. Don't post it because this IP thinks it has merit. Chillum 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip. Ill go over it again and be doubly sure before (if) I do it. I dont want to feed a troll and encourage hsi behavior but if it has some merit I'd hate to write it off when they obviously spent so much time on it and reached out to me. WeldNeck (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) While I'm not a checkuser in any sense, if it's any help, I just went over evidence for awhile and could not substantiate the SOCK claims. I personally wouldn't file a case. Mamyles (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note Chillum has deleted many of my responses and repeatedly block me so I can not reply. He even changed the title. Bottom line is Chillum originally blocked me for starting a SPI that had a basis and called me a sock as an excuse. Whose sock am I supposed to be? Having a cellular IP that changes when it wants is not a sock. If I turn off my device like when I go somewhere or go to bed changes the IP. Chillum has tried consistently to misrepresent this even though it is clearly spelled out above. If he still cannot understand cellular IP's well it ain't my fault as I have pointed it out several times. Chillum is putting on a show here as he is trying to save face at my expense. I cannot say what Chillum's true original motives were but based on his deceit now it is malicious. He may have originally been paranoid of IP's earlier or just feels it is ok to abuse IP's and treat them like crap. Chillum is now twisting things and deleting my earlier responses because I put this here to put his actions under scrutiny. I could easily disappear but I do not take abuse well. Now he plays catch 22 if I defend myself and point out his maleficence I am evading. Well so be it then. Yeah I made it easy for Chillum to block me again but I turn of my device and have a new IP in 5 minutes, and I will continue to evade his block to edit the ANI I started. Chillum is trying to hide the evidence.172.56.38.47 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Your IPs are being blocked for block-evasion. Get a clue. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) This IP is mad, and that fact that his nonsense is still being entertained in this forum is beyond belief. Block him and be done with it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) He has been blocked like 5 times. Chillum 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Determined but you can call it whatever offensive poison the well tactic young can think of. Your comments say more about you. Are you nervous because some have talked about opening a SPI on you and know you are back to cast aspersions??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I have no need to cast aspersions about you, as you do that well yourself. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that looks that I'm not related to Jobrot in anyway. That's what the SPI clerk said about your report, if you may remember. It is quite clear that you are just another in a long line of sock-puppets that has dominated this discussion from the moment it started, egged on by Mr Wales. Please cease and desist. You can't win. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) "Egged on by Mr. Wales"... uh-huh. BMK (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)− Section break (for readability) IP, I don't think that vowing to continue block evading on purpose and assuming that everyone here's out to get you since you're an IP is going to help your case. Take a deep breath and step back- I'm sure people will be more willing to read your comments if you do so. Thedeadlypenguin (my primary acc.'s talk) 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The Remain Silent Don't Say Nothing Bad About an Abusive Admin has Never Worked ANI I started to have my actions and Chillum's actions scrutinized Note I transferred the below comments from my comments with Wildneck I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Hey WeldNeck, I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my intention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering User:RGloucester is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should let people get away with it. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [102] Chillum wrote: Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC) What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice? What is troubling is User:Chillums amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it. Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared. However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial Cultural Marxism AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that. I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it. 172.56.32.8 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More Discussion

172.56.0.0/18, in case any admin is interested. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Now this IP is using my password reset form over and over. Not going to work, my e-mail is plenty secure. Unless someone is going to take action against me perhaps this can be closed and we can just quietly revert, block, and ignore? Chillum 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by Javalenok

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

---

User Javalenok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues personal attacks after final warning:

• PA on article talk page ==> warning by user Johnuniq: [103]
• response to Johnuniq ==> formal 1st level warning for NPA: [104]
• restored PA on article talk page ==> 3rd level warning: [105]
• "Go fuck you self, owner" ==> final warning: [106]
• "Exposing your misbehaviour... So far, go fuck yourself." after final warning

Not the first time. - DVdm (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the ongoing nature of the attacks, the given warnings, the likelihood of it continuing, and that the attacks are part of a content dispute and are likely to have a chilling effect on our neutral point of view I have blocked this user for 48 hours. Our editors should not have to put up with abuse just because they have an opposing point of view in a content dispute. Chillum 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violator

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

---

In August last year Sosonet91 added copyright material from a cakeentertainment.com page (which carries a clear notice, "© Copyright Cake Entertainment") to the article Angelo Rules, and then, after I removed it, added it again. I left a talk page warning on each occasion, the second time with an extra note to say that I would request a block if it happened again. Today the editor again added the same content. Block requested until such time as the editor can demonstrate both understanding of our copyright policy and intent to abide by it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked. Thanks for reporting -- Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Forged signature, editing other people's comments

IPV6 address from Belgium pretending to be an IPV4 address from Canada[107] and faking the posting time for good measure. Not sure what to make of this or whether any action is needed but I thought I should raise a flag. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2A02:A03F:12DA:D300:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs) Add link to this users edits as they might need examination for accuracy. One of the edits uses a blog as a source. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And now he is editing other people's comments.--Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And again. (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(...CHIRP... ...CHIRP...)

Four IPV6 addresses used so far:

• 2A02:A03F:12DA:D300:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:1221:E100:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:12E6:5500:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:12DD:D700:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)

And (what a shock!) he is also a spammer.[108][109][110] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I have no idea what is happening here. Some IP user added a comment with a fake IP signature and a fake date from two months ago. I have no idea why anyone would want to fake a name and date. I responded to them and they wanted my comment and their comment deleted. I cannot imagine why - the question was fair enough and maybe other people would want to see it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that he is experimenting with using an IP-hopping proxy to spam Wikipedia and thinks that by forging his IP address and posting date and deleting your comment pointing out that he forged his IP address he will be able to avoid detection. What he doesn't realize is that his ham-handed attempts to hide his activity make him stand out like a sore thumb and will no doubt result in his favorite proxies being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

COULD WE PLEASE GET SOME ADMINISTRATOR HELP HERE??? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Guy Macon. I've semi-protected the article for now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Because he has pretty much announced that he is going to keep on spamming the Camgirl page,[111] might I suggest a temporary rangeblock of [ 2A02:A03F:*:*:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Because of spam at at Camgirl[112], Camgirl is now semiprotected.[113] Of course there are plenty of other potential spam targets such as Erotic photography,[114] but one can only hope that he tumbles on to the fact that every time he spams it gets reverted[115] and gives up. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting delevopment at User talk:Guy Macon#Blocking... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, regarding your comment #above, "he has pretty much announced that he is going to keep on spamming the Camgirl page", In that diff he's just arguing, which is what we do here. Don't we routinely delete people's IP addressed when they inadvertently disclose them and ask for deletion (or "oversight" or "rev del" or whatever you call it?) And isn't that what this person seems to be trying to achieve. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If, as appears likely from his latest comments, he is willing to stop deleting other people's comments and edit warring, then I will switch from "stop the disruption" mode to "help the newbie" mode, redacting his IP address in my comments and seeing whether I can arrange for his IP address to be revdeleted from the history. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kostanay and User:Rinice

I am afraid I need some advice since I am unsure what to do. User:Rinice yesterday started to post big chunks of text to Kostanay. They have no contribution outside this article. The first one was copyvio, I reverted it and warned the user. They continued, adding latge pieces of text, which were recognizable as machine translation from Russian (some words were not translated and it was clear they are Russian). I think this is copyvio as well, but I can not find anything since there is no source. I reverted this as well. Today, they continued. I tried contacting them on their talk page in English and in Russian, but they never respond. Suggestions to proceed are most welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on the user's talk page. Any further copy vio should result in an indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But how can we prove it is copyvio? Only their first edit was directly copied from elsewhere. For other edits, I can not find the source of the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, my editing is not a copy-pasted text! As for my interest in the theme - it is a project of our university as we want to present more information than the page contains. I don't understand why you keep reverting my editings, because all the information is taken from our local archives and newspapers that is why I cannot give you direct links. I'm not guilty if other people from Kostanay might have used a resembling information. I live in this city, so, please, don't blame me in the lack of competence! It is I who need an urgent help here, as the interface of Wikipedia turned out to be not very convenient at all! And we thought that it is a free encyclopedia, open for everyone who CAN include something interesting ang new! But in practice I see only those people who suppress any beginnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rinice: I'd suggest you learn on how to cite the information you use. I believe you are looking for the template that is used for books and such (Template:Cite book). If you need, use {{helpme}} on your talk page followed by your question. Hope this helps! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is great that you use the old information to improve the article, but please note that old newspapers are likely to be copyrighted, and adding even translated text from them would be copyright violation. The only way you can add material is to add your own text (written based on the sources, but not repeating them literally and not even closely paraphrasing them).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! I see you won't be against the nonsense then (maybe, you are not in trend, but there occur plenty of mistakes in Wikipedia, because 1. people do not know what they write about, 2. they make up things by themselves. I've understood, you don't want any changes here at all. Local chronicles are the most trustable source, and even a well-processed work is a violation of somebody's rights. It is impossible to write completely different facts for history, for example. According to your logic all historians just copied info from each other (actually they did, if you haven't known). Of course, I will try to invent new things. But, please, try and PROVE that my last editing was taken from somewhere else, or I'll make a petition to your director. Good wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, my communication skills fail. May be someone else could try?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And where is the proof I've asked you about??? If you give up quickly, you admit that this site does not have any responsibility for reliability of the facts which it contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, may be you indeed should make a petition to my director. Sorry, I just failed to communicate to you in a manner you understand.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• The edits were reversed by Epicgenius (thanks). The material is, of course, also poorly and non-neutrally written and unverified... Drmies (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, User:Pagesclo again...

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

---

User:Pagesclo (formerly blocked user User:Craftdraw) is once again mass moving pages. Since it is a topic area I am not familiar with, I have no idea if it is justified or not. More indicative of the user's general attitude is this edit. While minor in itself, the edit summary ("revenge edit") says it all; User:Pagesclo reverted my edit simply because it was my edit. I have tried communicating with this user on previous occasions, with no response. The user is disruptive and unwilling to engage, is constantly moving pages without consensus, and is prone to template-spamming articles. I don't like asking for people to be blocked, and can't recall the last time I did so, but my patience is wearing very thin... Simon Burchell (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For info, previous posting from ANI archive at Disruptive editing by User:Pagesclo and User:Pagesclo... There are others. In the "Disuptive editing" linked incident, the most recent, the user never responded here. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also just noticed this current sockpuppet investigation. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User account has been blocked as a sock of User:Madere etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Deletition of an article that was put for submission

Good day,

I wrote an article and submitted it for checking in September 2014. It was rejected because of some content issues, and I was requested to make changes and resubmit it. I did, and resubmitted it, then it was rejected again in January by some more minor content reasons. Last week I fixed them and resubmitted the article...
Now it was rejected and deleted (!) because of unexplained Copyright issues.
This is the message I got:

 17:39, 20 February 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Silverray123/sandbox 

 (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page: Draft:Stormy Atmosphere) 

The copyright issue never came up at two last times, and nothing was added to the article since then, few things were actually removed, so unfortunately I cannot understang why it suddenly came up this time,
especcially when I can assure you that all the rights are reserved to the band the article is about, nothing was taken from anywhere else (like albums pictures, band picture, names etc.)
Yes I am a new user and don't have much experience, but unfortunately the answers I've got so far were rather partial and therefore not helpful... Especially last time when the work I put so much effort in was just thrashed...
So I would really appreciate an explanation, because I really want the world to see my works and continue contributing to the Wikipedia knowledge base...

