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

FreeatlastChitchat yet again

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only a day after the Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article came off lockdown, this editor has resumed section-blanking: [1]

In addition to continuing this disruptive behavior which prompted the other incident report submitted earlier this month, I shall add another charge: brazen lying in edit-summaries. For example, in this edit he claims "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given" (even as the very edit he was making was eliminating one such source,[2] and his immediately prior edit eliminated more).

And all after claiming he was walking away from the subject (in another associated ANI submitted earlier this month by @Softlavender:):

"...I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore..."

(Lack of action stemming from these other ANIs has apparently emboldened him to renege).

Could someone please implement Esquivalience's topic ban proposal from the first ANI? Pax 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Useless allegations and counter allegations. Nearly no third-party interaction to determine consensus. Discussion kept for review. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Response to Allegation(Boomerang) My response to this frivolous allegation and an appeal for Boomerang is as below. Content was changed according to consensus with more than 90% support The crystal clear consensus on the talk page shows that section should be removed (98% supporting removal, with only PAX and one other guy whom PAX canvassed disagreeing). The Rotherham and Rotherham sourcing discussions on the Rape jihad Talkpage show that almost everyone agrees with its removal. Some editors reverted the section blanking during the edit war launched by PAX but all of them ,except one, later said that their actions of reverting were in the spirit of protection(They saw a section removal and reverted it, just to be on the safe side. Guy Macon(I won't ping him, looks like canvass) said "I reverted when I saw section blanking with an edit summary that gave an invalid reason for the blanking. I had and still have no opinion on whether the passage should stay or go; that's an editorial decision that you folks need to seek consensus on". Another editor Helpsome reverted the blanking but said "An IP removed a whole section without giving a reason in the edit summary. When they did it a second time, but this time provided a reason I left it alone. I have nothing to do with the edit wars happening here." So you can see what the consensus is. It is clear that this is a case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he WP:OWNs that article and anyone who touches it should be banned and no one has any rights to edit that article, he even reverts any edits which have nothing to do with section blanking(I removed links to articles from a quote and was reverted without any explanation). My edits were in 100% accordance with WP:NEO policy When I read the source given I immediately saw that the entire article did not mention the term Rape Jihad even once. It was only the title of the article which was Rape Jihad. The article did not explain the term, nor did it use it in anyway. The article talked about slavery in 21st century Islamism and I removed it as a source from Rape jihad according to the following policy at WP:NEO To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. PAX has displayed classic IDHT attitude PAX has not even ONCE tried to defend any of his sources. His only explanation of why Consensus established at 'SIX' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ) occasions on RS/N is not good enough is directed at me and is as follows "You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal."[3] and more recently his reply to said consensus has been "I know partisan censorship-hunts when I see them, and discount them accordingly. Meanwhile, you're on record above thinking that a Russian front-group is a worthy source of information, so I'm seeing little reason to consider your argumentation credible."[4] PAX has a history of launching frivolous accusations Furthermore he launched a false accusation of sock puppetry against some of editors who removed the section that backfired ,and it was noted that statements by PAX were "blatantly inaccurate". PAX then went into the archives and edited the archived SPI removing his inaccurate statement and was reverted immediately. It is also common for PAX to accuse almost everyone of being a sock puppet. To date he has accused 8 editors of being a sock and not provided even a shred of evidence about them. He thinks that just because some people disagree with them, then they all must be socks. Just for reference, here is the SPI, referred to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive, I commented in the SPI in defense of Reddogsix as I knew him to be nothing but a good-faith editor. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC) PAX has been banned(in one form or another) for 20% of the time he was on wiki Even more damning is the fact that the user Раціональне анархіст has a history of being topic banned. As you can see from this Topic ban that more than ten users reached the consensus that Раціональне анархіст is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather he is here only to create disruption. He was recently topic banned for 30 days, with a high consensus saying that he should not nominate articles for AFd. I can ping those ten here and they will agree that this user should now be perm banned, but as it may appear to be a canvass I will refrain from doing that. Раціональне анархіст has also been blocked recently due to his continued edit warring and for being highly uncivil to others. The blocking admin noted that Раціональне анархіст was being blocked for "Modifying other editors comments" and then "for edit-warring in an effort to preserve his editing of other's comments". This to be honest is the most uncivil thing that a person can do on wiki, i.e edit another person's comment when one is involved in a dispute with him and then edit war to preserve one's own version of another's comments. It is quite true that I have been blocked for 48 hours. But the period PAx has spent under sanctions is almost 16 times longer than mine. PAX is highly uncivil Add to this the fact that user Раціональне анархіст is highly, highly uncivil in his comments and generally derides others and accuses them of, sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and general vandalism even when there is no such thing going on as a recent SPI proved. He has made my experience of editing wikipedia a highly unpleasant one, he replies to my every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language, as is clear from the counter response he posted. He started a new section on the Rape jihad TP labelled as Pattern of vandalism so far, which I had to changeto a more neutral heading. To him everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal or a sock. As this ANI has progressed PAX has displayed even more uncivil behavior, as is evident from his comments on this board. He calls me a liar repeatedly even without any reason(such as his claim that I lied about studying books on Southeast Asian frogs. Had he asked I would have told him that I gave my class the said article as a project so that they could look for sources, they spent three days and worked tirelessly to find sources but could not, I was therefore quite proud of their efforts and mentioned the time spent in my edit summary) One of his habits is to insert his own comments into other people's comments. He inserted a counter response inside my response. Pax should realize that even though there is an edit button, everything should not be edited by everyone and other people's comments are no-go areas. Result Should be a Boomerang for PAX Therefore, seeing this kind of behaviour where I am following consensus and even then coming under attack from a person who was topic banned for 30 days and blocked for another (i.e Almost 20% of the time he has been on wikipedia he has been banned in one form or another). I would like to recommend a Boomerang for PAX with topic ban on rape jihad. And another additional ban to prevent him from accusing people i.e PAX should be banned from launching any SPI or ANI reports himself, he should contact an uninvolved admin on thier TP to report something. Both bans should run concurrently for 2 months. (Response created 28 April, Last Modified May 7)(PAX modified my comment without permission and inserted a counter response within it, I have moved the said section out of my comment to a position directly below it)FreeatlastChitchat (talk) Counter-response by PAX Note: the itemized allegations list above was created by FreeatlastChitChat after most of this discussion had already occurred. It, and the counter-response immediately below, are therefore newer than the rest of the commentary. Note2: FreeatlastChitchat has considerably altered his list above after I formed my replies below, such that many of them no longer correspond. He also removed the numbers from his entries, making it even harder.(My response addressed his material as it appeared at this point. I'm done playing Whack-a-Mole. Wow. You almost had it pulled off: drowning this ANI under a gargantuan wall of text so huge that no admin was brave enough to step forward and tackle it. Archival without a clear resolution seemed almost certain a second time. But you just couldn't help yourself bloating it out even more and adding so many new sections that it's bloody impossible for anyone on the board to ignore now. 1. Your claim of "over 90% support" (edit: now upgraded to 98%) is pure absurdity galloping over the border into outright lying. People here can do math. They can count. The section-blankers have been reverted by at least seven editors (or is it higher now? I've lost track); do you have seventy or more people on your side? No you don't. Not even close. 2. You're lying by equivocation (with an assist from Paul B) by claiming that a phrase isn't "in" a source if it's not in the body of the source article even though the phrase is in the title in fat, bold letters. 3. You're confusing WP:IDHT with me having exhausted patience with an editor who tells lies. 4. My accusations of you lying are not "frivolous"; you've been caught red-handed. You could have just said "Oops, that was a mistake," but instead you've doubled and tripled down defending the lie, going "all in" with deuce-7. This unvarying pattern of behavior basically brings every claim you make under scrutiny. For instance, I find it incredibly unlikely that you've read "1007 news stories" or "wasted 200 hours reading books" about southeast Asian frogs. Could it just be that big numbers are irresistibly shiny to you? And: an outlook shaped by Russian and Islamist propaganda mills doesn't bode well for any issue you're involved in. 5. Your name has graced the title of an ANI thread for a longer percentage of your "career" here, and you've been blocked more often, so calling the kettle black really isn't the best tactic. 6. It's true: I dislike people who tell lies unabashedly and unapologetically, which is why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. In fact, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to whether or not a mere topic ban (see Relisted Proposal below) is going to rein you in given the clear ethical issues. Pax 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC) FreeatlastChitchat has significantly enlarged this discussion since I first replied to it on the 28th; the material below does not seem to be replying to wording directly above due to material having been inserted, altered, or removed. He references a temporary ban placed upon me several months ago in nominating porn articles for deletion. FreeatlastChitchat demonstrates continued malfeasance by falsely implying that my limited activity in that area since then amounts to a violation, which it does not. Pax 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) You mean the SPI that you requested starting? (My final reply in that) Regards the composition of 2% and 98%, I shall leave it to others to determine whether or not your misrepresentational counting is a matter of WP:BADFAITH or a troublesome inability to handle basic arithmetic. Pax 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Раціональне анархіст(Pax) should first discuss this thing at the talk page, he has not yet discussed the recent developments, before dragging this to ANI. I don't see what disrupive behaviour Раціональне анархіст refers when he too is engaging in the edit war without bothering to discussing their grievances or differences. Per this I doubt Раціональне_анархіст's ability to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. One can put a level four on his tp for restoring the content back, but that's is not the way to go about doing things. If a user states that they want to walk away and eats their words afterward, it is a silly reason to bring them to ANI. This is more of a content dispute than diruptive editing, if a t-ban is warranted, it is more so for Раціональне_анархіст from ANI. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I have twenty (and counting) posts on the TP this month. Section-blanking to remove massive numbers of RS while lying in the edit summaries in order to support spurious argument on the TP that the castrated article is then applicable for merging (in violation of the spirit of a recent AfD's closer's (@Davey2010:) suggestion to leave the article alone for at least five months) is not a "content dispute"; it is vandalism with an ulterior purpose. The editor has been warned of vandalism on previous occasions, warned specifically about section-blanking on previous occasions, been a subject in at least three ANIs over the last two months, not counting this one, and has been blocked twice during the same span for edit-warring. Pax 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) PAX, do you think just because an editor got tired of you accusing them of being a sock and told you to just put in the SPI in order to clear their name, that this somehow exonerates you from taking responsibility for opening the SPI? An SPI that was clearly erroneous, perhaps you should have seen the truth in your ridiculous accusations, stopped the accusations and made the choice never to open the SPI. I came to the ANI page for a completely unrelated matter, but when I saw your name posted literally all over ANI and recalling the SPI case I had to look into it. I'm not going to get involved in whatever is going on in the Muslim-based articles, as I know it's a highly contentious area in general, and an area I'm no expert in. But from what I've seen of these behavior based discussions is that you've made some questionable decisions recently. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I take that back, after perusing the main article in contention, I will say that I support PAX in that this article should be kept. As a society we need to start recognizing these thugs for what they really are, the world would be better of without the Muslim religion (and without any religion for that matter), and especially better without these extremists (who really are the best example of Muslims if you follow the Quran to the letter, other Muslims don't really follow the Quran). That being said, we still have to follow Wikipedia policy and only put verifiable facts into the article which I'm sure is a never-ending frustrating task as the views on this subject are so polarized, that misinformation abounds. Given that fact we should be editing with extreme caution and prudence on any article of this topic, but we certainly should not be censoring the horrible documented murders of women, children, and "infidels" that occurs daily due to ISIS, Taliban, etc. And I do have some sympathy for PAX, in the regards that this can be an extremely emotion-provoking topic and maybe we should try and understand that while emotions shouldn't be involved, on such topics it is bound to happen. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC) @War wizard90: <nod> Yup. It's easy to get the wrong impression at the first glance (and regrettably many are). But when you wade in up to your armpits, you go, "Hey...wait a minute...." Btw, the only reason that SPI (requested by at least three people and CU endorsed by two IIRC) was denied was because I screwed up and forgot to remove a sentence when adding a few more suspects to the list (which made the formerly-good sentence erroneous). It's all in the link in the "My final reply in the "SPI you requested?" paragraph up above. (That doesn't appear in the final close because it literally "turned blue"/close while I was typing and I missed hitting Send by about ten seconds.) Concerning the editor who is the subject of this incident report, get a load of this nonsense. It just never ends. He has quite the history of misleading edit summaries. Pax 06:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC) This should be a very clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The only disruptive editor on this article is Pax. His behaviour has been deeply problematic for a long time. Other editors who disagree with him have attempted discussion and had asked for input at other venues, notable WP:RSN. Pax merely dismisses views he does not like, stating that the consensus at RSN doesn't count because editors there are "politicos" (what on earth does that even mean?). There has also been clear consensus at the talk page for removal of the section, which Pax simply ignores. The article itself is a mess, thanks in large part to Pax's kneejerk edit-warring. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) Of course I did, because consensus at all pages in which was discussed was to remove the section, as has been explained. This disingenuous attempt to make a consensus-supported edit look like vandalism is typical of Pax's tactics. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Drawing in a number of one-shot !voters with no history in the article, and swayed by discredited albeit voluminous repetitive blather to bury other commenters under mountains of text, does not constitute establishing a solid consensus for deleting the article by alternative means (the clear ulterior objective of the section-blankers). Pax 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) You mean discussions do not count when they go against you. I'm glad we cleared that up. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Agree with WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of justifying their sources in the face of consensus that they are unreliable and/or improperly used in the article there is only edit warring and dismissal. An overwhelming majority on the talkpage have agreed that the paragraph is unsourced and unrelated to the topic. This is ignored. WP:RSN have disqualified the sources used in the paragraph. This is ignored. At no point has the user attempted to justify their sources by anything other than assertion. I have been dragged to a frivolous WP:SPI case, which Pax continued to flog even after it had been thrown out for being without merit and archived [6]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article,[7][8] and was a subject in a prior ANI regarding it. Comment I do not recall having had anything to do with either of the editors in question, so cannot comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban for either one; but in treating an Islamophobic slur as if it is fact, that article is a disgrace. That article has no more reason to exist than would, for example, Christian babies in Jewish cuisine. Get rid of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If there actually were Jews cooking babies and citing scripture for it, we'd have an article, right? (They're not, and we still have an article - what does that tell you?) Anyway, the AfD was last month. Pax 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC) And if there actually was such as thing as a 'rape jihad', then the article as it currently stands may be warranted. There isn't, so it isn't. And if you'd bothered to follow the link I'd provided, you would have noticed that the anti-Semitic slur in question was discussed appropriately, compared to the way the Islamophobic slur in question is not discussed appropriately. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC) You should perhaps also read What is not vandalism. Your false accusations of vandalism are becoming disruptive. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) @Daveosaurus: So "false" that FreeatlastChitChat finally earned a new block for vandalism over the exact issues I've been detailing here? (I also should not have to point out again that "Islamophobia" is itself a neologistic slur, i.e, not a real phobia, which has an article here due to sufficient sourcing.) Pax 09:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC) The link given to a Wikipedia policy page explains that "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material", "NPOV contraventions" and even "Harassment or personal attacks" are not usually considered vandalism as such. And Islamophobia may have been a neologism in 1923, but is now in the Oxford English Dictionary; I suggest you bide your time until Rape jihad appears in the OED and then try to write a neutral article on the subject. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Proposed ban Since Раціональне анархіст is refusing to accept the consensus, (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) the following remedy is proposed: User:Раціональне анархіст (Pax) is banned from editing the article Rape jihad for a period of six months. In case of breach of the above ban, the ban is reset and the user may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for a period determined by them. The user is encouraged to contribute positively to the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article and suggest changes. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post.[9] RSN2: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. Spurious listing by an editor self-identified as a Marxist on his user-page. Discussion result was that the author was notable. RSN3: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A muslim editor gets a few bites complaining about Islamophobia. RSN4: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. RSN5: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A single question with a single response consisting of a red-herring argument. RSN6: An RSN posed by the subject of this ANI. A few participants (one overtly partisan) attempt to impugn author Kern (who it turns out is entirely correct regarding the other subject they were pillorying him for). These RSN arguments are at best tenuous, do not cover all of the sources involved, and the secton-blankers have been reverted by at least seven different editors. It is clear that they lack consensus to do so at this point, and the article has been locked twice now in a state which preserved the material they sought to delete. Pax 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Support Clear indication that Pax has no intention of collaborating with other editors and encourages WP: BATTLEGROUND behavior. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Did you mean I have no interest in collaborating with other editors except @Softlavender:, @Esquivalience:, @Guy Macon:, @DawnDusk:, @220 of Borg:, @Kleuske:, @Helpsome:, @BengaliHindu:, @KrakatoaKatie: and @AlbinoFerret:? (That's a list of editors who've reverted the section-blockers, sided against them on the TP, and/or voted to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat during the last ANI, or assisted in writing the article. I am not counting one IP and the two who both locked the article in a state not preferred by the section-blankers.) Pax 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question[10][11] do not in any way refer to your behavior, and it is rather insulting to assume that just because I reverted some section blanking done by someone you are having a fight with that somehow translates to me collaborating with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. "Collaborating" was Soldier of the Empire's choice of term, not mine. Pax 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Support Pax cannot engage constructively in this topic. His comments are typically sneering and dismissive in tone and he regularly demonstrates that he has no intention of engaging with actual arguments, just repeating assertions ad nauseam. None of the editors he claims to be "collaborating" with come close to Pax's dogmatic POV, though some have supported specific claims of his (and rejected others). Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Nothing here rises to the level of a topic ban, this appears to be a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) So ignoring consensus, constantly misrepresenting evidence and rejecting out of hand the opinions of independent editors, unrelenting edit warring, constitute a "content dispute". Nonsense. Those are behavioural issues. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I became involved because of the evidence I saw of Pax's behviour (which includes disingenuosly canvassing support by pinging you in a 'list' of his supporters, contrary to Wikipedia:Canvassing). Typical of his 'sneaky' tactics, to use one of his favourite words. Nothing to do with content dispute, everything to do with gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I commented on the last AN/I section on this. I also watch this page and comment on it. If you do a find on it you will see 18 or so posts, so the so called canvassing isnt really canvassing. If you read the words after the list above, it explains why they are all exceptions to the canvassing rule. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) If you don't think he was canvassing, I think you are being very naive. Your other edits here are irrelevant to his motivations. I've no idea what you mean by invoking the "words after the list above", They simply demonstrate his disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC) That comment shows how involved you are and that you have lost objectivity. That post is close to a personal attack and likely violates AGF. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Attack on whom, you or him? I stand by my statements about Pax's disingenuousness. There is a mountain of evidence for his misrepresentations. This board is for discussing misbehaviour, so pointing it out with evidence is not a "personal attack". If it were, we would never be able to assess editor misconduct at all. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If that's supposed to mean something, I've no idea what it is. It's not a response to anything I've just said. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) It means that this little conversation is going nowhere, and I if I dont respond, it does not indicate that I somehow agree with whatever points you may raise in additional comments. WP:SILENCE AlbinoFerret 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Comment: Both sides of the equation are problematical here; one side (Freeat lastChitChat and Xerxes...[sp?], etc. [sorry, it's early here and I can't be bothered with getting that username right]) with tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking on more than one article; the other side (Pax) with (possibly) ignoring consensus. I'm not sure a ban on one side, or one side only, is going to help matters or is equitable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I don't want to deride you, as I said earlier. However I would like to ask if a consensus is reached on a talk page and numerous debates that a section ought to be blanked then someone blanks the section, how does that equate to "tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC) This has all been discussed and well-documented on previous ANI threads. It's all a matter of public record; I'm not going to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC) SupportFor the simple reason that this is 'The only' article where Pax makes any contributions and has grown to think of it as his own property. He thinks everyone else is wrong even when consensus has been reached. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Pax's contributions dont show any real unhealthy focus. link He has made more combined posts to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and its talk page. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Quite wrong. The combined green numbers in ebola pale in comparison to his activity in Rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC) No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I have looked at it again and again, and furthermore it is not my opinion that you are obsessed with rape jihad. According to x's tools. 49 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Rape jihad (36.57% of the total edits made to the page) while 28 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (0.31% of the total edits made to the page) You are being willfully blind and evasive; The Xtools link provided by AlbinoFerret reveals as of this post 49 edits by me to the Rape jihad article and 71 to the two Ebola pages, and 36 versus 63 to the associated talk pages. In other words, I am half as interested in this subject as opposed to the other one by that metric. Even less so if, of the 49 edits, we discount the 16 which are straight reversions of vandalism by you section-blankers. Lastly, since I entirely rewrote the article from the original, and it's relatively new, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the edits to it would be mine. If you ran that tool the moment after I created it and before the earlier version had been linked, it would show that 100% of the edits were mine. Yes, it's shocking that editing is going on in here. Pax 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B. Ignoring WP:V and WP:OR as well as consensus from talkpage and WP:RSN because they don't agree with it is not productive. I had hoped that Pax would start to defend their sources or find ones that actually can be used, but they have spent more time opening WP:ANI and frivolous WP:SPI cases. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) A section-blanker wants a vandal-reverser out; nothing surprising there. Regards your falsely-asserted talk page consensus, a new arrival (Kleuske) is doing a wonderful job of demolishing various nonsenses. So, you can't even claim to hold that ground now even with lessened participation from myself and other previous participants who are awaiting administrative assistance in curtailing the disruption. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Removing sections that consensus says should be removed is not "vandalism". You are being dishonest again. None of your disputed edits constitute "vandal reversing". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic (with the exception of a single source, found unreliable at every turn at WP:RSN), which is what this is all about. Nothing has been demolished. Personally, I hope that people go to the talkpage and check it out for themselves. There is a barrage of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that would benefit from more eyes and voices, and could help with the WP:OWN issues. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Classic WP:IDHT on display right there: Kleuske is exactly the "more eyes and voices" you clamored for, and are receiving, and he has addressed your RSN argument at length on the TP (as I did here before he arrived) while you pretend no one has done so. Pax 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC) So you ignore all the other editors who have commented on the talkpage because you found one other similarly ignores clear consensus from WP:RSN that you do not like? There is a great majority in favor of merging whatever can be salvaged from this article into Slavery_in_21st-century_Islamism, a majority that only grows with each day. As for the comments from Kleuske, they're running afoul of WP:SYNTH, which anyone who looks at the talkpage will see. None of the sources provided (except the Gatestone, which is unreliable) have anything to do with the topic. Even Kleuske wants to move the page, which you object to for reasons of, and I quote "What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING then sure to smother the article, as it has Chitchat's preferred Islam and domestic violence (whose very first sentence reads "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed")." which I personally find very telling. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Don't change the subject. In your comment immediately above this one, you claimed "Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic." That's not true, as his dispute with you over the Gatestone source expressly concerns Rotherham. In fact, he's making solid arguments for extending article scope well beyond that. Dissembling like this is why I've amended the proposal to include you in the topic ban. You've sectioned-blanked the article, have the same WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problems, and present false narratives to this noticeboard. Pax 08:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Well, things continue to deteriorate. Now Pax removes POV, disputed, notability and reliable sources tags from the article in spite of heavy discussion on the talk page, where most people disagree with them [12] [13]. Then they remove the merger tag from the article, in spite of the merger discussion having 2:1 support for merger! [14] When a new editor comes in to discuss the poor sourcing in the article they attempt to shut down the discussion with threats of blocking [15]. Considering their refusal to acknowledge the clear consensus regarding their sources (Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine and self-published books factor among them), talk page discussion has proven fruitless. This is how they regard the consensus against them: [16] You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal. [17] Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view Then there are these charming comments: [18] Nobody is going to report on a demographic-warfare tactic without having a pretty strong opinion of it, either for (Muhammad) or against (the filthy kafir targets). [19] The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes. At this point, it's clear that this user is less interested in collaboration pr good sourcing, and more interested in sticking it to the muslims. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Strong Support In my very brief interactions with Pax I have seen him use the Rape Jihad article as a WP:POVFORK for the Rotherham article. He then attemped to justify his actions by misrepresenting sources, and claiming an article about an Oxford abuse case was about Rotherham[20]. The other source he linked to was so dubious it was laughed out of RSN the only time it came up. He has demonstrated a clear inability to use sources responsibly in this topic area, that combined with his itchy trigger when it comes to proposing topic bans makes it very clear that he needs a break from the topic area.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Another involved editor weighs in with a non-defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit commentaries. The topic-ban to be applied to him is a relist of someone else's proposal, so let's not imply it were my idea initially - he's generated a lot of noticeboard attention over the last several months. Regards the content issue, replied to Pax 23:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose Paul B is correct but Pax is mostly correct about the behavior of other editors who have disruptive many other similar pages. There is some hope with Pax, but there is no hope with those editors who are engaged in these edit wars. Delibzr (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) The following text is present on Gouncbeatduke's user page: "...Wikipedia('s) systemic bias can only be corrected through a new aggressive Wikipedia policy of topic bans of Islamophobic and Anti-Arab editors." — Given that he is !voting to exonerate serial section-blanking and lying in edit summaries (with his !vote in the Relisted Proposal below) while simultaneously !voting to condemn (with his !vote in this section) the person who brought the disruptive activities of these vandals to notice here, I can only assume he is abandoning any semblance of non-partisanship in order to pursue that stated "aggressive" agenda of harassing editors involved in articles delving into the less savory aspects of the religion he obviously seeks to protect with the ultimate aim of censoring those articles involving it. Pax 05:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Just repeat, there is no rule against "section blanking". Sections are content like any other content, which can be deleted for the same reasons as any other content. And no one "lied" in an edit summary, as has been exhaustively demonstrated. Perhaps you think that if you repeat this often enough it will somehow become fact. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Gouncbeatduke has a prior block stemming from an incident involving section-blanking of an Islam-related article, and has another recent block as well. Pax 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose (semi-involved) The section blanking is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. This proposal seems like an attempt to reinstate the blanked version of the article. Restrictions are used to prevent damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, not to instate an editor or group of editors' preferred version. Esquivalience t 23:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Support per Paul B as an absolute minimum, with preference to a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed. The editor opposes any content not coinciding with his/her own POV: [21], where neutral wording is replaced with internal POV; and [22], where sourced content contrary to Pax's POV is section-blanked (the same offence Pax accuses other editors of). Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Support per reasonings provided by Paul B. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC) 2 cents (involved) (Non-administrator comment) I got involved. I'm not happy with the title, which fails WP:NPOV in my view. I have made an argument that sexual violence in Islamic culture (proposed new title) is worth an article or rather, should have an article in much the same way as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This cannot only cover atrocities by cookoo cults like ISIL and Boko Haram, but also the accepted violence agains women in (for instance) the Pakistani community in Britain. I have cited several sources quoting Muslims explicitly acknowledging the problem and without any exception these were either ignored or deemed not reliable without any explanation of why they are unreliable. I do not think that the goal of my esteemed opponents is reaching some kind of consensus, but rather that their main goal is to obstruct improvements as much as possible by simply opposing anything and everything. With respect to FreeatlastChitchat I have reached the conclusion that WP:IDHT is applicable and I'm beginning to wonder about WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I agree with all of that that Kleuske wrote above, including the fact of NOTHERE and so forth. I agree that the title change would solve every problem the article (which has survived recent AfDs) is experiencing. I also would like to state that the level of disruption and SPA partisanship and intransigency on the article talk page (and in the edit-warring) has long been at the level of unconscionability and unworkability. I would like to see obvious partisans held off of the article for a good length of time while neutral parties cleaned it up, titled it something neutral and verifiable as Kleuske has suggested, and then keep the warriors and SPA partisans out if possible. (PS: I'm not involved in editing the article but I have reported some of the tag-team edit-warriors.) Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 'Sexual violence in Islamic culture'. Yes that sounds neutral enough lol. On a serious note, there is already a merger on the table which has been proposed with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism. If you want to rename the article, why don't you support the merger? After all, what you proposed is all but a merger. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I would strongly oppose that, since sexual violence against women in Islam is (sadly) not restricted to 'islamism' nor the 21st century. See, apart from the sources I already mentioned this listing of 20 fatwa's. You are, of course welcome to suggest a title you think is better suited, but I kindly request you do it on the appropriate talk page. The above just makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) There is an article Islam and domestic violence which is 'exactly' 100% related to you listing of 20 fatwa's. I don't get it, why are you proposing making new articles about something which already has an article on wikipedia? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) All of the fatwas you link are about beating. None of them say anything whatever about sexual violence. Do you understand what the phrase "sexual violence" means? It does not mean any form of violence to someone of the opposite sex. Paul B (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Kleuske, thank you very much for the input, and I am more receptive to this title proposal than the other you posed on the TP (even though the current titles is in actual usage by sources, and thus my current preferred), but to be honest it should wait until after this ANI is resolved, because no serious work can be accomplished until the disruption ends. Pax 03:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Relisted Proposal (to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat) (As originally submitted by Esquivalience t in the previous ANI concerning FreeatlastChitchat.) Pax 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by: discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter. Comment: There are also votes in the previous ANI, anyone closing this proposal should take them into account. Esquivalience t 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Previous participation is here - !vote below - Esquivalience t 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC): Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as Esquivalience's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see. Pax 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. <note: removed extra ping when moving previous discussion here.> Esquivalience t 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC) support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop. KrakatoaKatie 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP. Pax 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC) WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) BRD is just more popular. Delibzr (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support Everyone has said it. If he is removing those things that he found to be negative then he has to select other topic. Delibzr (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose per Fauzan. -- Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Support I have seen what is going on with this page and it is none-too-impressive. It seems a number of users just want to duke it out and that consensus and the encyclopaedia are at best of secondary concern. I vote for a topic ban on a temporary basis not to punish this user but rather to calm the situation and allow him to review his position. wp:battleground is the alternative. Trout 71 12:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Moment of Truth I think this has dragged on long enough. It seems clear that PAX will not agree with what I am saying(Lets just say that taking out rotherham is not based on consensus and it is my own, personal, POV, biased action). And I am not going to agree to rotherham being in the article, to be honest I would like to delete the article, but for now rotherham should be deleted in my opinion. Therefore being mature adults, I propose that we let the community decide what should be the content of the article. To this end I propose that Both me and PAX, voluntarily remove ourselves from the Rape jihad article for the period of one month, to commence after the page is unprotected. We both waive our rights to comment/participate on the talk page of the said article and/or mention the said article on any other page in English Wikipedia.(except an admins TP). We both agree to voluntarily submit ourselves for speedy checkuser if an IP/anon is found to be editing the article in a way deemed "unconstructive" by more than 5 other editors. We are both allowed to participate in editing the article by placing our suggestions on the talkpage of an admin(preferably the admin who closes this debate). We both volunteer to be subjected by 1 revert in 24 hrs sanction even after this period is over. We make at least 300 major edits to wikipedia articles in general (excluding nominations and tagging) during the 1 month period. So that others can assume good faith that we are not here just to fight, rather to build an encyclopedia. We both voluntarily submit ourselves to an indefinite t-ban(non-appealable) if we are found to be editing the said article during this period of voluntary cool off, or if we do not comply with any of the conditions mentioned above. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) You reneged on your last non-binding declaration (quoted in italics at the top of this ANI) to leave it alone, and came back in to lie in edit-summaries. The only "truth" I see above is finally a stipulation on your part that securing the article's deletion is your primary desire, not its improvement. Since your presence in the article at this point is one of bad faith, my proposal (already submitted by myself and others) is that your removal from the subject be made binding in the form of the submitted topic ban. Pax 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I don't know what is going on here, but the tinypic image of a "diff" labelled a "lie in edit-summaries" presented by Pax does not correspond to the actual diff in the page record [23]. The so-called lie is nowhere to be seen. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, you have made it absolutely clear that you "don't know what is going on here" and aren't making any attempt to listen or learn. As anyone can easily see by clicking your own link (which exactly corresponds, contrary to your claim above, to the picture -- which I created to preserve a permanent record of this malfeasance in the Incident archives should the article ever be deleted in the future), FreeatlastChitchat has removed a source whose title is "title=ISIS and the Rape Jihad" while including in his edit commentary: "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", which is a patent falsehood (you'll note that Chitchat has not denied it despite the charge occurring multiple times in this ANI). Are you blind? Were you hoping no one would click it, or that you would not be called on it? At this point, it really doesn't matter as this nonsense from you three is obviously not going to stop, So, could we please get some administrative action in this notice? The section-blankers have richly earned a topic-ban from this subject. (Please see Amendment to the Relisted Proposal below.) Pax 06:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) If you read the article you will see that it does not mention rape jihad at all. Rather it mentions slavery. Hence my summary. But it is almost impossible to argue with you. You are highly uncivil to anyone who has a different opinion and therefore I try to keep my contact with you to a bare minimum. This reply is for any admin who is looking through and your further comments will not be replied to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC) So "it does not mention rape jihad at all" except right in its VERY TITLE? Good God, please make this person go away. Pax 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC) That's right. The article does not mention it. The title is a catch phrase not mentioned even once in the article. In journalism, titles are often eye-grabbing phrases created by editors and sub-editors, not the article writer. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) That has to be the most disingenuous argument I've ever heard yet to justify lying, maintaining that the title of an article is not part of an article. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) It isn't. Article content is what matters. We are writing about subjects, not catch phrases. And in any case the "article" is an unreliable source, so it can just be discounted. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Pure deception. Pax 21:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) There is no need to create a tinypic, as the diff is a permannt record. THe fact that byou have linked to an image you created rather than the diff indicates your disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) You've been around long enough to know perfectly well that if an article is deleted, its history is deleted too, and thus the dif link would become 404 to anyone except administrators. *That* is why I made the picture: for a permanent record of this malfeasance that anyone can see. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Amendment to the Relisted Proposal For multiple reasons expressed elsewhere in this notice, I propose including Paul B and RatatoskJones (who have also section-blanked the article) in the topic ban restrictions to be applied to FreeatlastChitChat in the Relisted Proposal above. This would also address an unresolved separate ANI over the issue. Pax 05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC) So let me get this straight, you want to topic ban three editors Me, Paul B and Ratatosk Jones? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) What kind of fantasy world are you living in Pax? This proposal is utterly frivolous, or rather it is a disgrace. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Ridiculous. I've removed the poorly-sourced section twice, the last time on April 16th. Since then, my edits to the article mainspace have been solely to insert a citation-needed tag, which Pax removed twice (once directly, once by reverting FreeatlastChitChat's removal of the section one revision too far) without consensus. I'll WP:AGF and assume the second one was a mistake by Pax, but since I've edited and commented on the article, I've gotten nothing but attacks by Pax. I have been falsely accused of vandalism and sockpuppeting, of being "sneaky" [24] and "disingenuous" [25], and this nugget [26] where asking for comments from uninvolved editors is met by: "RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I'm incredibly tempted to propose a topic ban that bans Pax from proposing topic bans at this point, because at this rate 90% of the ANI page will be Pax proposing topic bans for people. Bosstopher (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Humorous WP:ADHOM duly noted. But can you offer any defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit summaries? Pax 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Support This thing is a mess. Unfortunately I was silly enough to get involved by voting on a merge proposal. I voted against a move or rename and very quickly I had responses from both User:RatatoskJones and User:Paul Barlow. This is well within the rules but that !vote seems seriously skewed. Certainly it is a case of badgering. Anyway I feel a temporary topic ban might be in order so as to diffuse the situation. These editors are valuable to the project, but not when they are engaged in wp:battleground, which they certainly are. Things need to cool off. Also this article is getting few visits other than those of the combatants and those attracted by this excessively large and likely unsolvable ANI. It really isn't worth the trouble. and I support the amendment. Thank you Trout 71 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC) YOu are truly unbelievable. I'd refer you ro WP:Fantssyworld if there was such a thing. Why don't you actually read the details of the arguments, which you have shown zero evidence of doing. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Another incident, May 4: Battleground, incivility, and vandalizing a talk page with a single edit (his first there after not posting for three days). Pax 10:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC) No editor has any right to brand another editors actions as 'Vandalism' in a Talk Page section. If you think something done in accordance with consensus of the majority is vandalism you should go open a case somewhere and 'PROVE' it as vandalism. Just branding something as vandalism on an articles TP is highly uncivil. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC) I see you; you're a section-blanking vandal. You've section-blanked the article well over a dozen times:[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42]. You need to go away, and since you won't do it voluntarily, administrative assistance is sought to help you find the door. Pax 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Removing content in accordance with consensus is not and never has been vandalism. There is nothing magical about content that happens to have been stuck under a sub-heading, so that removing it becomes some offence of "section blanking". People add and remove sections all of the time for legitimate reasons. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC) But you didn't have consensus. FreeatlastChitchat lied in edit commentaries. That's why you need to go away for an extended duration. Pax 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC) He did not in any sense lie. OK, you can disagree with his view that there was consensus (which has no clear defintion), but there was certainly a significant majority in favour of that view. Please don't make out-and-out false accusations. Having read the discussions and compared Freeatlast's comments and yours, I know who I trust more to be truthful. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Because some people have WP:IDHT problems, I shall repeat myself yet again: FreeatlastChitchat did lie in this edit[[43]: The exact phrase "rape jihad" was in the very title of the source he was deleting as he was making an edit whose commentary maintained "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given". His immediately prior edit eliminated more sources containing the exact phrase. Yes, you certainly do have WP:IDHT problems, as several editors have independently pointed out to you. It is not a lie to say that the article does not contain the phrase. Again, this is a fact that several editors have pointed out, and which you just ignore, ignore, ignore and splutter and bluster. The edit removed content that was cited to sources that do not mention rape jihad in the content. Of all the sources the phrase appears in one unreliable one in a catchy title and even in that case, it is not in the article content at all. You are just blowing smoke as usual. But the main problem here is that you are not interested in trying to work with other good faith editors, you are just trying to catch someone out and then blow up as big as possible that editor's supposed (and in fact non-extistent) transgression. This should not be an issue of wikilawyering over exact phrasing in an edit summary. The summary was an accurate and correct application of wikipedia policy. No reliable source, of the ten that were cited, used the term at all, or made any reference to any such concept. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC) This ANI isn't about content (however much you wish to derail it). Pax 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrative closure