Thank you in advance,
Silverray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverray123 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, if you have questions about an administrator's actions, it is best to contact them first. Draft:Stormy Atmosphere was deleted by @RHaworth: with the summary "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en ". Indeed, portions of the text of the draft article are copied word-for-word from the linked webpage. For details about Wikipedia's copyright policy, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because the copyright issue didn't come up in previous reviews doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. It is simply because the previous reviewers didn't check to see if there was a copyright problem. —Farix (t | c) 15:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't user sandboxes generally not deleted except in extreme cases? -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft was deleted for copyvio. The user sandbox page was then deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted page (the draft). Both perfectly standard actions. Bencherlite^Talk 12:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounded by "newcomers"

Hello,

Since M.Bitton and Historian Student's multiple socks have been blocked (1 week for the first, indef. for the second's socks), some "new contributors" appeared, whose only contributions were to revert my edits using the same edit summaries and putting back the controversial versions previously made by M.Bitton and Historian Student and repeating the disruptive behavior that characterized both Historian Student (talk · contribs) and M.Bitton (talk · contribs).

These "new comers" are Ms10vc (talk · contribs) and Sidihmed (talk · contribs), plus an edit from IP 148.163.92.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Wile Ms10vc is obviously not a sock but just a disruptive editor (he participated for months on the French Wikipedia where he had been previously blocked for personal attacks against me (edited: my bad, he was blocked 2 times for personal attacks but not against me... really sorry!) and disruptive editing (edited, Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)), and seems that he wants to start the same thing here), Sidihmed is clearly a sock (but who is the sockmaster? then, how could an SPI be opened without knowing if it is Historian Student or M.Bitton?).

Btw, I ask admins to block these accounts or, at least, to semi-protect the articles that were targeted by Historian Student and his multiple socks as well as by these two "new comers":

• List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moroccan Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ahmad al-Tijani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tijaniyyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sand War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ottoman Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards
--Omar-toons (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. But Omar-Toons, one of the best ways to combat disruption is article improvement. Just saying. I'm not familiar with User:FAIZGUEVARRA, who's been active on one of those back in 2011; something to look into perhaps. Please ask DoRD to run CU on Sidihmed and the other, whom I've already blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Wait. Old timer alert. Who was that joker, a few years ago, doing all this stuff on Y-chromosomes and haplotypes or whatever? This edit has a bunch of that sciency talk. And Omar-Toons, this edit, which I think you endorse on the talk page, seems to remove really reliably sourced content, rather than stuff that's "devoid of meaningful information and pointless". Dougweller, do you have an opinion to offer? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies, I can't recall. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also: WP:ANEW#User:Omar-toons reported by User:Chemsdine-badouri (Result: Nominating editor blocked) (and I have also reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student). Bencherlite^Talk 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I'm confused: Ms10vc was effectively previously blocked on FR.Wiki for personal attacks, but actually not against me. Also, Drmies blocked him for sockpuppettry, but I don't think that he's a sock (as said before), but just a disruptive editor.

For Morisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found that the section was irrelevant, but we are still discussing it (the IP user removed it before we actually got a consensus, but that's another issue). Actually, I think that some information that it contained could be copied to a section to create that could deal with socio/cultural matters. As I just wrote: that subject should be discussed more and more...

For the FAIZGUEVARRA thing, this vandal didn't show up for more than 3 years, I don't think that he's linked to that... but that's juste my (h) opinion...

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Thomas (author)

An SPA Wickerkat (talk · contribs) has padded out, since 2011, the Richard Thomas (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article to ridiculous extent, essentially putting Thomas' entire CV in the article. I removed most of it earlier today, and Wickerkat has restored it. More experienced judgment calls would be desirable. I also believe there are problems with BLP sourcing and the like, but I haven't looked too hard. Choor monster (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A blue-linked WP:NOTAMAZON would be useful here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted it and left them a note about unsourced information. The additions removed included direct links to the purchasing pages on amazon, large amounts of unsourced BLP additions and WP:MOS issues all over the place and external linking issues that I stopped counting when I got to 20. Amortias (T)(C) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that published fiction is normally its own source, and that there were references (but whose quality I did not check too seriously) in the SPA version which I removed, leaving the article without any references. Clean-up is needed, but perhaps the SPA has to get the message first. I should also point out I may have removed too much (some of the awards I deleted might actually be of interest and be sourceable) but like NeilN, giving up is a lot easier. Choor monster (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Will have to see how it goes if they're willing to discuss inclusion of the material properly sourced thats one think but blanket reinstating advertising and unsourced information to a BLP needs to be kept watch of.Amortias (T)(C) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not giving up, the article first has to be drastically trimmed, then built up properly again if sourced properly. Book lists should contain notable works, not every single thing the subject has written. The editor also touched Stephen Graham Jones which was in similar shape, including a copyright violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The books do not need to be individually notable. See WP:LISTN. Choor monster (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is balanced by WP:NOTDIR. I agree the entries do not have to be notable enough to have their own articles but for authors with many works, we should be using something more than "it exists" as an inclusion criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You stated before, "Book lists should contain notable works", and that was what is incorrect. Either the book list is appropriate, or it isn't. Actually, nothing about NOTDIR suggests author bibliographies are inappropriate. Meanwhile, I am opposed to short story lists in general (I am agreeing with the rest of your sentence). The most notable writers, where RS's hang on their every word, yes. The rest, no, because of WP:UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The situation is analogous to "Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I welcomed the editor and left them a long note, then went hunting for sources. I've added what I could but wound up nominating the article for deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note that from the last few edits to their talk page, Wickerkat is actually the author himself. Blackmane (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• As the OP, I will comment that Wickerkat/Richard Thomas has been completely co-operative, there is ongoing discussion on his user talk page, so if there are no objections, I will non-admin close this discussion tomorrow. Thank you everybody. Choor monster (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Likely POV-forking of Lhasa

(The subject title may not be completely fair to Aymatth2 (talk · contribs), but I can't think of a better way of characterizing it. Also pinging Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and Zanhe (talk · contribs), who had been involved in the discussion there.)

These users (largely Aymatth2) and I had been engaging what I thought had been good-faith, if heated, discussions about 1) splitting Lhasa into two articles and 2) what the proper names and the scope of those articles should be. (See the discussions at WT:CHINA#Category:Lhasa Prefecture.) Neither side has been able to convince the other, apparently. But I would like neutral administrator(s) involved in the matter now because it appears that POV-forking may be occurring - as just within the last couple days, Aymatth2 disclosed that he had been writing a separate article in his user space (which he is free to, of course) and planning on then moving it into the main namespace as a completed article. (See the postings toward the end of the discussion - specifically the quote of "I take it that when I request a move into mainspace of the draft article on the prefecture-level region you will either vote to merge it into Lhasa, or after seeing what it looks like you will support the move.") This, as I have been arguing, would disrupt the naming convention formed by years of consensus at WP:NC-ZH and should not be done. I don't disagree with splitting the Lhasa article (and I don't think there is any dispute from anyone else). I disagree with the manner that he's going at it - by proposing a disruption of the naming convention and not addressing the counterarguments.

It sounds to me that this, while not vandalistic behavior nor POV-warring in the classic sense, nevertheless is effectively POV-forking. I've quoted the criteria of POV-forking to him and hoping that he would reexamine this. However, as I said, I am hoping that neutral administrators can get involved in case my own judgment is being clouded by the argument (which is likely) and also see if there is some other way to resolve the matter. Aymatth2's contributions are valuable. But I think in this case I want to try to end/moderate the dispute before I have to effectively argue that good contribution should be deleted because of POV and disruption of consensus as reflected in the naming convention.

Again, help is wanted for my own sanity and the sanity of all those involved. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"POV forking", yes, is quite a ridiculous accusation. I think you have to look at how large the Lhasa reigonal area is and how feasible is it to cover it all in the main article. The city alone, especially historically has enough to be said about it, let alone decent information on the economic practices etc of the wider region. I agree with Aymatth2 that it is practical to have both. I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area. It really is like saying you can't have an article on New York State itself, only New York City. I'd have Lhasa as the main settlement article and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) for the overall regional area with hatnotes putting each in context.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have not yet started an article on Lhasa Municipality, but plan to do so in my user space in the next two or three weeks. I will then formally propose a move to mainspace. I have discussed this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China page, and find no valid objection to slightly changing the scope of the article on Lhasa to focus on the well-known small city, with a separate article describing the 13,000 km² municipality that surrounds it. Any concerns can be brought up in the requested move discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I have never opposed a split. I have, and I think with good reasons that neither you nor Aymatth2 addressed, opposed the naming and scope as proposed. Therefore, the comparison to the New York city/state situation is not apt. Moreover, one of my main objections is that "Lhasa" (as a "small city") is poorly defined. New York City is well-defined as the five boroughs. That makes the situation completely different, actually. Regardless of the merits, though, it is still POV-forking. POV-forking is not the same as, "Everything that is written is/will be trash." In fact, it is often that that is not the case - that the POV-forker's position has substantial merit - that led to the POV-forker to be ardent enough in his/her position to conduct POV-forking - just as what Aymatth2 is doing here. I trust that what Aymatth2 writes is not going to be trash. But it's the failure to address the substantial merits of the opposing position that makes it POV-forking. And note what you are saying here: "I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area." That is exactly the reason why it shouldn't be done. If extended in this manner, it would destroy WP:NC-ZH's geographical naming consensus such that it would no longer be usable. It would fracture the naming scheme into a jumbled mess, if this logic is followed. --Nlu (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: Forking is not the issue. The requested move would combine putting the article about the municipality into mainspace with focusing the Lhasa article on the small city. Is your concern that a requested move of this hypothetical article if approved may upset the project naming conventions? This is a strange incident report. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  I would say that it's an unusual incident report. It's both a report of your behavior (as a highly productive editor but in this case I feel questionable) and my own behavior. I wanted to get neutral parties involved before it get any problematic on both of our parts. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: If I have been impolite at any stage in this discussion I apologize. Diffs would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  No apology necessary. As I've noted, I feel that the questionable behavior is potentially both ways, and that's why I want neutral parties involved. But I would like substantive responses. Effectively, it still comes down to that I am not hearing, as far as I am concerned, any substantive response to my main points of 1) this situation is not unique to Lhasa and that there is no compelling reason to break up the naming convention consensus (which you did not respond to but Dr. Blofeld did, I'll concede - but I find his response to be a horrendous one given the implications that effectively destroy the naming convention) and 2) there is no verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa" (as a small city) other than the potential PRC definition of it as coterminal with Chengguan District, which nobody in the discussion (perhaps myself included) liked as a verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa." The good theory of a "small city article" for Lhasa is, until such a definition can be rendered, practically fatally flawed in my opinion because if there is no commonly-accepted definition of "small city of Lhasa" (and none was given throughout the discussion by you or by Dr. Blofeld) then the article is necessarily going to be original research and POV-oriented. I've offered up the possibility that such a definition may be obtainable from the Tibetan government in exile - but until that occurs, there is none. (No PRC official site that I can find contains any such definition (although the Lhasa City government site that I gave a link to hints at one - and for that matter, ROC governmental sites, having effectively disavowed control of mainland, including Tibet, doesn't contain any such definition (and as I noted, has not for decades).) These are points that I'd like to see addressed, even if there is no agreement with me. A non-response is not a response, and throughout the discussion, I am feeling that I am making cogent points that I am fully aware that not all will agree with - but then effectively end up talking to a wall as neither you nor Dr. Blofeld respond to them. It is very frustrating. It has led to potentially questionable choice of language on my part (which is why, again, I'd like neutral parties involved), not to mention stress and frustration at the lack of response. I think anyone reading over the entire thread in WT:CHINA will agree that effectively we're talking in circles. I am admitting that I may have some fault in it. I do believe that my points still deserve better than a non-response to my substantive points and a response of, effectively, "I'm going to do it anyway" and "I don't care what you think" and "I'm going to ignore whatever negative consequences you bring up because I think they're not negative consequences." --Nlu (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:POVFORK is not relevant to this situation, because there is no attempt to promote a POV here. Trying to label this disagreement as such is a profoundly unhelpful escalation. Kanguole 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  The reason why I think it is a POV-forking are this - based on the descriptions given at WP:POV fork (and again, note that the definitions don't require that the POV fork be junk or be done with bad faith - and I don't think that Aymatth2 writes junk at all):

  1. "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. (In this case, the POV is "the prefecture-level city of Lhasa" is not really "Lhasa.")
  2. "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance[.]" (In this case, nobody is disputing that it may be a good idea to split Lhasa; it is, however, in my opinion (which I realize may not be agreed with - which is part of the dispute) approached without balance (in this case, the two main objections that I had above that are unaddressed and dismissed in a dismissive manner (is that redundant?)).
  3. "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title." (In this case, it dodges the WP:NC-ZH consensus that, for proper styling and consistency reasons, the articles with the names of the prefecture-level cities should refer to the prefecture-level city. And, as I was objecting a few weeks back, in effect, an existing redirect is being converted into a content fork. And the last sentence of the portion I quoted effectively anticipates the situation that we are in now: that a naming dispute is being dodged by the creation of a new article.)
  4. "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." (That's exactly what we are having here.)
  5. "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." (This is, based on the tenor of the discussion, not going to be adhered to - while this description largely refers to a situation where something is being praised/attacked rather than what we have here, the description is still apt; the POV being advanced is, "Anything other than the small city of Lhasa is not really 'Lhasa'" (and note that we still do not have a proper definition, even in this discussion here).) Indeed, the tone is (in not as impolite terms, but still comes down to) "I don't care if I can't define 'Lhasa'; it's not the prefecture-level city; and I'm going to create an article that defines the prefecture-level city as 'not Lhasa' whether you like it or not, and no matter what it does to the naming convention.") This is disruptive, even if there is no intent to disrupt. And it is POV that is non-neutral. A neutral POV solution would be not intentionally creating a substantial deviation from the naming convention. It would instead address the issue of the history/culture/urban development within the article itself or within a daughter article that properly acknowledges that there could be several definitions of "Lhasa." It certainly wouldn't simply disregard (whether it ultimately deviates or not from it) the analogous situations with other prefecture-level cities.

  I don't see how why this is not POV-forking. Indeed, it seems to fit POV-forking's definitions quite well. Again, that doesn't mean that material that is being written is junk. But it is a POV fork to dodge the naming convention. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  There is a difference of opinion on whether or not the article should be split into two articles of different scopes. The argument is about naming conventions, while the essence of POV-forking is that the purpose of a fork is to avoid the NPOV policy. That is quite a serious accusation, and trying to recast different views about naming and scope as misconduct of that sort is very inappropriate and needs to stop. You need to find a way to get more editorial (not administrative) views on the original naming issue. Kanguole 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  @Kanguole: With all due respect - and perhaps your voice is the type that needs to get involved lest that I get overly heated on this - I think if you read the thread in question on WP:CHINA, you will see that that has exactly been what Aymatth2 and I have been trying to do, and that the situation is deteriorating because I am feeling that Aymatth2 is not at all responding to my concerns and perhaps the feeling is mutual. Dr. Blofeld's lack of incivility (an example is shown below with his accusing me effectively of being a PRC puppet) hurt the discussion rather than help it. It requires intervention. Call it editorial or administrative, it still requires intervention. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole Basically Nlu is arguing that we cannot have a separate article on the Lhasa regional unit from the city itself purely because the PRC constitutes Lhasa officially as a "prefecture-level city". What he's not seeing is that from an encyclopedia development view point just one article on a major city and the wider rural area of 13,000 square kilometres is not a feasible way to cover it. Lhasa should cover just the city and Lhasa (prefecture level city) article should overview the entire region. As I say it's much like thinking you're not allowed an article on new York State, all the info about wider rural practices must be covered and mixed in with the urban info on New York City. The naming, if that is genuinely Nlu's primary concern is a minor issue at best and can quite easily be settled by hatnotes, whatever we call them. As I say I think Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region, as that appears to be the official regional type.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: Mount Nyenchen Tanglha is 7,162 metres (23,497 ft) high. The Pangduo Hydro Power Station generates 599 GWh annually. Reting Monastery in Lhünzhub County was founded in 1057. The article on Lhasa is mostly about the small city, as it should be, and does not give this type of information about the broader area. It is bizarre to say a proposal to add an article on the region would be an attempt to create a POV fork and an incident that requires administrator intervention. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  @Aymatth2: This is still not a definition. It points to what is in it, but not to the extent. (Plus, it's also not defined by a particular verifiable source or sources.) Is "Apple headquarters and its surrounding areas" a proper definition of Cupertino, California? You might say so, based on the analogy above. I don't. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  Aymatth2, the Bonin Islands are farther from urban Tokyo than Korea, but they're still included in the Tokyo article, because they're officially under the jurisdiction of Tokyo. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nlu, have you actually been monitoring what Aymatth has accomplished to date for Lhasa regional articles? It's the best work I've seen done regionally in China for quite some time. WP:China is lucky he's spending a lot of time on this. Just let him get on with it eh? Your excessive concern about territory here just looks to me as if you're thinking "Oh no, tremble tremble, what are PRC going to think, I might be shot for allowing this, this is terrible". I think it's quite clear in sources what is referring to the city and the wider region, we don't need to define the exact boundaries anyway. The PRC obviously have a rough idea that the urban area constitutes 53 square km though, so there is actually some official boundary in existence. Whatever we call the article, a hatnote and the actual content of the article should make it crystal clear what we're doing anyway and no reader is going to worry about it. This is totally inappropriate for ANI, an admin please close.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your New York analogy is broken, because New York City and the state are not the same; if we want to use the New York analogy, Lhasa is New York, and the New York City analogue is Chengguan District. Dr. Blofeld, what do you mean by "an article on the region"? Tibet Autonomous Region#Administrative divisions makes it look as if there's no regional intermediary between the city and the autonomous region. WP:NC-ZH says The default naming pattern is "X Class", e.g. Taihang Mountains, Hai River, Fei County. Articles for provinces and cities can leave out the class name, e.g. Liaobei, Beijing. Since the page requires the city article to be at Lhasa, and since the city embraces 30,000 km², not just the little urban core, can you explain how Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region is in line with the naming convention? The convention must be followed, regardless of contrary discussion at the talk page, and administrative tools need to be used if it's repeatedly violated. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is inappropriate, Dr. Blofeld, and you know it. And this is the kind of dismissive behavior that I'm talking about. The lack of any verifiable, non-original research definition of what "Lhasa" (the small city) is is a real problem with the five pillars of Wikipedia, not the "five pillars of PRC." (Specifically, this is not-NPOV - with the OR prohibitions part of being that - and you, throughout this discussion, have been at least borderline uncivil and now have gone into full-blown incivility; I feel that Aymatth2 (and admittedly, possibly myself) have also bordered on it due to the lack of intervention, which is exactly what I'm trying to get.) This is an attack based on ethnicity/national origin and is entirely inappropriate. (As I've said, I'm from Taiwan; but had my view points been expressed by an editor from the PRC, it would still be inappropriate.) Again, this kind of thinking is why exactly this is a POV fork. This kind of thinking underlined the unilateral efforts to break the WP:NC-ZH convention - which was reached by Wikipedia editors, not imposed by the PRC or any other government. Again, POV forking. Not with bad intentions. But POV forking nonetheless. And this kind of thinking taints the otherwise valuable efforts to contribute. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu:. Officially, for census purposes, metropolitan Lhasa consists of the six urban neighborhoods of Chengguan District, Lhasa. It has sprawled into towns in Doilungdêqên County like Donggar and Niu New Area. Many reliable sources such as Interpreting Urbanization in Tibet talk of the city in this way. We just have to follow the sources. There is no original research needed, no biased point of view. There is indeed a relatively compact built-up area surrounded by a huge and thinly populated area of mountains and grasslands. It is quite standard to describe two such areas in two articles. If the project naming conventions do not allow for that, an exception can be made. But this is not the place to discuss the question – the planned Requested Move is the place for the discussion. There is no incident here that needs administrator attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds very similar to Honolulu vs. Honolulu County:

    Honolulu County (officially known as the City and County of Honolulu, formerly Oahu County) is a consolidated city–county located in the U.S. state of Hawaii. The City and County includes both the city of Honolulu (the state's capital and largest city) and the rest of the island of Oʻahu, as well as several minor outlying islands, including all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (islands beyond Niihau) except Midway Atoll.

    For statistical purposes, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the approximate area commonly referred to as "City of Honolulu" (not to be confused with the "City and County") as a census county division (CCD).

  • --NE2 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite similar, and it would be unfeasible to bloat the Honolulu main article with bloat about economic practices and geography of the entire island wouldn't it? For encyclopedia development purposes we have two areas of focus, one on the urban area itself and one on the overall wider region.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The situation is quite similar, but the key difference is that the US government defines a separate "City of Honolulu" for statistical purposes, whereas the Chinese government does not define a separate "Small City of Lhasa" apart from the large prefectural-level city. Aymatth2's proposal is essentially that in the absence of an official government definition, we should define one on our own, possibly supported by a few cherry-picked sources, which I believe is original research and breaks the WP:NC-ZH convention. -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Zanhe: Places that range in size from Soho to the Sahara have articles despite having no official government definition. There really is a small city called Lhasa, described by many sources. Project naming conventions cannot prohibit us from having an article about the place. I am intrigued by these frantic efforts to prevent the article on Lhasa from focusing on the small city of Lhasa, the topic any reader would expect to find when they use that search term. Again, the proposed Requested Move discussion is where the question should be explored. There is no incident here that needs administrator attention, just a debate about one article versus two. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Soho and the Sahara are well known places that no government has tried (or has the authority) to give an exact definition. In the case of Lhasa, however, an official definition already exists, but you don't think it's good enough. If I proposed to start an article called Tokyo minus the Bonin Islands, because I, like many people, don't consider the Bonin Islands as real Tokyo, would you support my proposal? -Zanhe (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Zanhe: As you know, Lhasa Chengguan District (Chinese: 拉萨市城关区; pinyin: Lāsà shì Chéngguān qū) may be translated "Lhasa city urban district". Most people would think of the city as only being the six urban neighborhoods in the valley floor, not the four rural townships in the surrounding mountains. The census makes that distinction to divide the population into "urban" and "rural". Some might think the sprawl down the valley into Doilungdêqên County is really part of the city. But Chengguan District is close enough if we have to conform to some official definition of the city, which I would question. I still do not see that suggesting there should be one article for Lhasa, the well-known small city, and another for the less well known 29,274 square kilometres (11,303 sq mi) former Lhasa prefecture, now Lhasa prefecture-level city, is an incident requiring administrator intervention. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An ANI certainly might have been unnecessary had you been willing to concede, or at least address a few of the points that you are apparently now conceding/discussing. It also might have been unnecessary without the condescending, ethnically-charged attitude that Dr. Blofeld has displayed (including here in this thread) - which, frankly, has I think also infected your view of the situation. It also might have been unnecessary had you not effectively threatened to unilaterally implement what you believe to be the proper way to address the split (which, again, I think nobody has contested the concept of, but I do contest the implementation as proposed) by stating that you are writing a "prefecture-level city article" when one exists already - in other words, a POV fork.
  • But what it comes down to, in addition to POV-forking concerns (and I indicate outright that this is not the typical POV-forking situation), and more fundamentally problematic, are the original research and lack of verifiability aspects of it. Those do need (or at least may need) administrator intervention because of the lack of neutral voices before you (again, in my opinion; I realize you may reasonably see it otherwise) raised the stakes by effectively threatening an unilateral implementation. I am an administrator, obviously, but I can't and shouldn't be both advocate and judge. Somebody else needs to be involved, and we do have a couple additional voices involved now - one believing this is not an administrative matter (@Kanguole:) and one who, while not apparently necessarily agreeing with everything I'm arguing, believing that the breach of WP:NC-ZH is a serious matter (@Nyttend:). Again, getting good, neutral voices involved is a good thing, whatever their opinions are, as well as they're founded solidly (which they are). I hope that that will get everybody involved here to reexamine their positions. Certainly, though, I still believe that OR, V, and breaking of consensus (as reflected in the naming convention) are serious matters. --Nlu (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic Church article