Due to the size of this discussion and the fact that a previous iteration was closed by a non-admin, I have requested that an admin review and close the topic. Pax 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, a sensible move from one of the involved parties. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia, again

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#List_of_Presidents_of_Croatia. Again.

Will any admin object if I implement the measures I suggested earlier? Nothing has changed and Director is still engaging in a clear and unambiguous WP:OWN violation.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A user made an edit, two other users opposed that edit and reverted him. There were two reverts. There is no OWN. The only thing that's "clear and unambiguous" is that you're trying to push a POV over there. Joy, if you have a content issue to discuss, take that to the talkpage. This is no way to voice grievances about the article's state, its disruptive and frankly suspect (not to mention you didn't even notify me).

For the record, Joy is heavily involved over at the article, his general position is opposed and and he's (rather transparently) trying to push a topic ban on me in order to have his way against clear consensus.

My summary: a while ago user Timbouctou attempted to push certain changes, but was opposed by participants on the talkpage. As a kind of "consolation prize" he posted a POV tag. After weeks of no discussion, the tag was removed. Yesterday Timbouctou re-introduced it, and I reverted him twice and posted a thread, wherein another user (Tuvixer) expressed opposition to the tag. There is no OWN here. There isn't even an edit-war, and I have no intention of entering one. But I personally think Timbouctou doesn't give a damn he has no consensus and is opposed on the talkpage - he'll probably re-introduce his unwarranted consolation tag and edit-war for his edits in general. At that point I don't think there's much more I can do besides post a thread here myself and lay out what I believe is a pattern of disruption exhibited by the user over the past several weeks.

As regards Joy, frankly I feel he might justifiably get BOOMERANGED for trying to push his POV through successive disruptive ANI reports, rather than, say, reporting Timbouctou (given how many edit wars the guy was in only in the past week). He agrees with Timbouctou, though, you see... -- Director (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody tell us what this freaking dispute is actually about? I would like both Timbouctou and Director to summarize, in exactly two brief and neutral sentences each, what their own position is and what they think the other side's position is. "Director feels that the article should… Timbouctou feels the article should…". Nothing more, no comments, no ridicule, no accusations, no justifications, no reasons. I will support a topic ban for either party, should they fail to provide this simple summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the article should pretty much stay as it is, as it has been basically since its inception. I can't say what Timbouctou wants to do at the moment, but he started with demands to delete more than half the article (basically rendering it pointless) on grounds that he's really really sure the constitutional heads of state weren't heads of state - if they served that function during the Yugoslav period. He has very interesting personal views about what is or is not a "head of state". Personal views contradicted by scholarly sources. His motion would also necessitate the creation of about two or three additional, completely pointless articles.. and all for the same basic office of the same exact country (mind you, the current Croatian republic is defined, in the preamble of its constitution, as being the exact same country as was part of the Yugoslav federation).

Its a politics thing, Future.. A right-wing candidate just recently became president in Croatia, and its not fitting to have good solid Croatian! heads of state be sullied by the presence of yugocommunist traitors in the same list! As if the Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia have anything to do with the Presidents of Croatia!... -- Director (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, Director, you failed my easy little test, so yes, I will support a topic ban for you. Let's see if Timbouctou fares any better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant method, @Future. Truly thou art the Solomon of the Internets :). Only one who can say "how he feels" without explaining why he "feels" is the just party! (reasons are for idiots).

Except I'm a busy man, at work, glancing over your post, and didn't read the last few words of the Socratic exercise you devised. Instead I stupidly made the effort of replying to your request, as opposed to simply ignoring you - and/or pointing out that the content itself has no real relevance to this ANI thread. I sincerely hope you're joking. I've seen arbitrary, but this would be a new low.

Seriously, though, I have no idea why the content dispute is being discussed here. Its not just between me and Timbouctou.. there are many participants with differing points of view - on the talkpage. Is this an RfC...?? -- Director (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from completely uninvolved editor: If the title of the article is List of Presidents of Croatia, then the article should begin with Franjo Tuđman and exclude anything before that, since he was the first President of Croatia. If someone wants to re-title (move) the article to List of Croatian heads of state, then that's another matter entirely. Alternatively, there could be two articles, one that lists all past Croatian heads of state, and one that lists only Presidents. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: its not that simple, or we wouldn't even have a dispute. On a basic level, a "president" is defined by the OED as "the elected head of a republican state", which is a definition all these people fit. Moreover, they were all formally titled "President" ('of the Presidium', 'of the Presidency').

More importantly: every single Prime Minister and Presidents list article for every one of the six (ex-)Yugoslav republics lists all republican heads of state (presidents) in this manner, and has for years and years, since its creation. This is because they all had the same republican history, and the alternative would logically necessitate the creation of at least two additional articles for each of the states, each with just a couple of entries. Its pointless.

The trouble with an article titled List of Croatian heads of state is that there were many, many kings of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating "elected head of state of a republican state" with "President". Per the OED, all Presidents are elected heads of state of a republican state, but not all elected heads of state of republican states are presidents. Case closed. If you want to include the other heads of state, figure out a way to re-title the article, such as List of elected Croatian heads of state. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we please not delve into an in-depth debate over the content here? This belongs on the article talkpage. If this trivial editorial decision is in dispute, why hasn't there simply been an RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I totally agree, Fut.Perf. But it's apparently the second thread on this article in two months. Suggest they all be reprimanded and told to solve content disputes via WP:RfC(s) or other WP:DR, and keep this off of ANI. Alternatively, since Director seems at a glance to be a significant source of the problem, suggest possibly topic-banning him/her from all articles on Croatian heads of state, as suggested in the former ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been progress at resolving the content issue, rather only a deterioration (removal of valid cleanup tags), and you already observed the root cause - this is almost too ridiculous to actually be a content dispute. It's a behavioral problem, and it has to be addressed with precise and fair administrative sanctions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a proposal - it was rejected. Just because something isn't resolved to your satisfaction - doesn't mean it isn't "resolved". Your dissatisfaction with the resolution is further no justification for the nonsense tag staying there in perpetuity. The rationale behind it is patently ridiculous and rejected on the talkpage.

And yes, I agree that repeatedly attempting to use this board to resolve your content disputes - is a behavioral problem. It must be very comfortable WP:GAMING the system in this manner - just ignore discussion when it isn't going your way, and post cockamamie reports over and over again. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from a disgruntled former editor: We're talking about Croatia. I mean, Croatia. Why is everyone getting worked up about Croatia? INSANO! Robtransit archdurbar (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, can someone please block Robtransit archdurbar as a troll? Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• #1 The user proposes changes.
• #2 Four users end up opposing him, myself included.
• #3 In spite of having no consensus - he edit-wars to push his edits in.
• #4 After a month of no discussion, his tag is removed.
• #5 He restores his tag (and other edits!) twice, and is opposed once again by two users on the talkpage.
• #6 I get reported by Joy, who openly supports the other guy's position, in an (extremely transparent) attempt to shift the consensus. I get on report - rather than the guy pushing his edits by revert-warring, against consensus (he just reverted for the third time; does he give a damn others disagree with his edit? - not on your life). Yeah, I get on report. For reverting the guy twice. Under a stupid, arbitrary rationale of "OWN" - in spite of my position being shared by three other participants, and being the status quo of virtually ten years both there and on all twelve comparable articles! Why is it OWN? Because its very convenient, my having written most of the article - and for no other reason at all: not a single argument or elaboration was posted for the rationale at any point. I can't see a violation of any policy here.
• Finally, #7 - instead of ignoring this farce of a thread for the transparent attempt at "strategizing" that it is, my respect for the participants leads me to make the mistake of actually investing time and effort into responding, thus making myself the "cause of the problem at a glance".

Do what you will, guys. Topic ban me for twice restoring the consensus version of an article against right-wing nationalist POV-pushing, by a user who by rights should be on report here instead of me, and has no qualms shattering Wikipedia's coverage of a topic into absurd little fragments for the sake of a political agenda. I will appeal any sanctions - on grounds of not having done anything. As regards the article, that's simply the best way to list those officeholders, which is why its present everywhere in all of the twelve comparable articles. Anyone who doesn't want to split it into three or four non-WP:NOTABLE stubs, listing maybe two people(?) - should agree. Now I think I'll stop playing into Joy's hands. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) This is the second section on this page that Timbouctou is involved with. The other is Privatization in Croatia where they got involved in a massive edit war. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If you check the user's contributions, you'll find he was active in revert wars on about a half-dozen articles just in the past week, pushing various Croatian-nationalist edits. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I've just grown too old to tolerate utter imbeciles who come here with the express purpose of political soapboxing and trolling around talk pages. Direktor's editing pattern shows clear signs of pyschopathic behaviour and User:Tuvixer has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. I guess I would need to spend 16 hours of my time collecting evidence to prove that to admins who earned their stripes editing articles on Pokemon, but guess what - I value my time too much for that crap. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

God knows what we might find if somebody took to time to check your "contributions". Also, I don't suppose you have an example of a "Croatian-nationalist" edit I made, do you? Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not like my contribs are hidden somehow, feel free to have a look.. not much to see, I'm afraid.. just created a new article a day or so ago, nothing much else. In regards to Croatian right-wing agenda-pushing, it'd be harder to find exceptions than examples. And your "getting too old"? I'm sorry to say we all are, Timbouctou. But don't try to paint your extreme incivility and apparent annoyance with everyone on this project as something "new".

Also - this is ANI, I hope at least here you'll try to make an effort not to modify or move around other users' posts. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So I guess we'll be seeing no examples of my alleged "Croatian-nationalist" edits from you then? You'll just resort to slanderous accusations? Yeah, this is ANI - the place which spent years buying your bullshit, never questioning how is it that you seem to have issues with someone at least once a week. A new admin born every day I guess. Timbouctou (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. At this point, the way I see it, it is little use trying to figure out who is originally to blame for this impasse – it seems pretty clear to me that there is no objective "right" or "wrong" on this matter (whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were "presidents" and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed. There are clearly reasonable arguments to be made on both sides.) What is abundantly clear though is that neither of the two main parties involved is currently willing to work reasonably and constructively with the other. In this situation of dispute resolution breakdown, what we need is to get both parties off the scene. Could some uninvolved admin colleague please do the obvious thing and apply WP:ARBMAC? (I would do it, as being completely uninvolved in matters of Croation history, but I happen to have had disputes with Director on some other unrelated topics not too long ago, so I'd rather not be the one to act here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, a new round of edit warring has taken place. I am asking for page protection while we wait. AlbinoFerret 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for three days. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark: whether his position represents a legitimate point of view or not, its been discussed and shown to lack support. But its not his position that causes the problem - its his disruption in pursuit of it. His edit-warring against status quo and consensus. I am perfectly willing to discuss with Timbouctou (in fact I posted a thread), the problem is he doesn't want to discuss - and quite logically. He doesn't say what he needs "verified" - because there is nothing to verify. The matter is one of editorial discretion - and his position was rejected on the talkpage: four users oppose it. His argument (about heads of state supposedly needing to be 'sovereign' before they can be called such) is both unsourced and debunked with sources. He. Has. Nothing. Which is why he doesn't discuss, just provoke with typical disdain. And I can not agree that anyone besides him should be sanctioned for his disruption.

Its your decision guys, but I will appeal any sanctions to ARBCOM. Like I said - I reverted someone twice, restoring the consensus status quo version, and disagreed with him on the talkpage. I don't see myself as having done anything warranting bans of any sort.

P.s. I consider you quite uninvolved, FPaS.. I don't even remember what disputes you're referring to. Do what you feel is best. -- Director (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose you can name the "four users" who "reject my position", can you? And I don't suppose you have actual diffs for anything you claim, do you? And I suppose you conveniently fail to register an admin reported you (not me) for owning the article in question? Interesting how these details always somehow slip your mind whenever posting at ANI, isn't it. The amount of wikilawering you use to disguise an editing career that has been nothing but disruptive is mind-numbing. And the fact that there are always suckers at ANI willing to buy your shit is the most depressing thing about this project. Timbouctou (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whats depressing, is after edit warring on one article, and getting involved in an edit war on this one, while this discussion was ongoing YOU edit warred again. Breaking the WP:3RR rule [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Its time to look at your own behaviour and not at others. No matter what anyone else did, you acted in a way that is unacceptable. Pointing a finger at others is not a defence. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest forwarding that to WP:ANEW. I would do it myself, but it probably makes more sense for the editor that looked in to it do the filing. It's clear that a "cooling off" period is needed here, for at least Timbouctou. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou is pointing fingers at others because he is trying to hide what he has done, and as you said, he has broken the 3RR. He has engaged in a edit war and ha ignored the talk page. He has started all of this and the page is protected because of his edits and unwillingness to stop the edit war and engage in a constructive debate. He has done all of that because he has no consensus and he has no valid arguments to back his position. In three days we will again see a edit war because without arguments and a consensus that is all what timbouctou has to push his political or better to say insane agenda. Everyone can see that he is mean and insults other users, he calls other users trolls but we all can see who the actual troll is. I don't have to say his name. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

IJBall there is already a section he is involved with on WP:ANEW. What I'm thinking is perhaps a 6 month topic ban broadly defined. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem there is that the filing against Timbouctou was simply "appended" on to a pre-existing filling, rather than being put in as a separate report. As a result, both ANEW filings seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle there, as the Admins probably don't want to tackle that wall of text. I think I'd suggest breaking the Timbouctou report out into a separate entry... --IJBall (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of view that advocates an wholly unreferenced list is not actually an argument that should be entertained as reasonable because it's against a core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. This has been fairly clearly articulated at the talk page already, but it has been completely drowned out by the surrounding flamewar. It's rather similar to this discussion - Director grew a forest of text and now most people can no longer see the trees. It had the effect of dissuading most people from participating, and making Timbouctou start one of his revert binges. Make it stop... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wholly unrefrenced list" - now that's manipulation. Nobody (you and Timbouctou included!) ever challenged the basic fact that these people served in those roles as laid out - because if that were the case sources can be found instantly for each of them, and for the fact that their offices were those of the head of state. The only thing that's been challenged is placing them in the same article - which is fundamentally a matter of editor discretion, and not sources. Asking for sources over and over again and tagging the article for no reason - is disruptive, and nothing more than a red herring. -- Director (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, its you who's not listening.. and I think that's pretty obvious. You: "I want sources". Me: "This is editor discretion, it doesn't have anything to do with sources". You: "I want sources! You have no sources!".

And I think its pretty clear from all the reports and edit-warring going on even at this time - that Timbouctou doesn't need anyone's help to go an a binge. His attitude of dismissive disdain and condescension is standard for him. -- Director (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Article titles have to be based on facts. You can't waive that requirement by asserting some magic of editorial discretion. If someone wasn't called a President of Croatia, they shouldn't appear on the list of Presidents of Croatia. This would be a trivial WP:COMPETENCE issue if it wasn't accompanied with 4 years of bullheadedness ([49]). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond, I'm only going to quote Future from his post just above: "whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were 'presidents' and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed". A position shared by participants on the talkpage. All this, all your gaming the system and that troll's edit-warring - is just a hissy fit that you didn't get your own way.

And the article is most certainly based on facts. It has been, in this form, for nigh on ten years. All those people are listed in precisely the function they had. As for the title - propose an RM and seek consensus! But up to this point, neither you nor Timbouctou ever challenged the title: because the point is to push a right-wing political agenda and remove the Yugoslav-era officials from the same list - not any concerns over accuracy. -- Director (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you really agree with Director on this content matter? That it someone who wasn't ever referred to as the President of Croatia, and whose characteristics didn't match those who were, can freely appear in the list of Presidents of Croatia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh will you stop trying to mislead already?! Is bold-faced deception all you've got on this? Could you once try to frame this issue in honest terms?

Anyway, I'll take your inquiry alone as a concession that this is indeed a matter for user consensus - otherwise why ask around? To that end, if you need users disagreeing with you, you can find enough of them on the talkpage. I think it should be pretty clear by this point that this thread is just a manipulative attempt to solve a content dispute by WP:GAMING the system. In a month or so we'll see another.. -- Director (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. I was simply curious to see whether you actually managed to convince a neutral person that your content argument has merit. The same neutral person who already agreed that your behavior in presenting said argument was in sufficient violation of policies that you should be sanctioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: Director and Timbouctou engaged in an astonishing 102-round edit war on February 17, all within 5 hours, which must be a world record. And nobody stopped them, talk-page warned them, or blocked them. Something is broken on how that page is being handled, and yes administrative oversight and WP:ARBMAC need to be enforced, in addition to probably removing one or more of the main combatants from the field. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a stupid thing to do, I lost my temper there, and I apologized profusely. Markedly - Timbouctou (the party introducing new edits against talkpage consensus) did not at any point condescend to even admit he did something wrong. And, as I promised, I did not revert war again - nor will I (while he just broke 3RR again). The matter was up in April, and I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for it now. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I'm just infinitely amused with Director's bullshit artistry. It's amazing how none of the admins ever bothers to take a look at what actual discussions with Director look like, how belittling and insulting his posts routinely are, the scope of his WP:OWN issues are, the years he has spent abusing the project, etc. There must be a userbox for that somewhere lol. Has it ever occurred to the geniuses at ANI that revert-wars happen precisely because of the complete uselessness of reporting anything at ANI? Timbouctou (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou, edit wars get reported at WP:AN3, not ANI. It's a simple quick process, and gets immediate and guaranteed results. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Balkan editwars often get results at AN3. Certainly not guaranteed; it depends on the topic and on support from the editwarrior's allies &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this ([50]) a constructive discussion? As I said, when the protection ends timbouctou will again engage in a edit-war. And again, as many times before, break the 3RR. Please, you have to stop him. You all can see his attitude and what kind of language he uses. Nothing can be achieved with him, he only attacks and bullies other users and that is all. It is horrible. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The amount of venom between both of the main parties here is so great I am quite convinced now we need a topic ban for both, and I was just about to impose one myself (given that the party I thought I might be seen as "involved" with said that he himself didn't consider me to be), but I'm just not quite sure what the exact scope of the topic ban should be. Everything related to Croatia, just the issue of Croatian officeholders, or something in between? Any ideas?

In the meantime, I warn both participants that they are definitely going to end up topic-banned from the specific article and dispute in question, and should therefore stop fighting over it immediately, both on that talkpage and here, at the risk of getting blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At least or Timbouctou, I would recommend Croatia topics since this is the second article dealing with Croatia he has edit warred in and the Privatization in Croatia section on this page is still open. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Croatia in general is too wide and would be unnecessarily punitive. I previously proposed a topic ban on Croatian heads of state, but was ignored. Croatian politics seems like an appropriate compromise. I'd support that for Director because his behavior is the root cause of this mess; I'm not sure I support a broad topic ban for the latter two at this point because I haven't reviewed all the other evidence yet. I do support an 1RR for all three in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My behavior is not the root cause of this mess, the root cause is Timbouctou's (and your own) refusal to accept the rejection of your proposed changes by talkpage consensus. You've made that clear yourself in this very thread (by claiming opposition to you "isn't a legitimate position"). And since I still haven't really been told even what I've done - I will appeal any topic bans to ARBCOM as possible (and I think obvious) abuse of ARBMAC discretion. I dare say I've written extensively on that topic and should not be excluded from it unless actually necessary. An IBAN, on the other hand (as I said below), is something I'd probably do myself..

I will also repeat that topic bans seem only to be under consideration due to their proposal by a heavily involved and biased party - Joy, and that because they fit his agenda in terms of the content dispute. -- Director (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop casting aspersions on me? There absolutely was no talk page consensus; your incessant flaming and pretending policy-based arguments against your POV don't exist doesn't count as consensus by any stretch of imagination. The only agenda I'm promoting at this point is stopping your senseless tirades, which is so obviously in the best interest of the English Wikipedia when pretty much everyone else has stopped paying attention to this discussion as it is so annoyingly repetitive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, you were the one proposing changes, and "there absolutely was no talk page consensus"... but hey.. maybe if you can ban some people - you might get that to change. Neat idea. Regardless of whether your "policy-based" arguments are such or not (and they're not) - they had no consensus. Moreover, the entire mess on this thread is entirely of your own making, so don't try to blame me somehow. It was your decision to pester the community repeatedly for assistance in pushing changes you prefer, and that is absolutely what this is about: you're a participant in a content dispute, pushing for a ban against a party you disagree with. There is no concrete evidence, there isn't even a coherent argument for OWN or anything of the sort, there's just this vague whiiiine about how you're personally frustrated and don't want to "deal" and all that.. "oh please make him go away", etc.

The next guy who steps up against your asinine idea to split that place apart will no doubt annoy you as well, and may find himself defending against your dishonest accusations. And why not - his position would be "illegitimate" and therefore disruptive. Right?

But I can see you're impatient to finally get your ban ("everyone has stopped paying attention!"), so I'll leave you to it. Oh and thanks for speaking against my getting banned for no reason from ALL Croatia topics, that's real generous of you. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When there's "venom between two users" (and I don't dispute that there is) - isn't an WP:IBAN the solution? Rather than a topic ban? The "venom" is hardly topic-specific, the tban only seems to be discussed here due to Joy's preference in the content dispute. And, in actual fact, Timbouctou and myself were interaction-banned in the past [51] - with good effect.. its just that it expired, unfortunately. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any more input from uninvolved observers here, but I still think the sanctions proposed earlier should go ahead. So, under WP:ARBMAC, I am imposing:

1. A full interaction ban between Director (talk · contribs) and Timbouctou (talk · contribs), of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
2. A 12-months topic ban for Timbouctou from all topics related to Croatia
3. A 6-months topic ban for Director on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but this ratio would send the wrong message. In fact, thinking about it some more, I would say that that kind of a statement would be so illogical to me that I would find such a move to be resulting in a case of WP:DEPE, one much more serious than this particular incident alone. Here's why: in this topic, both of them are using all the wrong methods, and I have no qualms as far as putting an end to that. But at the same time, Timbouctou was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a mainstream position, as opposed to Director who was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a fringe position. Wielding a larger axe towards the less nutty party would have the practical chilling effect on all the other editors in this topic area.