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:C.Fred and User:DoRD are abusing and violating their roles as Wikipedia editors, and I believe these two editors may actually be the same person or are working together to enforce their personal point of view on several Wikipedia pages. This issue needs to be investigated. These two editors (we will assume they are two people for the sake of this notice) are confiscating certain pages associated with the Chaldean people (and Chaldean Church) and will not allow anyone to make edits to these pages which do not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. As you will see from the pages, “Chaldean Catholic Church,” “Chaldean Christians,” “Chaldean Neo-Aramaic,” “Tel keppe” and “Raphael Bidawid" are a few examples of pages related to the Chaldean people/Chaldean Church, which are being hijacked by these two editors and they are abusing their authority in this matter. The issue at hand is these editors C.Fred and DoRD have a personal point of view (which is politically motivated) that members of the Chaldean Catholic Church (or Chaldean Christians) are ethnically Assyrians, not Chaldeans. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church have attempted to update these pages with correct SOURCED information, but C.Fred and DoRD are using underhanded and dirty methods to stop any changes to these pages which do not match their personal point of view. I believe C.Fred and DoRD are advancing their personal point of view in this matter for political reasons, as the Assyrians are trying to steal Chaldean towns away from the Chaldeans in Iraq. The unethical methods used by these editors include: 1. Deactivating the account of anyone who changes the pages with sourced information that does not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRd. For example, Suraya90 was deactivated by these two editors for updating Chaldean pages with information not matching the point of view of these two editors. 2. Locking the Chaldean pages mentioned above so that no one can edit them with information not matching the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. For example, see the history behind the “Chaldean Catholic Church” and “Chaldean Christians” pages. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church added correct updates to these pages and included TEN sourced references, many of these sourced references were from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Who would know who its church members are better than the leaders of a church? But, since this update does not match the personal point of view and political agenda of C.Fred, C.Fred removed the updates and locked the pages. 3. C.Fred continues to block any IP address which updates these Chaldean pages with information not matching C.Fred’s personal point of view. The following IP pages were blocked from editing for this reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.77.87.118 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 Wikipedia Account: Suraya90 Due to these factors, C.Fred and DoRD should have their editor credentials revoked. They are tremendously and unethically violating Wikipedia policies. Additionally, C.Fred and DoRD should not be allowed any editorial abilities when it comes to the following pages, due to their trying to push their own point of view and political agenda: a) Chaldean Catholic Church; b) Chaldean Christians; c) Chaldean Neo-Aramaic; d) Raphael Bidawid; and e) Tel keppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What originally appeared to me as a simple content dispute has revealed itself over time to be abusive editing. Please compare the contributions of the blocked IPs to blocked user ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I think you'll agree, as I did, that we have a sockpuppetry situation. In the talk page of the articles in question, there has been discussion of the situation, and consensus emerged to not use the term Chaldean as an ethnicity, using Assyrian instead. When User:ChaldeanEthnicity was blocked, (s)he has resorted to editing anonymously. Frankly, I don't have a personal opinion in the matter—other than that a blocked user should not be gaming the system by editing while not logged in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As noted at the top of this page in nice big red text, you must notify users if you are raising an issue which concerns them here. I've done so for you. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pages regarding the Chaldean people and the Chaldean Church have been confiscated by vandals such as USer:C.Fred who tries to push his/her own political agenda. The Chaldean people have made several attempts to correct our Chaldean peoples' pages from vandalism and to stop C.Fred & other politically motivated Assyrians from inputting their own personal opinion and political agenda into the Chaldean pages. C.Fred uses various unethical and abusive methods to advance his/her personal point of view and political agenda. If we are providing 10 sourced references, many from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church, these references should not be removed to advance C.Fred's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Politically motivated Assyrians, including C.Fred, are attempting to get land in Iraq for Assyrians, but the majority of Iraqi Christians are actually Chaldeans. Therefore, these politically motivated Assyrians have decided they need to refer to all Chaldeans on Wikipedia as actually Assyrians and replace any reference to Chaldean history with Assyrian history, in order to help their political agenda of acquiring land in Iraq. The theft of the Chaldean culture and heritage is is a violation of Chaldeans international human rights and User:C.Fred must be stopped from his unethical and abusive actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Warda2015 (talk · contribs) blocked as an obvious sock of someone, probably ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, yes, I blocked Suraya90 (talk · contribs) as a block evading, checkuser confirmed sock of ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Warda2015 (talk · contribs) is a likely sock of them as well. Other than that, I've had no activity related to this topic. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like there's a new sock that's arrived:

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

Do I need to file a sockpuppet report for this new IP, or is there enough evidence for an admin to act on this IP directly? I'd like another set of eyes besides my own on this. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This IP is in the wrong location to be the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna pages

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

---

Anything to do with Rihanna's pages they are ignoring the 3RR rule which they were blocked over that a few weeks back; and to make matters worse threatening to get an admin involved so I told them bring it on so can someone please block them as they haven't learnt their lesson from the other week 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.240.181 (talk)

Reporter blocked for lame edit-warring and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, this looks quite like the above.... -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Topic ban requested.

User TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is violating WP:DE, and has made bad faith edits to the Gamergate controversy article. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom apparently feels the article is some kind of war-zone. I am an editor with relatively few edits, however my interest in wikipedia was rekindled after seeing the recent media attention regarding gamergate. I attempted to make a very minor edit to the article and was immediately met with a bellicose attitude both at the article itself [116] as well as at my talk page [117].

I made numerous attempts to civilly discuss the article, all of which were met with silence. [118]

I'll say here what I did there: Like it or not, the Gamergate article is drawing a tremendous amount of attention right now, and as it stands many feel the article could use improvement. Not everyone is on one "side" or another, I choose to believe there are many like me who want the article to fairly represent, according to the guidelines of wikipedia, what RS are reporting. If anyone here has trouble believing me, I urge you to attempt a minor edit at the Gamergate article and see for yourself the hostility you receive from a small but powerful group of editors. I had NO axe to grind but frankly am dismayed at the behavior of user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.

On a positive note, it seems a number of other editors are helpful and constructive, even if they have differing viewpoints. Again, it is a very small minority that is damaging the wikipedia community through bad faith, discouraging new editors from participating.

Marcos12 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain, Marcos12, how placing the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page is "bellicose". And for that, you come here to ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, the sanctions notice is not the problem - I was referring to the sarcastic "Oh Welcome Yet Another Wikiepdia Editor..". On top of that I attempted to discuss this with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and was promptly ignored. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to welcome new users "in good faith". It does not appear TRPOD got the memo. Marcos12 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Rockcat57

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

---

A user by the name of Rockcat57 Made some edits to the Suzy Kolber article, which when reverted by a me (as I mistaked his edits for OR), lead to many WP:CIVIL violations by him. That uncvilty can be seen on this edit summary and with a passive aggressive message he left on my talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: No, Rockcat57 has been removing poorly sourced info from a WP:BLP. IMDB is not a reliable source and after a brief search I could not find any decent source for that info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take fault for that. But his reactions to my edits were still uncivil. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: How's this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While their response may have been uncivil, Weegee, surely you can understand why they got worked up to begin with?! They removed poorly-cited information with a perfectly reasonable explanation, and you re-added it multiple times without addressing their reason for removing it at all. I'd get pissed off too. You made a mistake, and instead of apologizing, you're creating further unnecessary drama by filing a report here? Come on...we don't even normally provide civility enforcement, much less over something as minor and trivial as this. Swarm ^X 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Kristina451

(Opened with section title "Kristina451: Lying to functionaries, now lying to administrators"; title changed to "Kristina451 background" by doncram; title changed to "Kristina wikipedia stalker" by PortugueseManofPeace

Original section title duplicated another section on this page, also changed by doncram.

Per wp:TALKNEW, headings should not be used to attack other users, so header of form (Username)-(Negative behavior/Negative adjective) should not be allowed, imho. --doncram 07:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) )

Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) filed a false claim of sockpuppeting against me on this noticeboard to harass me. She claims that she is genuinely interested in editing articles after I had exposed her WP:COI.

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries must have found evidence of harassment and forced Kristina451 to change his/her account name. They did not ban him/her just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing. This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles.

- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again and she went straight back to editing articles of which she had previously been accused of a WP:COI.

I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. I recommend a block on Kristina451's account.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is what happens if obvious socks go unchecked for days. Kristina451 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the future please notify the person who you are taking to ANI, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

*Sorry about that, Knowledgekid87! I've added his/her username! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't get any more duckish than this: [119] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, now as you are investigating this, I also wanted to mention that Calboarder24, Shazam puta and Kristina451 are the same person. Kristina451 appears to have created the Shazam puta account to fabricate the claim against me and Kristina451's recent edits on an obscure wall and the converging timelines of their account histories seem to associate her with Calboarder24. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• LOL - David Adam Kess gets blocked; days later an IP starts editing the same articles and gets blocked for sock-block evasion; days later PortugueseManofPeace starts editing the same articles. Collectively, we Wikipedia editors might not be so bright. But we're not that stupid. Quack! St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MelissaHebert is another interesting one. And by interesting, of course, I mean "suspicious". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• The puppet master tried to blame the socks on David Adam Kess who I still think is not involved. Looking at the sock's comments and behaviour, the sock master obviously is 'Sophie.grothendieck', the first named account of a person involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [120]. This easily explains all the HFT related POV pushing. In any case, it is time to block the obvious socks. Kristina451 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.