Note that I recently got blocked for the first time in my life for having blocked Timbouctou among others in an overzealous manner. It would actually reflect better on me in light of that earlier case if I were to simply let Timbouctou take a bigger hit here. But that just would not be right, nor would it be in the interest of the project. I also find it indicative that in that earlier incident, I had found Timbouctou to be inappropriately reverting against others who were inappropriately advocating a Croatian right-wing nationalist position, and yet Director has portrayed him as one of those. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He's already violated his topic ban, I think. Within two hours of receiving and archiving the notification on his talkpage. I'd say your perception of "nuttiness" may be skewed (or you may just be a tad biased). -- Director (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou has violated the ban? He has edited the talk page on the article about Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [52] --Tuvixer (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and there he's discussing a topic related not only to Croatia, but even to the specific issue on the Croatian Presidents article (namely Yugoslavia's legitimacy during WWII). But perhaps the clincher is his editing four other Croatia-topic articles... Bad Blue Boys (Croatian football hooligans), Ibrica Jusić (Croatian singer), No One's Son (Croatian movie), Mate Matišić, (Croatian screenwriter).. -- Director (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Joy, while I cant be 100% sure, the admin probably gave Timbouctou a longer and broader ban because they were involved in edit warring on at least two Croatia articles at the same time. The other was Privatization in Croatia, and edit warring is edit warring no matter what position on the material you hold. AlbinoFerret 12:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the page history of Privatization in Croatia and I see that the kerfuffle there started with this edit by Tuvixer - prior to that, the article seems to have been reasonably stable for a while. Two other users, Tzowu and Timbouctou, opposed these changes, and an edit war ensued. Soon they seem to have settled at an actual improvement of the article, each party adding a half a dozen references. But then soon afterwards, Tuvixer made this edit removing a table of economic indicators referenced to un.org, was reverted by Timbouctou, and the edit war continued on that topic. Certainly Timbouctou is guilty of edit warring, but if you want to apply WP:ARBMAC, you can't apply it in such a wishy-washy manner - Tuvixer was involved in both edit wars and he goes scot free?! That's WP:DEPE all right. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some topic ban time for Tuvixer is probably a good idea. He really didnt come up that much in this section, and the other section was archived without much input. But the edit warring was massive on all sides there, lets see what the admin says. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The name sounded vaguely familiar to me so I checked, and I found my warning to them about wholly disruptive behavior in Sep 2014. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you see the problem here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all I am really sorry for that. I have promised never to do that, and I never will. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know all the rules. I have reported Timbouctou before when he broke the 3RR and the report was ignored so I did not know what to do. I have started to have a constructive discussion with Tozwu and then Timbouctou came and had initiated a edit-war. Tozwu agreed to remove the table, everyone can see that on the talk page, but Timbouctou ignored the talk page, also he was extremely aggressive and rude towards me from the beginning, and he never "assumed good faith" WP:AGF. I don't know why. He has been following my edits, and has reverted them without any reason and when I started a discussion on the talk page he ignored it. I am hoping nobody will consider punitive sanctions. I am really happy to be able to take a part in this wonderful project. I did not even know that it was possible for me to edit Wikipedia. And when I started it was all ok for a time, and then came Timbouctu, like a bully and started reverting my edits on almost every article that I have edited. He was very mean and called me by names, I didn't know what to do, so I reported him but the report was ignored. I really felt horrible and I did not know what to do. You all know what kind of user and maybe what kind of person he is, everyone has seen it and I think that is one of the reasons he got the ban. I promise that I will never engage in a edit war, and I will try my best to remember all the rules and abide by them. I really hope that I will not be sanctioned. Also it happened quite a while ago, WP:NOTPENAL, so I don't know why User:Joy is saying this now. It seems he is systematically trying to ban all opposition from the talkpage of the article. Is that right? :/ Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, constant edit warring and pushing of own work

The behavior of Ssolbergj across multiple articles is problematic for several reasons. The user often inserts their own work in a heavy handed way, caring little for discussions and consensuses. A rather blatant example concerns a proposed new coat of arms for Macedonia. To start with, the user has made up the coat of arms themselves(!) StanProg has showed here [53] that what Ssolbergj has done is to take the Belgian coat of arms, recolor it, and then present it as the new coat of arms for Macedonia. That is already problematic. Equally bad, the user edit wars heavily and against consensus to keep inserting their creation [54], [55], [56], [57] even though the user is alone for their version and always opposed by more than one user, making it clear there is no consensus. The user even went as far as moving Historical coat of arms of Macedonia (an article that had existed for 6 years and to which many articles linked) to Proposed coat of arms of Macedonia [58] just to be able to push their home-made Belgian-Macedonian coat of arms there as well, and then again edit warring against consensus [59], [60]. If any more evidence were needed that this user is here just to push their own work, a look at the user's actions at other Wikipedia's is revealing. Not content with inserting their own work here, Ssolbergj has pasted it across Wikipedia in dozens of languages, never bothering to see if it fit and even pasting the whole section with the text in only English at Macedonian Wikipedia [61], [62], [63], at Danish Wikipedia [64], at Spanish Wikipedia [65], at Swedish Wikipedia [66], at Norwegian Wikipedia [67], [68], at Dutch Wikipedia [69], [70], at Turkish Wikipedia [71], [72], at French Wikipedia [73], [74], and at German Wikipedia [75]. In all of these cases, the user ignored the language used and just pasted in their own work with a description in English, clearly showing their intention. To finish, I've only come across the user concerning Macedonia, but a look at their talk page indicates that the same disruptive behavior is repeated in other areas as well [76]. This user is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not being silly. Please read this discussion, where I've replied. This is the subject of the matter. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the subject of the matter is your behavior. You are constantly edit warring against consensuses and pushing your own work even when aware it's not accurate (as well as copy-pasting your own work into dozens of Wikipedia in English, but that's outside the scope of English ANI)-Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it seems as though this may warrant a topic ban. Ssolbergj, you were clearly told to discuss changes with fellow editors before making more changes to templates. I see no excuse for the continual (apparent) POV pushing to go unpunished. JZCL 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz When you reverted me you accused me of OR. If you read my reply you could potentially realise that is not the case. When it comes to the template of Airbus Group, I have engaged in discussion on how to best organised it here. -Ssolbergj (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've made a request at WP:RPP for Historical coat of arms of Macedonia to be move protected. JZCL 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for or against that title, and I do not see why it would be necessary to move protect it. It is not particularly controversial. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Like JZ, I would also support a topic ban on Ssolbergj for anything concerning coats of arms. The user's behavior clearly indicates not being here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is a ludicrous notion. IMO I am quite a responsible editor and contributor. Your absence from the discussion on the topic in question is telling. If anyone were to deserve a topic ban in heraldry it's you, who seem not be interested in learning what function a blazon has (i.e. the topic in question). - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm actively involved in the discussion (and started the discussion) at the talk page of Republic of Macedonia. And I'm not the one who has inserted my own work in countless articles against consensus, moved articles at will, and been spamming loads of Wikipedias in other languages pasting in your own work and text in English.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in discussing then you should continue to respond in these talk pages. There were no consensus for or against having such pictures inserted or concerning the article name. WP:bold. -Ssolbergj (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Large number of potentially incorrect edits

The problem has been described at the Teahouse questions forum by Aloha27 as follows:

"There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources?"

This made me look at the contributions record of Moka Mo to confirm a large number of edits have been made, many of which add this link.

I checked their talk page to see a notice at User_talk:Moka_Mo#May_2015 by Cmr08 requesting that they enter into discussion.

The reason I am bringing this here is because admins have tools to perform any necessary mass roll backs of edits by an editor that are proven to be incorrect. I am making no judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the edits. This is to alert wiser heads than mine to a potential problem. I do not see this as a content dispute, more as something that will require some poor admin to pick up the baton and undo a large swathe of changes. I am about to notify the editor in question on their talk page. I will also notify the other editors I have mentioned in order that they may make a decision about participating in this discussion. For clarity, I am uninvolved in and have no interest in the articles concerned. I doubt I have ever edited in that arena. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the stub article above, and don't really care if it's used or not, or even if it's removed. The concern I had was that a large number of Nova Scotia articles were being changed to say they are regions and not communities but the editor making the changes was providing no reason for the change. After editor made these changes a second time, I left the talk page message hoping that the editor would prevent this from getting out of hand by explaining why the change was being made. By providing no explaination, I felt the editor was insisting on making the changes regardless of what other editors were saying. Had only the stub article been removed, I wouldn't have even bothered, it was labeling the communities as regions with no proof that bothered me. I didn't think asking an editor to explain changes would lead here, but I am more than willing to retract the statement if it would prevent this from going any further. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion above, Moka Mo doesn't appear to be the editor adding the link to the stub article as was stated in the notice above. A check of history shows that 19960401 is the editor who added the link to a large number of articles. Moka Mo had only made a couple of edits total to Nova Scotia articles until a few days ago. That being said, I still have no opinion on the stub article, but thought the info should be clarified. The only additions of the article by Moka Mo appear to be a couple of articles where he/she re-added it after removing it in an earlier edit. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Moka Mo whose opinion here is valuable in any case. I Must have picked up the sole edits where this was the case. I shall notify 19960401 on their talk page of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to make mistakes, especially with a lot of confusing edits going back and forth. I only picked up on it when I went back a second time to re-read this. At first I actually thought this was over the message I left him on talk page, I now see it has nothing really to do with it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to adjust the title of this thread as it is obvious that it isn't Moka Mo who has made the edits in question. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although there is a 1-in-365.24 chance that it is a coincidence, I point out that 19960401 is a date code for April Fool's Day, 1996. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is dishearening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL|lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit is wrong about wp:blpn (there was no consensus), half-right about wp:ae (I was threatened but the canvassing against me went nowhere), wrong about wp:forumshopping (if it were true then everybody who goes to wp:ani would be guilty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When an admin closes an AN/I thread, s/he does not create some kind of binding principle. Cardamon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. S/he may, however, articulate a settled consensus interpretation of policy, as TParis did here. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As may any editor. Admins don't have any special role in terms of deciding what is the proper way to apply policy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, but my own opinion is that we should have firm policy against that sort of descriptor in the infobox of lead sentence. Even if the person calls himself such, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. That we permit otherwise is in my opinion of perversion of the policy of WP:NPOV, and the two supporting guidelines on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We'll still have to argue about how to say it, but it won't have the same focus. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86

Initial statement by EllieTea

User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 have been causing problems pertaining to the article False accusation of rape. I began making edits to the article on April 26. I continued making edits until May 2; i.e. I made edits for one week. Afterward, User:Roscelese undid all the edits that I had made.[77] Her stated reason is as follows.[78]

EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved.

I twice requested that Roscelese supply evidence to support her accusation.[79][80] Here is one of those requests.

An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated WP:OR and an edit that violated WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.  EllieTea (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese refused to specify any such edit. Another editor, User:Padenton, has also repeatedly requested that Roscelese specify the edits I had made that are problematic. Again, Roscelese declined to do so.

Additionally, Roscelese has accused me of being a Single-purpose account.[81] A review of my contributions shows otherwise. I joined Wikipedia in 2009. Until this year, I did not edit any articles related to rape. Most of my edits dealt with songs, movies, and actors.

I did not, though, edit often. This year, I became more involved with Wikipedia. I created my first, and so far only, article: Leila Araghian (an architect). Again, that is not related to rape.

The subject of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is directly related to rape accusations, and I had seen the subject discussed in the media. In February, I looked the subject up on Wikipedia, and after reading the WP article, made an edit to the article, to include a short quote.[82]. Afterwards, I made three other very minor edits: adding some wikilinks, correcting grammar, etc.[83],[84], [85]

Two months later, I became interested in the topic, and so in mid April, I began making related edits to WP. I made several edits to Campus rape, beginning on April 19. A week later, I began making edits to False rape accusations. I also made a few more edits to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight); none of those edits changed any of the words in the text though: rather, they dealt with other issues, e.g. spelling, a reference, etc.

From the above, it is plain that Roscelese’s allegation that I am an SPA is false.

Before discussing my edits further, some background about the article is perhaps useful. A central question being debated on the subject is this: how common are false accusations of rape? There seem to be two main schools of thought. One school, often associated with activists, argues that the rate is about 2%. Another school, often supported by police, argues that the rate is far higher, e.g. 20–40%. There are also people who argue that we do not have adequate data to conclude much.

Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have repeated claimed that I am trying to bias the article against the activist school. To assess those claims, the edits that I made on the last two days during the week of my editing (May 1–2) are reviewed below.

• May 2, 11:58, Edit Summary: improve reference formatting

This edit made no changes to any words, just formatted a reference better.

• May 2, 11:51, Edit Summary: Give another quote about the meaning of "unfounded"

This edit pertains to the FBI’s classification of some rape accusations as “unfounded”. The edit consisted of inserting one new paragraph. The paragraph explained that the rate of known false reports is much less than the rate of “unfounded” reports—yet some people have mistakenly used “unfounded” as a synonym for “false”. The paragraph is copied below (reference omitted).

Eugene Kanin (whose work is discussed below) remarks similarly: "unfounded rape is not usually the equivalent of false allegation, in spite of widespread usage to that effect … unfounded rape can and does mean many things, with false allegation being only one of them, and sometimes the least of them".

Thus, my edit provided support for the activist side of the debate.

• May 1, 20:07, Edit Summary: correct authorship

The name of one author was missing from a source; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 14:52, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660248778 by EllieTea (talk) correction

  May 1, 13:59, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660247157 by Sonicyouth86 (talk) I have explained twice with link; you are violating policy

These two edits pertain to the inclusion of a reference. The reference is an opinion piece at theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is an opinion site within The Guardian newspaper. Before discussing this more, some history is relevant.

On April 27, I made an edit to Mattress Performance.[86] The edit did not change any words, but removed a reference. The reference was to an article in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is all opinion pieces: for that reason, I believed that the reference violated WP:RS.

I was nervous about making the edit, because I am not an expert on WP policies. So, I also created a new section on the talk page to explain my edit in detail: Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Citing opinion pieces. The edit was never reverted, and there were no comments made on the new section. Thus, I had been right about removing the reference. I felt good about that.