[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading

[Akafeatfuasty's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity

[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,

[My version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,

This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and that's why I was helping her! You're just throwing up dust in the air with this conspiracy theory to get all of us banned when you are the real issue. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

You just stalk everyone else who edits your beloved articles, which is what others have discovered before me. What is your problem? PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As usual, false claims made up on the spot. What you purport to be in the HFT article (your first link) was never there. And nobody undid that minor prose improvement in the second link. I have no idea why this endless sock trolling and disruption is supposed to continue. Kristina451 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good grief, the quacking is so loud my ears hurt. Admins can we please get a hyper-obvious duck-block for PortugueseManofPeace and MelissaHebert please. Really, any admin with 10 seconds free time would do. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I give up, this is a sad ending. You can let Kristina451 vandalize your articles. But if you can afford me some of your patience, I can walk you through this on the phone. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You can put me on a conference call with the three different owners of those accounts? Or are they all (in fact) one-in-the-same? You do realise that no matter what content dispute you have with Kristina, socking to make a point or continue your campaign against her will be seen as far worse? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize if our actions were disruptive. MelissaHebert and I thought it was fair game to edit separate articles as 2 separate persons.

We know David, he's a genuine guy and a good editor. Kristina451 stalked him to no ends just because he picked the wrong articles to edit. She's out of her mind and was willing to spend more time making life difficult for David than David had time to properly reference and defend his edits.

I honestly have no idea who are 198.0.163.1 and Shazam puta though, goes to show the extreme ends Kristina451 would go to have her way in manipulating control of those articles.

We just wanted to give David and those articles a chance at a fair editorial process.

I accept that it is a fair decision if the admins block us, but please tell us what is an acceptable protocol to stopping Kristina451 from undoing edits without discretion. We followed Nagle's advice on WP:COIN and tried putting back the factual content but Kristina451 immediately reported them on this noticeboard to disrupt our edits, even though there is nothing wrong with the content of our edits. She is dead set on preventing anyone else from editing those articles.

Again, I'm sorry, but please realize that we are the victims here. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Copied over from other section on this noticeboard

I met Akafeatfausty (MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect discussing an incident on WP:COIN#Kristina451_and_High-frequency_trading regarding Kristina451. Kristina451 has been mass-undoing revisions from:

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

David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

under all kinds of nonsensical reasons claiming a lack of references, while he/she seems very happy to approve any kind of references or lack thereof that smear the reputation of a specific group of traders. We noticed that Kristina451 claims to be a "professional trader", which probably indicates a personal reason for his/her strong POV and marginalizing behavior against this particular group. We agreed to insert a few true statements into these articles to see if Kristina451 repeats this pattern of flagrantly undoing revisions so long as he/she could keep often false content that was accusative towards high-frequency traders.

For example, in Quote stuffing, Akafeatfausty made the correct call that Citadel LLC is a hedge fund and according to Bloomberg [121], Citadel Securities LLC is a brokerage firm and investment bank, not a high-frequency trading firm as Kristina451 puts it. Kristina451 reverted Akafeatfausty's changes without even bothering to truth-check those statements just because in that sentence, Citadel Securities was being accused of market manipulation and this was another chance for Kristina451 to smear the reputation of high-frequency trading.

I would say this experiment was a success. I think Kristina451 should be spending his/her doggedness, reference-checking skills and wit towards the betterment of other Wikipedia articles, and not waste so much of his/her time on such a juvenile way of smearing the reputation of his/her personal competitors.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexually provocative images on user pages

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

---

Abandoned account user page full of porn

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

---

User:Kingstonjr Account appears abandoned [122]. The user last edited in 2012. What is the policy regarding this? Can we just delete the porn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.170 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've tagged it for speedy deletion. I assume the user has returned to Pornopedia or wherever he came from. APK whisper in my ear 11:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done — Ched :  ?  11:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Here is a post [123] User:Kingstonjr made to an editor banned by Jimbo back in 2006: Yeah you are very beautiful! Could you email me some too? hornyhare@.**.** (Redacted email). I am pretty sure that is not what Wikipedia is for. The below accounts are all coping each other's pictures with BDSM and nude spreading and editing each other. They may be sock accounts but I am unsure. Most of the Users have not edited in years however 1 revert on their user page brings back all the porn or whatever you want to call them pics. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An Abandoned USER PAGE Full of Sexually provocative Images

User:Joe1234 is a mirror of the one above and even mentions it, although another editor removed some of the images in 2006 there is still plenty of porn jpg files listed. [124] The editor last edited in 2006. [125] 172.56.8.170 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly call that "Full of porn" (nothing like the one above) but, to each their own. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done — Ched :  ?  13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get to see the other user page, but unless the page was only an image gallery, only the images should have been removed while leaving the rest of the page. Also, I wouldn't call the images on this user page porn. Yes, many of them contain nudity, however, nudity is not the same as porn. —Farix (t | c) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor removed most of the pics. All it takes is one revert and they are there. I will not argue semantics about porn but BDSM pics are there. There are several accounts linked to above KingstonJR and even a page that directs to accounts with porn pics and to users self identified as teenage females. There was crap going on back in 2006. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any real "porn" there. But if you think some of the images need to be restricted to certain articles, there is a process to go through. (I don't know the details, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They would need to be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list. The process is outlined on the talk page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The images in question are pretty tame, but the user could try it if he's of a mind to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I was just putting the link there to be helpful. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Why are we wasting time defending this space? Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing it has something to do with principle, slippery slope, resistance to Wikipedia activism, and other such wastes of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files,
    • Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, AND...
    • Wikipedia is not censored - is about ARTICLES. Don't you guys have articles to work on? I do. Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Userpages states:There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review.[Note 2] Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-provocative nature on sexual matters (such as LGBT userboxes and relationship status) are unaffected. The matter is already settled. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the whole paragraph. One of the last sentences is that "Context should be taken into account." The list of images is essentially just a list of images that might be subject to censorship on other sites. Now, whether that hits the "clearly intended as sexually provocative" element is, I think, a matter that should be discussed. It strikes me that the user page is no worse than certain individual categories over at Commons. Most of the subcategories of Commons:Category:Nudity, for instance. Admittedly, Commons is another project, but that we're connected with it suggests to me that those category pages themselves wouldn't "bring the project into disrepute". Of course, userspace is a bit different, and the context includes the statement that Wikipedia is not censored followed by a bunch of explicit images. Perhaps there's an intent to "shock", but if so, it's a very mild shock. My point, in short, is that there are a lot of factual determinations that the wording of the user page policy tees up. It's not as black and white as suggested above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there isn't a "image" on that page, they're all links (and most are pictures of everyday celebrities/models). Mlpearc (open channel) 15:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Go down to the user's page history a little ways, just before someone chopped all the images. It's worth noting that among the nude stuff there were conventional pictures of random things of beauty in nature, which is possibly the point the user was trying to make - nine years ago. And as you say, the links (the ones that aren't red) in the current userpage are to various starlets, which are generally no worse than PG-rated. The OP here might be on a mission of some kind, but he's barking up the wrong tree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And I see the OP has posted this ANI on the page of user Hashbrowns, on the same theory - that someone could revert the reversion and re-post the "porn". The OP is a busybody who should be sent packing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugs see WP:NPA, please use better manners or take a break.

NOTE Read post carefully. The 3rd to last revision of the user page is full of sexually provocative images BDSM and spreading. Anyone can restore them. The user did not take them down. Another editor did. The user has not edited in since 2006. The violating pics should be removed so they cannot be restored. It would make since to delete the user page as it had little value. Of course someone could remove the edits that put the offending material in there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:46, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

The images are no longer on the user page. That is all that matters. These editors are no longer active on Wikipedia and there is no reason to delete their userpages. Just because the image galleries can be restored is not a reason to delete the pages wholesale. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To someone on a censorship mission, it IS a reason to delete. If the user is serious and not trolling, he needs to follow user G S Palmer's link and do things the right way. And while there, he'll see how tame this stuff is compared to the "bad" images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that BDSM and spreading is sexually provocative, what is at commons is irrelevant and faulty logic. We are talking about user page contents not commons. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Do YOU find them provocative? And how did they got on your radar in the first place? Were you LOOKING FOR provocative? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The images were removed from the user pages years ago, so they are no longer an issue. Why are you even going back through ancient user page histories in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that BDSM and spreading is sexually provocative. Says who? We are talking about user page contents not commons. Read my entire post. To elucidate: The rule of the userpage policy is to avoid bringing the project into disrepute. If you have a situation where the project is not at risk of being brought into disrepute (e.g., by partially mirroring pages found on Commons, which is a Foundation project with close ties to Wikipedia) it really doesn't matter that the content might be found by some to be sexually provocative.
Honestly, a better understanding of the userpage policy would be to serve as a gap-filler for where images aren't yet put on the bad images list (or might not clearly qualify), or haven't yet been deleted (Commons deletion can take awhile), or where there's a creative product on the userpage that's provocative (e.g., placing an image of a living person next to an image of a man ejaculating for effect), or where there's erotic fiction on a userpage.
In short, I haven't seen any argument that particular images on that userpage bring the project into disrepute, nor have I seen any particular explanation why the collection of such images in this specific case brings the project into disrepute. Let me leave you with this question: Would we say a prolific uploader of encyclopedic images of nudity or sexuality couldn't display a list of works uploaded on their userpage? Editors get broad latitude with their userpages for good reason. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP is now trolling user Lightbreather, where the closest thing I see to a "provocative" image is the famous WWII image of "Rosie the Riveter". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the OP is canvassing selected editors, presumably to help boost the argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To hell with the "canvassing" guideline. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, WP:IGNORE it. The material in question does NOTHING to improve the encyclopedia, but removing it does. There are plenty of other places for editors who like that kind of stuff to go and find it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD User:Joe1234

Miscellany for Deletion: User:Joe1234. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