Two days later, on April 29, I noticed that the article False accusation of rape also included a reference to an opinion piece in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free. I therefore removed the reference, just as I had done with Mattress Performance. The Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion”.[87]

Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit. I re-reverted that; my Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP policy for facts”.[88] On May 1, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit again. I re-reverted that, at 13:59 (as linked above). I was aware that what we were doing might be construed as edit warring; I believed, however, that I was enforcing WP policy. I also created a new section on the article Talk page to discuss things.[89]

In the new section on the Talk page, Sonicyouth86 pointed out that the opinion piece was only being cited as a source for a statement by the author of the piece. I had foolishly not noticed that. I then restored the reference in the article (at 14:52, as linked above), and left a note about this on the Talk page.[90]

Everybody makes dumb mistakes sometimes. Sonicyouth86, though, had interpreted things in a different way, making the following claim on the Talk page: “I assume that EllieTea believes [that the reference should be removed] because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations is known to be true”.[91] The quote from me is from a discussion that we were having about a study that was done in Australia. In the study, 15% of the rape accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant: thus, only about 15% of the accusations are known to be true. (Only 2% of the accusations are known to be false, though; the remaining 83% did not have their veracity determined.) By quoting me out of context, Sonicyouth86 makes it appear as though I hold a POV that I do not hold (and in fact think is ridiculous; my real POV is that a study that only evaluates 17% of the accusations is of little value). Sonicyouth86 further accuses me of editing in bad faith.

The POV accusation that Sonicyouth86 had against me was also made earlier, on April 29.[92] Then, s/he added this: “It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it”. I responded by politely explaining the above issue with 15% (i.e. only 17% of the accusations in the study had their veracity determined).[93],[94]

None of my explanations had any observable effect. Indeed, on May 4, Sonicyouth86 told me this: “You have repeatedly stated your opinion that only a small portion of rape accusations are true but you need to read WP:NPOV and edit accordingly. Or better yet, you edit in some other topic area for a change.”[95]

• May 1, 10:35, Edit Summary: correct Turvey reference

There was an error in the way a reference was specified; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 08:59, Edit Summary: add Philadelphia experience

This edit added a new paragraph to the article. The paragraph presented evidence that the police seriously over-report the number of false accusations. The paragraph is as follows (reference omitted).

In the year 2000, the Philadelphia Police Department reviewed about 2000 rape reports that had been classified as "noncrime" during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The review determined that there were actually only about 600 rape reports that were false or did not amount to crimes. The remainder of the rape reports included 705 true rapes, 532 other sex crimes, and 131 nonsexual offenses. The Police Department then agreed that henceforth women's groups would be permitted to review case files.

The edit obviously provides strong support for the activist side of the debate and against the police.

To summarize the foregoing, I made edits for seven days, with the edits for the last two of those days synopsized above. None of the edits during the last two days were against the activist side, and two edits were for the activist side, one strongly so. During those days, both User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 were active on the article and/or Talk page. Yet afterwards they claimed that I was pushing an anti-activist POV, and reverted all the edits that I had made during the prior seven days.

During the first five days, I made edits that supported both sides of the debate. Even then, though, the edits were reliably sourced and, I believe, fair. As an example of an edit that supports the anti-activist side, consider the Australian study cited above. Prior to my editing, the WP article described the study as follows (omitting the reference).

A study of 812 rape accusations made to police in Victoria Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

Most people reading that would assume that all but 2.1% of the accusations were not false—as such, the description was highly misleading. After my editing, the WP article describe the study as follows.

A study of 850 rape accusations made to police in Victoria, Australia, between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report. Another 15% of the accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant; the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study.

The new version is obviously more informative, and no longer misleading. It does indeed have weaker support for the activist side of the debate, but only because it is no longer misleading. Nonetheless, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit [96] and on the Talk page claimed that my edit was an attempt to impose a “serious POV” in the article.[97]

During the week that I was editing, I made two significant mistakes. One mistake was described above, about the removal of a reference to an opinion piece. The other was in quoting a statistic from an FBI report.

The FBI report states that 8% of rape accusations were classified as “unfounded”. The report further states that 52% of accusations were “cleared”. In editing the WP article, I assumed that “cleared” meant “final status has been determined”.[98] In fact, it means something else. (For example, if the FBI receives 108 accusations, 8 of which are classified as unfounded and 52 of which lead to criminal charges, then (roughly) that implies a cleared rate of 52%—the 8 are ignored.)

After I made the edit, Roscelese asked me to confirm the definition of “cleared”. I then googled the FBI web site, realized that I had made a mistake, and made a correction.[99]

Before asking me to confirm the definition of “cleared”, though, Roscelese suggested that I had made up the cleared rate.[100],[101] I then quoted the relevant paragraph from the FBI report, which states “Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared”.[102] Roscelese then apparently realized that the 52% figure was indeed real (and subsequently asked me to confirm the definition).

After Roscelese reverted all the edits that I had made, another editor, whom I do not know, became involved, User:Padenton. Padenton re-reverted the article to my last version, citing WP:REVERT. Then another editor, whom I also do not know, reverted what Padenton had done.[103] I then again reverted to my last version; here is the Edit Summary: “there is no consensus to do this, and no supporting evidence yet; discuss further on Talk”.[104] My edit was undone by Sonicyouth86.[105]

Padenton then left several comments on the Talk page, addressed to Roscelese and Sonicyouth86. Some extracts from those comments are below.

… the lack of civility and edit warring behavior the two of you have shown rather than these good faith edits and attempts to discuss

@Sonicyouth86: Then you need to provide information on what specific changes you have issue with, and engage in civil discussion over the changes so we can finish this.

I see many attempts of EllieTea's to discuss his/her changes on the talk page, and I see your refusal to discuss.

I believe that the article is much improved as a result of my edits. As far as I can tell, every difference between the last version that I edited and the version to which Roscelese/Sonicyouth86 reverted is an improvement. Neither Roscelese nor Sonicyouth86 have given any counterexamples.

I ask the Administrators to restore the article to the last version that I edited. I ask further that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 be sanctioned.

EllieTea (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Robert. I'm actually very interested in this subject but I could barely make a dent in that wall of text, EllieTea. This is like evidence presented in an arbitration case not a simple request for administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Most of my statement is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Roscelese. The key point is that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 reverted a week and a half worth of edits (70 edits) refusing to explain the reverts and refusing to allow EllieTea to discuss. They were dismissive and uncivil to his/her multiple attempts to discuss, often ignoring them. When asked to explain the mass-revert, they refused to provide any additional information than the already addressed concerns throughout the rest of the talk page. As Roscelese is under arbcom restrictions requiring that she explain any content reversions on the talk page, and prohibited from making rollback-reverts without explanation, her actions in this should be handled at the arbitration enforcement request, unless there are other claims against her actions. ― Padenton|✉   22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation, Padenton. It sounds like some of this incident is being handled at AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible boomerang for EllieTea

• EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true". Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. ET's contributions to the False accusation of rape have been particularly disruptive and in violations of our content policies. Some examples.

• With their first edit to the page, ET adds a self-published rant that compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria.”

• Removes a reliable source that says that false rape accusations are relatively rare.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Removes a reliable source (statement by Keir Starmer on recent CPS research) which states that false rape accusations are rare.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Misrepresents FBI statistics, incorrectly claiming that 8% of 52% (15%) of accusation are false, when in fact the source says 8% out of 100% in a larger sample size.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Misrepresents sources by claiming that police classified 9 % (216 of 2284) as false reports, when in fact the police classified 8% as false reports (216 of 2643) (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent p. 47)

• Restores misrepresentation without consensus.

• Adds link to an obscure court decision (ruling: women in jeans cannot be raped).

• Adds information about retractions and withdrawals, conflating them with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn.

• Reverts without consensus.

ET has received several notifications. They are aware that the page is subject to the men's rights article probation (false rape reports are the ultimate men's rights activist issue). Furthermore, they were told that their edits might fall within the scope of the ("any gender-related dispute or controversy") part of the GamerGate discretionary sanctions Unfortunately, the user did not adjust their behavior.

ET demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or care for statistics and WP:NOR as in the case when they came up their own FBI figures (8% of reports are false & 52% of reports result in arrest != 8% out of 52% are false). Furthermore, they show an inability or unwillingness to edit collaboratively and follow the BRD cycle. They edit to promote their stated (fringe) POV. This makes them very unsuited to edit in their chosen topic area (everything about rape). In general, ET is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --SonicY (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonic, I've taken the liberty of adding a subheading. This section is difficult to read. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@EllieTea: It's unfortunate that you still do not understand why it is disruptive to repeatedly restore your preferred edits without consensus and despite objection from experienced editors. Most worrisome of all is your (continued) defense of your misrepresentation of sources. Your comments do not counter my points, your comments contradict the sources. And I don't know what to call you, SPA or "sleeper account" or whatever. You have made 222 article edits, 134 of them this year, and 66 article talk edits, 65 of them this year. All article talk edits in 2015 had to do with rape. And almost 100 of the 134 article edits were about rape. The non rape-related edits (with the exception of edits re Araghian) were minor and insignificant. You might have edited other topics between 2009 and 2014. But in 2015, your (substantive) edits and your discussions are limited to the subject of rape. --SonicY (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rejoinder to reply by Sonicyouth86

Most of the issues raised in the first paragraph of Sonicyouth86's reply are addressed in my initial statement, and ignored by the reply. In particular, regarding being an SPA, this was addressed: I began editing WP in June 2009 and only became interested in rape accusations this year, mainly since mid April. And regarding the quote "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true", this is discussed in detail in my initial statement: Sonicyouth86 misrepresents my position, again. The 13 examples in Sonicyouth86's reply are treated below.

1. My first edit to the article was indeed the one cited by Sonicyouth86: made on April 26. At that time, I knew very little about the subject of false accusations of rape. I googled the subject, and found, among other things, the book False Accusations of Rape (listed on amazon). This seems to be the only book that is entirely about the subject; moreover, the book had just been published. For that reason, it seemed reasonable to include the book in the WP article on the subject, under “Further reading”, which I then did. I did that, however, without looking at the book.

Afterwards, Roscelese removed the book from the article. I accepted that: I did not attempt to revert the removal, or discuss the removal on the Talk page, etc. Indeed, since I had not, and have not, seen the book, I cannot comment on the content. As a just-published book on the topic of the WP article, though, it initially seemed to me to be reasonable to include it.

Sonicyouth86 criticizes the book because it "compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria”". My suspicion is that this is an implicit reference to the book Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller’s book has been very widely cited by people on the activist side of the debate about rape accusations. Brownmiller’s book compares rape to white mob lynchings. Hence, my suspicion is that False Accusations of Rape, when comparing false rape accusations to lynchings, is trying to draw a parallel with Brownmiller's book.

2. We had a discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#DiCanio, on April 28. After I explained my reasons, no one replied. I therefore assumed that my reasons were accepted by other editors. Sonicyouth86 is now indicating that s/he does not accept those reasons—but is not giving any justification for doing so.

3. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.

4. This is discussed at length in my initial statement: about the mistaken removal of a reference. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.

5. This is the same issue as the prior point.

6. This is the same issue as the prior point.

7. The issue of FBI statistics is discussed in detail in my initial statement. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.

8. This is the same issue as the prior point.

9. There is a long discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#British_Home_Office_study_(2005):_the_percentage_rate. My comments there counter the point of Sonicyouth86 in detail.

10. This pertains to the same issue as the prior point.

11. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my adding a link to “an obscure court decision”. The court is the Supreme Court of Italy. The decision of the Court was as stated by Sonicyouth86: women in jeans cannot be raped. In other words, if a woman is wearing jeans and she makes a rape accusation, the Court ruled that the accusation should be held to be false. This really was the case in Italy, as of 1999—the date of the decision.

I do not understand what my edit is being criticized for. It is obviously directly relevant for the WP article on false rape accusations, and of substantial significance. Moreover, it supports the request at to the top of the article to globalize the content.

(Perhaps I should add that I do have a POV on the Court’s decision: I think that the decision is absurd, and I stated so on the Talk page. That did not influence anything in the article though.)

Additionally, note that my edit supports the activist side of the debate about rape accusations.

12. This refers to the Australian study, discussed in my initial statement. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my edit for two reasons. First, because my edit “adds information about retractions and withdrawals”; that information, though, is relevant and important, as explained in my initial statement—an explanation that is ignored by Sonicyouth86's reply. Second, because my edit conflates retractions and withdrawals “with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn”; this is a falsehood, as comparison of the before and after versions of my edit demonstrates—and both versions are given in my initial statement.

13. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.