USER Page contains Images in Violation of WP:Userpages

Debate that should have been at WP:MFD

USER:Jbc01 user page full of Nude BDSM images violate WP:Userpages There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit Can the objectionable images be permanently deleted from user page so they will not be reverted? Or can the user page be speedy delete as it has not been used in over 2 years and contains sexually provocative images? I find, you admins figure it out. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That's simply nudity, no sexual acts are being performed and it appears it is one person showing the pictures they uploaded and then used in articles(meaning they were added for legitimate purposes in contravention of wiki policy). At most I would support hatting but other then showing some skin it isn't like it is depicting graphic sex acts. I would look at the IP's history, it looks like it's only being used to bring people to ANI or give ANI notices. I wonder if this is a good faith attempt or an evasion of scrutiny? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC) There are no sexually provocative images on that user page. While their may have been some nude images in the past, they are no longer there. So just why are you going through ancient user page histories of inactive editors? —Farix (t | c) 16:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That's more than just nudity. The current version of the page shows BDSM stuff, which some find acceptable and some find offensive as a form of violence against women. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That stuff is very tame. If someone finds such mild images offensive, the problem is with that someone, not with the images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Tameness is subjective. Also, I think when images of violence (even staged violence) are depicted in relation to a specific gender (or ethnic group), members of that group might find it less tame than non-members. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) There's no requirement that the public endorse Fifty Shades of Grey, but we can't cow-tow to their censorship either. If you're concerned about it being one-sided, look for some images of men tied up also, as I'm sure there are many. And speaking of "offensive images", the last time I looked, we had depictions of Muhammad in his article here - that kind of thing is a degree of "offensive" that has driven some zealots to murder, but we don't cow-tow to censorship there either. So try to keep things in perspective. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC) How did towing cows get into it? EEng (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) He means "we can't tow cows to their censorship", that is, if we are to sacrifice cows (or any other valuable commodity; cows are just an example) to their censorship, they have to go under their own power (that is, of their own free will). Herostratus (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Is it like when someone said "you can lead a cow to culture but you can't make her think"? Or are they sacred cows? Is that it? EEng (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) The user in question hasn't posted since 2012. This isn't an article on the topic of nudity or bondage, it's a user page. Even if you consider this "tame" or soft core, is the point of user pages is to host free porn? How does it benefit the encyclopedia to continue to host this non-active user's BDSM image gallery?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC) In fact, go to Commons and look under Category:BDSM subcategory Male submission, and try arguing that that's the same level of "provocative" as these long-abandoned user accounts have in their user page histories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) If you find an abandoned account being used to host images of nude guys who are tied, gagged and bound, I'd say delete that too, because it's not an article on the topic of bondage. User space isn't suppose to be your own personal website or porn site.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia isn't cloud space for wankers to keep links to their favorite wanking material. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Would you have come here if the IP hadn't canvassed you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Canvass-schmanvass. Canvass is a GUIDELINE. And one notice is canvassing? But even if it were 100 notices, this is the kind of situation made for WP:IAR. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC) IAR is not a get out of jail free card. It is to be used only when appropriate and necessary. KonveyorBelt 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Bugs you have been very insulting to the editors here. You cannot call editors busy bodies or trolls on a mission. I suggest you go strike through those, not remove or I will start another ANI. Your arguments are off topic, it is about userpage content as the above editor already stated. Stick to the subject as your bringing up commons is irrelevant here. P.S. I notified a long time admin to come look at this and he may not appreciate your personal attacks here either. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete User Page The account is abandoned and the pictures are sexually provocative which violates user page guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete per Lightbreather. I mean, I guess if the user ever comes back, then he could bring it up for undeletion, but if it's not being used, and it's sitting around holding tasteless, unencyclopedic images, then there's no net positive. Wikipedia has many underage readers/editors, there is a legality concern when it's not encyclopedic. — kikichugirl speak up! 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete images but leave the user page The user might come back. This user returned in 2012 after not being active since 2009. They also took a long break between 2005-2009. However, in the meantime, I see no reason and no benefit to the encyclopedia to continue to host his image gallery. User space is not for personal websites or personal porn sites. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It appears the user page in question is that of an editor who is interested in this subject, has contributed to those types of articles, and started several more as well. The User's page is split into the sections "Articles I have started", "Articles I have contributed to", and "My Pictures", of which a number of them appear in actual articles. In the "Articles I have contributed to", the user apparently kept a tally of how many of his images were included (15 by my count). What I gather from this is that the intention of the editor is not "free porn hosting", but material connected to what the editor thinks they have accomplished in contributing to articles they are interested in, which is a typical behavior in regard to what a lot of editors put on their userpage. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) They haven't edited in two years, and articles they've started? Fucking Machines dot com? This kind of crap makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Azzure it irrelevant to what they edited. The rule is clear sexually provocative images are forbidden on user talk pages. If you want to change that this is not the place. Their talk page will still be there and they can still log in. The user page will be deleted for violating guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC) And here we go with the canvassing. Prepare for a storm of pile on "delete" votes from the usual GGTF crew. KonveyorBelt 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I am getting sick and tired of the misuse of allegations of "canvassing." I think a lot of people need to re-read that guideline and quit misusing it as an excuse to try to discredit others. You think I'm canvassing? Bring a formal charge - otherwise, knock it off. Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) @Konveyor Belt: Stop with the commentary. And go re-read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. This would fall under Vote-banking, as many of the members there have strong views about women's rights. KonveyorBelt 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete images or move to sandbox I see no purpose to the image other than gratuitous display. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete. It doesn't benefit building the encyclopedia in any way. Deli nk (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Comment Yet another example of dodgy work by Lightbreather, I notice. She has left a note at WT:GGTF but change the title of the report here, omitting the "Alleged". That amounts to canvassing because it is not neutral. When will this gaming be stopped? - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Sitush, that seemed rather minor. What seems not neutral is you asserting above "when will this gaming be stopped". Your interest in GGTF seems hard to figure out. Seems all you do there is criticize and/or engage in battleground. Either way, to address any potential concerns, I edited the notice so it matches the exact title of this ANI thread. [126]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It is not minor. She skewed the message and, which is arguably worse, she didn't notify other projects that might have an interest, such as the porn project. Again, she has been warned about that before. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete, as this is not even constructive. Also, WP:NOTANADULTWEBSITE applies. Epic Genius (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete - Personally I see no reason why you'd want BDSM on your userpage anyway?, Certain things should be kept in the bedroom or dungeon which ever way you wanna look at it. –Davey2010Talk 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Comment. I strongly suggest that we stop discussing here, which is not an appropriate venue to discuss content of user pages, and, if needed, continue at WP:MFD.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)  Done Moved to MfD. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It doesn't matter what people are 'voting' on here, there is no incident and the page isn't against Wiki guidelines. This is absurd and an admin should close this now. Dave Dial (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Move to close: This is the wrong venue. ANI is not MFD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD Notice

Notice of MfD for User:Jbc01. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

IP violating WP:CANVASS and the spirit of WP:SPA

User:172.56.8.170 seems to be on some sort of ...crusade... for a lack of a better term. Serous question, are we ok with this? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, we are not OK. They should move to WP:MFD. What is going on here is out of process and besides a grand waste of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done MfDs opened. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the contributor would seem to apply here. Is there any benefit to the encyclopedia in maintaining these user pages?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI is pretty much the one place commenting on the contributor is ok, but thank you for randomly quoting a saying because it sounded rightish. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. Any chance you could address the content issue here regarding any potential benefit to WP in maintaining these user pages? Why hassle an IP editor if they are actually being productive? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP should get an award. He/She acted to improve the encyclopedia. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Def. getting the whiff of socks around here from this alone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate award will be a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very curious about who the IP is. Is it a signed-out editor? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Who was it that was so obsessed with the Wikipe-tan cartoon character a few years ago? Whoever it was, that's one possible candidate. And from time to time on ANI, we get users screaming "think of the children" and such as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is the one with the Wikipe-tan obsession, and still attempts to remove images from the page every now and then. But I seriously doubt that she has any connection with this IP. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the one page they tried to get deleted is now fixed to reasonable expectations, I suggest we just wrap this up and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It must be snowing in Phoenix BB and I agree on a subject....for everyone else see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A blind squirrel still finds an acorn sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Mike V for persistent editing while logged out, block evasion, vandalism, and password reset abuse. —Farix (t | c) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:80.111.174.103 on The Salute Tour

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

---

User:80.111.174.103 has been persistent in editing and reverting false information on this page over the last week. They edit the setlist linking a song to an unrelated artist and continue to try to alter the sourced name of the opening act. This user also has a prior history of inserting inaccurate information into this article and was warned and banned as User:80.111.184.146 in the past for disruptive editing. They have been asked to provide sources for their edits and warned repeatedly to stop adding and re-adding inaccurate and unsourced information but continue to revert back to their unsourced content. Morhange (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]
4. [130]
5. [131]
6. [132]
7. [133]
8. [134]

Semi-protected 1 week. Please discuss on talk page why it is incorrect to link it as a cover song. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Rohingya article

Rainmaker23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I started editing this article in 2011, it was nothing more than random news collection. My hope was nothing more than to present accurate information without personal prejudices. But soon, I received a wave tirades from Burmese nationalists: "The article apparently is edited only by Muslims and Rohingya Supporters in Myanmar and noting is neutral." After that, some other editors contributed a part. So it went on. But after 2012, the Rohingya received international attention. So I expanded it accordingly, using sources from foremost experts such as Jacques Leider and Derek Tonkin. I also expanded humanitarian situations about them using sources from Amnesty International, and International Crisis Group as well as authoritative books from my university library. But soon, I received another wave of personal attacks. Here is from Rainmaker23, "You're trying to act as an appeaser. Wikipedia is not a place for your POV pushing pro-government stand against Rohingyas." and another user, "The paragraph is written to suggest that repressions against the Rohingya were deserved." These are too much and too unfair apparently when I spent countless hours to research and obtain diverse perspectives. One focal point of attention is the note by Leider I added. No reader would fail to get what he means. But you can see at Talk:Rohingya people, people do not answer when asked for direct quotations but respond with a string of personal attacks. My hope has always been to give neutral experts' viewpoints to the readers and play a part, however trivial, in resolving the current crisis. But I am accused by both sides of being a Muslim Rohingya supporter or pro-government appeaser who believes repression against the group is deserved. This is way too much.

User Rainmaker23 wants to delete everything that suggests some people from Bangladesh immigrated to Burma after Burmese independence. I have supplied extremely reliable sources which a Stanford Professor acclaimed "the future historians will owe significant debt". Another source, Moshe Yegar for example, is a respected Israeli historian. I also provided a source to Bangladesh Ambassador himself. But Rakhinmaker23 always says I misrepresent the sources even when I have provided him/her with direct quotations. When asked for direct quotations, he failed to do so but responded with a string of personal attacks. I tried to compromise by deleting a sentence that says post 1980s immigration is very low. But he is determined to delete everything that suggests post-independence immigration. (Also note that this article already states from the 1990s onward, a lot of Rohingyas went to Bangladesh. And Ne Win's operations created an outflow of refugees to Bangladesh.) I can no longer discuss due to extreme level of personal attacks. Please help. SWH^{® talk} 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am familiar with this user and observed his (assuming male) behavior in many Bangladesh relates articles I watch. He has a strong belief that his standpoint is always correct and his narratives are better than anyone else. He is indeed a very good editor and can help improve articles a lot. But he has hard time in dealing with other editors, heading to consensus and wants to push own POV. I have encountered and observed several incidents with him which could be ANI, but I always decided to peace out. If administrators want to investigate this incident, they may also want to have look at other incidents, specially pertaining to Bangladesh and Dhaka. BTW, he has a habit of removing Talk page contents (I do not mean his own talk page, I mean Wikipedia article talk pages) claiming they constitute personal attacks (towards other users?) or irrelevant (!). A recent incident that bother me a lot was when I tried to partake in a discussion on Talk:Bangladesh#History where he (in)advertently went furious, made challenge, blanked discussion indeed and went to removing a message on my talk where he tried to get help from me on an encounter with another user. – nafSadh did say 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Soewinhan, I did not engage in attacking you. It was your last personal comment at me which provoked my response. You brought major changes to the article this February, replacing the lede with many unbalanced statements. You are claiming that Rohingyas are different from the "original" Bengalis who settled in Arakan- in that case do you consider them to be illegal immigrants or non-Bengali? If you consider the Rohingya community to be illegal outsiders, that is absurd. Your sources clearly document Rohingya roots in pre-colonial Burma.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Nafsadh, I've asked for your opinion on occasions, I've sought to engage with you. I conceded to you on several issues. And yet you don't relent. What do you want? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Soewinhan: Could you provide diffs of this behaviour for admins to look over? Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz admin with WP:OWN issues.

I am a contributor to many African themed articles. I have no record of disruptive behavior (one or two edit wars, no blocks) only rock solid contributions across many African themed pages. Esp where LEADS are concerned. I have come across user Malik Shabazz for years and rarely clashed] (but if we do guess who is always right?). Yet he tell me to GO AWAY] from Malcolm X and when you look at the edit I made it is very hard to understand what could possibly provoke such an aggressive reaction. He claims I did not bring sources. am.. the rationale for my edits are related to WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD how do you bring a RS for lead judgements? He then continues to threaten me with AN/I well I got here first. Please note, his TALK page contribution to the issue is sparse, except to tell me about Disruptive behavior per the criteria of disruptive behavior I think we all can see my edits do not meet that criteria. Not sure why he fails to WP:AGV and insults people as if I am a vandal to be pushed away. My issues on the Talk have been washed out by his bullying tactics. The habit of revert is not new to this admin, nor are his useless childish threats (i been here for yonks I know the rules). He also pretends my view is only mine, when on the very talk page others agree with my issue. In a nutshell I do not need this tone, discuss the article and please do not think you own an article and can revert because you have an admin title and spend 24hrs on Wikipedia. Have some Wiki manners. Last issue, I am a specialist editor, I do not deal with AN/I or these technical things, I think this is my first one so forgive any errors, I am just hear to balance this place out. --Inayity (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to appear bitey or anything here, but it's common courtesy/a requirement (as indicated by the big red letters up top and the orange box you get when you open a thread) to notify the other party when you bring an ANI against them. It's rather rude not to. Thankfully, someone else has already done this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Adar 5775 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that Inayity read WP:OAS, including the guidance on Featured articles (of which Malcolm X is one). I've invited him several times to discuss the article, and to cite reliable sources, but instead he has linked to a thousand-page e-book and referred to "a quick Google search and reading Black forums", and repeatedly made grammatically atrocious edits to the article.

I also recommend that he read WP:LEAD, which says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Not quick Google searches or reading Black forums. Reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• As someone who spent a great deal of time on that article for about a year (though not recently) I've reviewed the talkpage discussion and article history. From where I stand M.S., and the other regulars there e.g. Glennconti and Rumiton, have shown remarkable restraint in the face of sustained TLDR I-can't-hear-you-but-I'm-certain. EEng (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Malik didn't say "go away"--he said "bring sources or go away". Big difference. And I agree with EEng. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Denver Stevenson abusing talk page while blocked

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

---

Recently, User:Denver Stevenson was blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising only, however, the user has started abusing its talk page and continously reverted other's changes on that page. Please revoke talk page access. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:No rest for you tonight!

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

---

It might just be me but I'm sensing a WP:NOTHERE probably with the aim to recreate pages ive tagged for WP:SPEEDY. If someone can nip this in the bud it would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:Smalljim's already done it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Superdupersmartdude's edit after final warning

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

---

In their short stay here at Wikipedia, Superdupersmartdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to demonstrate that they are unable to edit on certain issues without vitriol. They started off making generally good faith edits but with some inappropriate humor and copyvio. More recently, however, they made an inappropriate edit on Feminism, added personal analysis to a disambig page, made some colorful statements on Bernie Madoff's article, added some unsourced and inappropriate content, and went full Godwin's Law on Talk:Feminism and ended up calling users "gender-fascists", adding Maybe I should report all of you to Arbcom as part of the feminazi wikistorm which happened here a while ago, along with your feminist wikiproject, since I have nothing to hide. Count yourselves lucky I don't feel like doing that right now. The user has been templated by multiple editors on their talk page regarding their behavior, but the "gender-fascists" comment came after a final warning. Since it's not a clear case of vandalism, I'm filing this ANI to bring attention to this user's behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

New Victoria Cross award to be made

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

---

Rumours emerging that a new award of the Victoria Cross is to be made (see Talk:Victoria Cross#New award to be made). No reliable sources to confirm yet, but there's bound to be attention as the rumours spread. Recipient is said to be Joshua Leakey (redlink at time of writing) of the Parachute Regiment. Will bear keeping an eye on and keeping unreliable material out. David Underdown (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• And confirmed. I'll keep an eye on the article when it's created (I would start myself, but it's past midnight here), but I can't see there being many problems as there'll be plenty of reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is at ANI because... why? EEng (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Procedure not followed on Chabad article

In the wake of a notable legal scandal in Australia involving Chabad rabbis, a relatively new user VanEman (talk · contribs) added a substantial paragraph to the Chabad article,[135] which he later, rightfully, turned into a new section.[136] A little while later, he added a paragraph of almost the same length as the previous one to the lead.[137] I reverted that edit, arguing that it is not lead material.[138] I later explained this argument in more detail in a second revert, in view of the fact that Chabad is a worldwide organization with some 250 years of history.[139]

After posting on VanEman's talkpage,[140][141] the edit war stopped, and a discussion ensued at Talk:Chabad#Child_sexual_abuse. I later thanked VanEman for stopping the edit war and starting the discussion.[142]

Then suddenly came along user Murry1975 (talk · contribs) and restored the text under discussion.[143] This he did in disregard of the fact that the discussion had started just shortly before that and only 3 editors (VanEman, me and him) had expressed their opinions so far. Not to mention that he himself had agreed in the discussion that the paragraph was definitely too long for the lead.[144]

I argued on the talkpage discussion a few times that this restore went against procedure, but Murry1975 ignores that argument completely. He does feel the need to accuse me of WP:CENSORED, WP:IDLI, WP:COI and WP:CALMDOWN (not necessarily in that order). Just to mention that Murry1975 is not a novice editor. I also posted one nice post on his talkpage,[145] to see if official dispute resolution could be avoided. Unfortunately, either I am wrong in my understanding of whether Murry1975 should have restored that new and large paragraph, or Murry1975 refuses to bow to reason.

I'd like for someone to point Murry1975 to the fact that restoring the paragraph under discussion was for various reasons the wrong call. In addition, of course, I'd like for somebody to remove it again, until a consensus emerges as to if we should mention this subject in the lead at all, and if so, at what length. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you're looking for WP:Dispute resolution, unless you're here asking for an admin to misuse their tools to enforce your preferred version. Ivanvector (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for someone to remove something you dont like so you can get around the 3RR? WP:GAMING. Yes DRn is a better route. Murry1975 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector 1. Neither rebuking another editor for a wrong call nor reverting involves admin tools. 2. In my experience, which is considerable, reverting to a pre-conflict version is a normal step, which an admin may or may not opt for. In any case it would certainly not be a "wrong" choice. 3. No, I came here for an admin to review Murry1975's following of procedures. WP:DR would be about the dispute itself, which we can discuss ourselves on the talkpage, as soon as all editors are reminded that there are rules to be followed. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As of this moment, Debresser, the most recent edit to the article is yours, so I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I made it with the explicit consent of Murry1975, who said I too could shorten the text. I had 2 requests: 1. I'd like for someone to point Murry1975 to the fact that restoring the paragraph under discussion was for various reasons the wrong call. 2. I'd like someone to remove that text from the lead, until a consensus emerges as to if we should mention this subject in the lead at all, and if so, at what length. Debresser (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It took me a minute to get this one...I was going to say that if Murry agrees that you should shorten the text, go for it, but...if Murry is right and you are reaching out here for someone else to do it for you so that you can avoid 3RR, that would indeed be gaming (not to mention borderline WP:MEAT). Then again, if you both agree, why is this discussion even here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Our disagreement is that I hold this material is not notable enough for the lead, while the two other editors think it is. Shortening was fine with them. Discussion was interrupted by Murry1975's restore of the (then still unshortened) paragraph to the lead. My position is that Murry1975 should know that that was the wrong thing to do in the situation, and yes, I want him to undo his out of procedure restore. WP:BRD is clear about who the burden of proof lies with. Not to mention that this is very rude behavior, to take unilateral steps in the mids of a discussion. His subsequent baseless accusations, as listed above, also are unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Cooliemandude

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

---

This user has been recently blocked for attacking a specific editor, then made another personal attack at his own talk page. A revoke of talk page access may be helpful. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Dualthreat13

I suspect no foul play here, but in the interest of covering all bases I am soliciting a second opinion on this matter. I was unexpectedly contacted by Dualthreat13 (talk · contribs) concerning the deletion of the page AK Ikwuakor, which was deleted due on G5 (creation by blocked/banned user) grounds. The two bases to be covered here stem from the nature of the account and the wording of the message on my talk page; in the case of the former: despite having been created in the fall of 2014 the Dualthreat13 account has only a few edits and they all seem to be towards creating the AK Ikwuakor article here, which is not necessarily a bad thing on and of itself since articles here can and do get second chances based on the change of available information for the subject matter. The talk page post though seems suspicious to me because in wording the request the user wrote, and I quote, "I am sure you are quite busy, but I received this message from you and would like to restore this page." followed by the deletion log summary. It could be the choice of words, but a check of the history shows that I never left any message on the talk page until now. I've chalked it all up to a new user still trying to learn the ropes, but since the article was deleted on G5 grounds I wanted a second opinion as to whether or not this could be a sock account of Johngalea24 (talk · contribs). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator etiquette in issuing blocks

I was recently given a one-month block for trying to avoid an existing block. I appealed that block, which was reviewed by User:JamesBWatson. In responding to me, James made the decision to extend the block by an additional two weeks. Now that my block has been lifted, I would like to have his handling of this situation reviewed as I feel that he did not carry out his responsibilities as an administrator properly to the point where I do not feel confident that he could reasonably carry out those responsibilities in an impartial way in the future. My complaint centres on four key items:

1) First, my blocking history had previously been handled by two or three other administrators. The overwhelming message from them was that the blocks should be considered as a kind of behaviour correction. However, JamesBWatson's message on my talk page made it clear that he felt it likely that I would reoffend, and hence extended my block. I feel that this directly contradicts the message sent by the other administrators, and that by extending the block, he undermined them.

2) Although the blocking policy allows administrators to issue blocks based on an existing block history, it also states that this should be used for reviewing blocks for similar offences. My block history has centred on edit-warring, and I had never been accused of attempting to subvert a ban before. I fail to see how a history of edit-warring suggests a future of trying to subvert blocks, and so I feel that extending a block for subverting a ban based on blocks for edit-warring is both unjustified and a rather cynical approach to take.

3) In reviewing my appeal, JamesBWatson refused to divulge any details of why he chose to extend the block on the grounds that doing so would enable me to subvert blocks in the future. And while I appreciate the rationale, his attitude was quite rude and uncivilised, and so I was left with the distinct impression that I had my block extended because I had been blocked in the past. Similarly, I feel that any concerns that I have in the future - be they legitimate or not - will not be addressed fairly because of my block history, which is at odds with the conduct of other administrators.

4) At the time of having my block extended, no infractions had been committed. The one-month block for trying to subvert an existing block had already come into effect, and no further infractions had been committed. I have found nothing in the blocking policy that gives administrators the power to issue blocks when no infraction has been committed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PM has a habit of getting into trouble and then making matters worse. This post is yet one more example of that behavior. PM's block log speaks for itself. I am unfortunately intimately familiar with PM and his misconduct. As you can see, the first three blocks were mine. In addition after the block by James, I revoked talk page access. I can say categorically that my blocks were not for "behavior correction" as such. As with the majority of blocks, they are a combination of a misconduct sanction and to prevent further disruption with an emphasis on the latter. The blocks, which were all for edit warring, escalated as is normal in such circumstances.

PM's points about block evasion reflect his misunderstanding of policy and practice. It is common for blocks for whatever conduct to be extended based on block evasion.

James's comments were not at all rude. They were blunt. He was confronted with what he perceived to be blatant dishonesty on PM's part, and he said so. It should be noted that James wasn't the first admin to block PM for block evasion. That would be HJ Mitchell, who also pulled no punches when discussing the evasion with PM.

This topic is at best disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"This topic is at best disruptive."

I disagree with you there. It certainly isn't intended to be, and trying to represent it as such speaks to the attitude that I felt I got from JamesBWatson—namely, I feel that you think that my block history means that my intention is to disrupt. How would you respond if this issue was raised by an editor without a blocking history? All I want from this is the confidence that administrators will handle any case that I am involved in based on the merits of the case itself. Because right now, I get the distinct impression that some administrators will simply assume that I am responsible for disruption even if I am not because of my history. Now, I am guessing that your response to this will be something along the lines of "you must think Wikipedia administrators are pretty stupid" or some such, but that's why I came here to ANI—because an administrator extended my block on the assumption that I would reoffend when no infraction had been committed to warrant a block. There is no provision within the blocking policy that says that this is an acceptable practice. So if it's reasonable for an administrator to assume that an editor will reoffend based on a block history for an unrelated offence, then how is it unreasonable for an editor to question whether an administrator will exercise good judgement in future based on an experience where they believe that administrator acted poorly? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but surely you recognise that everyday editors need to have confidence that the administrators will be able to judge situations appropriately. That's why I opened this discussion thread—so that I can have confidence in the administrators. What did you think I wanted? To cause disruption? If so, I picked a pretty poor platform for it. To see JamesBWatson stripped of his administration powers? I'm not nearly vain enough to think that I could do it. Or did I create it so that I can have a constructive conversation about the issue and better apply the lessons that you said you wanted to teach me? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PM has a habit of getting into trouble and then making matters worse -- it's a six year 20K edit account that was never blocked prior to Oct 2014 -- are there diffs to support that accusation?? NE Ent 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To reply briefly to each of the numbered points Prisonermonkeys posts:

1. Prisonermonkeys says that I "directly [contradict] the message sent by the other administrators, and that by extending the block, [I] undermined them." Firstly, I don't see where I contradicted anything that any other administrator had said. Secondly, if I did, why is that an offence? Am I not allowed to disagree with other administrators?
2. The second point is absurd. Of course if an editor who has a history of being blocked for edit warring proceeds to evade blocks, he or she can have further blocks imposed for block evasion, in addition to the blocks for edit warring. However, that is not even an accurate description of what happened: Prisonermonkeys tries to give the impression that until I extended the block, his/her blocks had been entirely for edit-warring, not for block-evasion (which is evidently what he/she means by "attempting to subvert a ban"). However, the block which I extended was for block evasion. (The block was imposed by HJ Mitchell at 19:11, 11 January 2015, and the block log entry says "Block evasion: has been evading the block while logged out continuously, almost since the block was made".) Also, the wording used by Bbb23 and PhilKnight in declining unblock requests for HJ Mitchell's block make it clear that they both believed that Prisonermonkeys had been evading the block, and declined the unblock requests for that reason.
3. "I was left with the distinct impression that I had my block extended because I had been blocked in the past" ... Well, in informing him/her of my decision, I stated that it was because I believed he/she was being dishonest about a block for block-evasion. If he/she believes I was lying, and that I didn't really think that, but actually extended the block simply because he/she had been blocked before, what can I say? I have re-read every word I wrote on Prisonermonkeys's taslk page, and I can't see anything I said which seems to me to indicate that I really extended the block for any reason other than that which I stated. Prisonermonkeys also says that what I did was "at odds with the conduct of other administrators", but my block extension was appealed, and supported by another administrator.
4. "At the time of having my block extended, no infractions had been committed" ... In the context of the following sentences, this evidently means that no further offences had taken place since the block was imposed. However, that is not true: I made it explicit in my comment that the essential reason for extending the block was dishonesty about that block, which of course took place after the block was imposed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WMF's insistence on no registration required, along with a strong privacy policy, means that we will always have a) socks, and b) the possibility of false positives. Per WP:NOJUSTICE it's appropriate admins use best judgment or "preponderance of the evidence." I'm not seeing anything in JamesBWatson et. al. behavior that warrants further action or review. NE Ent 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Active edit war on 1RR-sanctioned article Tony Abbott

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

---

There is an active edit war on Tony Abbott, which is already subject to 1RR per the talk page. Could an admin please block the participants to cool things down a bit? kthxbye --Surturz (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I think this has already been sorted: [146] --Surturz (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Patrick938

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

---

This user has attempted to create an unambiguously promotional article about themselves (?) three times, with references from self-authored blog posts. The first two was Sagar Rana, and now Sagar Rana Computer Programmer. I tagged the page for speedily deletion, however User:Patrick938 has removed it: [147] The user has a history of removing speedily deletion tags and has already been warned so: [148] ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:BM123

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

---

I would like to request a block on this user as he has vandalised a number of articles including Braniel‎ "(Richie McSorley takes up most of the space" and Linfield F.C. as well as creating a hoax page Bradley mcrobbie. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

He's been duly shown the door. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! Super service :) Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

121.219.146.66

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

---

At regular intervals (at most every few days or so, sometimes multiple times in one day), some new IP pops up and starts a war against the word "Palestine", changing Palestine into Israel or into Palestinian territories and adding Israel to places not in Israel, with no explanation or a useless or rude explanation. The latest is 121.219.146.66. Every single edit is of that nature. I'm tempted to block it as a vandalism-only account, but I wonder if I'm too "involved" (I edit in this area). Can some other admin do it please? I'd also be interested in the opinions of other admins as to whether I could handle this myself. On the surface it's a "content dispute" but everyone familiar with the area, including this IP, knows full well that it isn't. Thanks. Zero^talk 13:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of two weeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And his edits have been undone. All is well in the world again. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 14:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Question on course of action

Occasionally while doing RC patrolling I'll see something like this:

• (User creation log); 07:01 . . User account Kitpatricksymons123 (talk | contribs | block) was created by Kitpatricksymons (talk | contribs | block) ‎
• (User creation log); 07:50 . . User account Jenoptik Redakteur en (talk | contribs | block) was created by Jenoptik Redakteur (talk | contribs | block) and password was sent by email ‎

My question is how do I approach this? Should I AGF? Block on Sock grounds? Wait and see? Any help here would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

People are allowed to have alternative accounts (I've got one myself), so I'd be wary of jumping the gun. As long as they aren't being used abusively, alts can be perfectly legit. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the similarity of the names of these alternate accounts to the names of the master accounts, it's extremely unlikely that they'd be used for ulterior purposes. BMK (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Request IBAN with User:Hell in a Bucket

I asked for a voluntary IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and myself in December[149] on my talk page, and again in February[150] on his talk page (after an ARCA request was closed without action after a lengthy discussion.[151])

After this latest post by him,[152] I am asking here at ANI for an IBAN. Lightbreather (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Long block log for Hell in a Bucket – perhaps more than an IBAN is warranted here?... --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you're shooting from the hip, which usually is not helpful, here or in the Wild West. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My last block was what 5 or so years ago? Not counting my self requested break..Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• waiting for statement from HiaB before I comment. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Well, this is all very exciting, and it all follows from a few discussions on some user pages I was involved with. Without an iBan, voluntary or otherwise, one cannot expect another editor to not discuss one's contributions, and in this case I don't think HiaB was the only one to question a possible collusion between the IP and Lightbreather. I think it's incredibly unlikely that they are the same, or that there was collusion, but some editors thought there was a connection--ah, I see now that the SPI is closed with no action, and the conclusion is much like mine. Good.

  Now, I don't see so much disruption that an iBan should be warranted--I think both tend to take things too personal, and/or both play the man, not the ball. I must take issue with one of Lightbreather's comments in one of the threads she linked: "I observe the civility policy, so any "tone" in what I say is 99 times out of 100 in the mind of the reader" is a kind of pre-emptive "I'm right" qualifier, and I dislike that sort of thing. And the moment one complains on-wiki about the behavior of another editor, well, one can expect the other editor to respond. This tit for tat isn't helpful, of course, and without wanting to investigate who started what when, which is a useless exercise anyway, all we can ask for is that the editors take a deep breath before they click "Save". Drmies (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ched [[153]] was retracted before this ani was even started. If u look at the thread you will notice her complaints I was not in the correct forum were rebutted I was in fact at a SPI started by Cirt and the stupid shit I refer to is canvassing forum shopping and socking/suspected meat puppetry. Look at the SPI and the resulting thread. Don't let yourself be manipulated. I'm not available for more substantial replies formanfew hours but happy to respond then. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Well. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall a few discussions about "IBAN", and it seems that a number of them involve(d) Lightbreather. If I'm correct, then that's not a good sign. Typically when one user has problems with multiple editors, at some point we need to consider that perhaps the issues stem from a central source. Perhaps it's the approach that Lightbreather takes that could use an overhaul here. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ched, I do not think you are mistaken. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The phrase used in the ARCA request noted above was "vexatious litigant". Salvio giuliano was the first to say it, IIRC, and it was aimed at Lightbreather. That she is trying again, and so soon after, would seem to reinforce that point. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: LB appears to feel strongly about pornography, civility and sexism. Her opinions on these topics tends to be unpopular, and when you combine that with LB's apparent refusal to back away from an issue when faced with bullying, we have the current battleground situation. (I'm certainly not saying everyone who disagrees with LB is a bully but rather that it's an issue here). I'm also not saying that I agree with everything LB says or proposes, but regardless of how you feel about LB's stances on issues, there appears to be a number of user's fixating on LB and following her around to argue with her or insult her which seems counterproductive to the encyclopedia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Or could it be that she is fixating on her POV? - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Everyone tends to be fixated on their own POV. Honestly Sitush, I think it might help if you fixated less on Lightbreather's POV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

the underhanded actions are hurting the ncylopedia that's why it is hard to ignore. She is destructive in her method. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all? Eric Corbett 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)′

Vandalism: adding Single-purpose_account tags

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

---

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is falsly accusing users of Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account in an attempt to belittle or redicule their arguments. Please take a look at these false attributions on Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships and issue a warning to prevent further trolling. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I can say from experience that the OP IP is a WP:TEND WP:SPA. Juggling stuff, will be back with diffs in a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I just found something delicious on that talk page: "Awesome self published book from Lulu.com, best $100 the author spent." I don't know who wrote it, but I'm going to borrow it. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• RAN, SPA tags are usually little more than a way for other SPA editors to vent a little, to put a scarlet letter on someone. No one needs the tags, certainly not a closer in an RfC (if they're worth their salt). Besides, I never cared for them on principle: an argument should stand or fall with the argument, not with who utters it. Having said that, IP, please stop bitching: I'm going to close this because it disfigures my beautiful ANI board, and you've been at this topic (from this IP), and almost no other, since 4 January. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Atlantisch

Atlantisch (talk · contribs) is an SPA who only edits the article about Prof. Aisin-Gioro Ulhicun and articles related to Ulhicun's areas of research, mostly adding links to papers written by Ulhicun or updating the list of her works. Atlantisch's editing has been fairly benign until recently when they copied and pasted the entire contents of a self-promotional paper on the Academic Achievements of Prof. AISIN GIORO Ulhicun into the Aisin-Gioro Ulhicun article. I have had to revert the addition of this material five times over the past few days, and as they are not willing to engage in discussion and show no indication that they are prepared to follow Wikipedia policies, I think some sort of sanction is in order. BabelStone (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)