EllieTea (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Two administrators have explained that the description I gave is too long for ANI. Additionally, Sonicyouth86 has made a fairly long reply, for which my rejoinder will also be long. Hence, I suspect that this issue should now be submitted to ArbCom. If that is not okay, please let me know.
EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is doubtful that ArbCom will take the case without prior efforts at resolving it within the community. This (AN/I) is one method, Dispute Resolution is another. BMK (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this case is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I intended to start an ANI discussion or request AE concerning EllieTea's editing. When I logged in today to do that, I saw this thread and Padenton's AE request against Roscelese. I am 100% convinced that EllieTea violated the terms of the men's rights article probation and probably also the terms of the "any gender-related dispute or controversy" provision of the GamerGate ArbCom decision. Just as a heads up, I'll probably request arbitration enforcement concerning EllieTea's editing unless their behavior is examined here or in the AE request against Roscelese. --SonicY (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK, Thank you kindly for explaining. I will treat things further here.  EllieTea (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by User:Anupamsr

Actually by User:Cubancigar11 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I am a very old editor who started editing English Wikipedia way back in 2003. Nowadays I am mostly dormant and I use a different account to lurk.

I am here to say that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have a not only a history of engaging in edit wars by taking each-others help in avoiding WP:3RR, they have a personal agenda that they are using Wikipedia to espouse. Roscelese constantly removes well researched edits by other editors without any reason except personal attacks, and has continued to enjoy a certain support by this community apparently because 'she has been here for 9 years'. If so, that support must end now along with its abuse. Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 work in tandem in scaring new users and chasing them away to maintain control over unsourced opinions.

Recently, when I initiated a discussion about why a change was reverted, I got this[106] response from Roscelese's 6-th sense. On asking what her actual problem is and how it is my personal opinion to copy-edit an unsourced statement, she reverted again with another personal attack[107]. Btw, you can read the source and see for yourself that it has got nothing to do with what was being so forcefully re-instated).

Upon further questioning about the what is the problem and how the proposed change is 'disruptive', a yet another unrelated personal attack came [108]. And suddenly out of nowhere, Sonicyouth86 started participating in instigating a revert war[109] fully ignoring the talk page. I ignored the prima facie WP:CABAL behavior and added more citations and further tried to improve the article, another user reverted it by calling the exact quote FROM the journal itself as WP:WEASEL.[110]

What I want to show here is how new users are being threatened and bullied away by Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 from editing an article because it doesn't suit a long term user's pov. Nothing matters - addition of sourced material, willingness to copy-edit, tolerating personal abuse as well as trying level best to adhere to Wikipedia rules - because these 2 users don't even try to engage in the discussion. It is my way, or a ban from my friendly administrator.

As I said, I am mostly a lurker, and I will continue to improve Wikipedia where such psychopathic behavior is minimal. But Wikipedia needs to grow a strict action must be taken to stop this kind of bullying where they are called single purpose account, this is not your personal webpage and whatever mumbo-jumbo they can come up with. This behavior will not stop if these kind of users think they can get away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubancigar11 (talk • contribs)

You tried changing "Feminists call for equality before the law regardless of gender" to "Feminists claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender" and then "Feminism claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender, with the explicit mandate which foreground the implications of the law for women and women's lives." with these charming edit summaries:

• "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions.)"
• " Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions.)"

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You just open the source and find me where in it does it say 'feminists call for equality', as I have mentioned many times before and even above. By still claiming there is some kind of vandalism, you are only showing your laziness and lack of interest in actual topic that is being edited. If you actually read the source, it vehemently talks about feminist's class for inequality and end of masculinity. But I didn't want to create a discussion about feminism so I modified the totally incorrect statement into a more neutral one, so in case anyone has a particular interest in introducing that thought, such as yourself, he or she can find a source and add it. Instead you came and blindly reverted to a wrong version, without making an iota of effort in correcting or even discussing it. And by the way, when someone repeatedly says that 'wikipedia is not your personal blog' it is an apt reply to say 'it is not your friend's blog either'.--talk 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Here is Roscelese's latest antics: [111] Revert removing genuine citations in favor of what a junior judge said when she was young, while claiming that I am a sockpuppet :D, while ignoring the talk page altogether[112]. Can we let a deranged person have such autonomy?--talk 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Yet another proof, a check for sockpuppetry :D [113]--talk 20:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC) NeilN threatens to block me for showing the abusive behavior: [114] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs)

1. Please use one account per topic.
2. Calling another editor "deranged" is not acceptable.
3. I did not call your edits vandalism. I said they were close to gibberish and synthesis. I stand by that.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anupamsr blocked 1 week for personal attacks here and abusing multiple accounts, only acknowledging them after the fact. Sockpuppet account Cubancigar11 (talk · contribs) indef blocked as an illegitimate sockpuppet account. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps

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

---

This discussion REALLY needs closure, there are lots of articles that have broken citation templates untill this issue is settled. The discussion is that the smallcaps parameter was removed from citation templates based on the argument that the policy doesnt supposedly allow small caps in citations - the counter argument is that WP:CITEVAR allows all citation styles, requiring an explicit exception for citation templates. The discussion has been stagnant for months and I have listed it at requested closures with no luck. Surely there must be an admin with sufficient courage to close the discussion, so we and the templates can get on with our lives? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears this RFC is already listed on WP:ANRFC. This page deals more with behaviour issues and may not be a good place to ask for a close. AlbinoFerret 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(unclose) Yes, I listed it there more than a month ago, and no one has responded. That is why, per WP:IAR I am posting here to get some admin attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, the last conversation I saw about this at AN revealed the reluctance of many admins to close RfCs on MOS issues because of the divisive atmosphere in that part of the project. Basically, it's a lose-lose proposition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but it nonetheless has to be done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[115][116] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.

I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.

I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:唐戈

• 唐戈 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 唐戈 has been indiscriminately reverting edits by Sammy1339 and now me, including removing AfD notices, blanking AfD discussions, and re-adding excessive OR and unencyclopaedic material that had been correctly removed. Not straightforward vandalism but clearly disruptive. I don't know if it's a sock or just someone on a crusade against another editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He has violated 3RR on Fibonacci hyperbolic functions...I stopped counting after 5 reverts today. The only reason that I haven't blocked him is that he hasn't been warned regarding edit-warring or 3RR. It would be better to have the dialog here so that the editor can be clued into what they are doing wrong. If they persist without responding to concerns then a block is likely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's pattern of behaviour as reported, the Chinese username, the fact that he/she has only made one significant attempt to post a fair amount of prose text in the talk or Wikipedia namespaces (here), and the user's extensive contribution history over more than ten years on Chinese Wikipedia, all indicate to me that this user may be a good-faith newbie with a limited command of English. I'm not entirely sure what the normal course of action in cases like this is, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a alt/sock of Gisling:

• Gisling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two reasons. First the edits initially seem to be restoring edits and content added by Gisling. But more conclusively looking at global contribs and finding that zh-wiki is the most likely home wiki then zh:User:Gisling is just a redirect to zh:User:唐戈. See also commons:User:Gisling. Alt rather than deliberate sock though as it looks like the account Gisling was created before SUL, while 唐戈 only started editing after SUL implementation. I.e. the change of name/account use was prompted by account unification.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the sock observation. I observed this at WT:WPM based on the duck test. In and of itself, this is not exactly disruptive, but the editor's other behavior and aggressive edit-warring to include rather questionable content is disruptive. I'm not sure it is actionable at the moment, but the editor in question has left a mess of awful animation galleries that someone is going to have to clean up (see thread at WT:WPM for a partial listing). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was prepared to accept that 唐戈 and Gisling were not deliberate socks of each other based on one then the other editing after a gap, as if there was some interruption, perhaps related to the implementation of SUL which caused some editors to change names on some servers. But now the accounts are editing on the same day, seemingly defending the same articles, with if not the same then similarly unconstructive approaches to defending their edits (the reverting noted above, supporting the articles and questioning other editors' qualifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics). Even without the above links clearly relating them this now clearly passes the duck test for misusing multiple accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Gisling blocked for 72 hours and indeffed his sock account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I disagree with this. He never edited any discussion page under more than one name, and there's no indication he was attempting to conceal his identity. As pointed out above, he has been editing Chinese Wikipedia under the Chinese name for ten years. I think the failure to disclose the alt was an honest mistake. Moreover, he never received a sockpuppetry warning. As for his disruptive behavior, it's good reason for a topic ban on advanced math articles, but he has also made many good contributions to articles on other subjects, especially Chinese math history. I recommend unblocking both accounts. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this history. Who created that article? ...and who used an illegitimate sock on the same article today?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and three accounts that were created just after my blocks were User:Zhangyingmath, User:杨风 and User:摘星阁. I'm not sure if they are connected but they may need to be monitored.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only a 72h block; they can return to editing in three days, or less if they can persuade an admin that the block is no longer needed – though neither account was very active before the problem edits on 9 May, so an enforced break will not especially interrupt their editing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. On a closely related note I would like to solicit opinions, while people are here, on how to handle the numerous articles by Gisling of the type that are being edit-warred over. On his talk page several editors have raised concerns about these articles. In some cases, such as at Eckhaus equation, an editor went over the article, corrected it, and produced something respectable. In other cases, such as at Fujita-Storm equation, the concerns were not addressed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation asking to delete an article (and probably some related articles) on the flimsy grounds of WP:TNT in cases where I can't determine if even the subject of the article is accurately described (as it was not at Eckhaus equation, or Fifth order KdV equation - even the definitions of these equations were erroneous.) On the other hand I very much do not want to see Gisling blocked, as he has made many high-quality contributions to articles about the history of Chinese mathematics and science. If there is a sockpuppet violation, I think it is probably unintentional. I would, however, like him to stop editing advanced math articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue. Probably the best venue would be the mathematics project, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Thank you. I started a discussion there instead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system

User:Phill24th has been engaged in page ownership issues in regards to the 2015 Kumanovo shootings. He has attacked editors who have made good faith edits on the page by giving them warnings in an attempt to scare them away, most notably here User talk:120.62.25.25 in regards to [[117]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

XavierGreen When you open a section on this page, you must notify the other editor that you have done so on their talk page. You will also need to provide diffs of the problems you are discussing. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I did place a notification on his talk page here [118]. And i did post the diffs above. The warning user:Phill24th gave to the editor was here [119], the good faith edit he gave the warning for was here [120].XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The talk pages of User:RJR3333's sockpuppets

RJR3333 (talk · contribs) keeps using the talk pages of his WP:Sockpuppets to plead his case about why he should be accepted back into the Wikipedia community. As seen at the PaulBustion88 (talk · contribs) talk page, RJR3333 has been explicitly told that he is unlikely to be accepted back into the Wikipedia community, but he continues to post about why Wikipedia should give him another chance. Not only does he repeatedly mention me at his talk pages, indirectly or directly, mischaracterizing me or what I stated, he acts like I have no right to comment at these talk pages, and that it is WP:Harassment when I do, even when I am defending myself against his mischaracterizions. He also recently had an outburst, and called me a kike (I'm not Jewish or religious, but that is beside the point). After that, he repeatedly reverted me at the PaulBustion88 talk page, calling me a kike in capitalization. Intermittently, he sent me harassing emails (not the first time). Bsadowski1 took away his talk page access, which is what I wanted, and Malik Shabazz removed his capitalized "kike" insults. RJR3333 then moved on to the FDR (talk · contribs) talk page, mentioning me once again and acting like I have no right to comment there; see here. Why should RJR3333 be allowed to continue to post at these talk pages in the way that does, whether it's to ramble on about what a good editor he can be, comment on me or other editors, or make and withdraw an unblock request? Why shouldn't I be allowed to comment at these talk pages? Flyer22 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, as seen here and here, I am the main person catching his WP:Sockpuppets, but I don't see that as a reason to stay away from posting to his talk pages, especially when commenting on his disruption and/or defending myself. It's not like I never give him breathing room to talk to other Wikipedians. I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community. And as for this latest vow from him to not edit Wikipedia for six months so that he can get the WP:Standard offer, he always makes that vow; again, see the PaulBustion88 talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for anyone who's interested, he seems to be taking his fight to simple Wiktionary too (see https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=adult&action=history). I know there's no jurisdiction here over that, but it's something people might like to watch, and if anyone knows how to alert admins over there it might be useful. Mr Potto (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(At my talk page there he says he doesn't want to fight, so I've suggested he stops mentioning other editors - https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr_Potto. Mr Potto (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) )

Update: He is still rambling on his talk page, including going on about me in inaccurate ways, but Tiptoety gave him some advice about the WP:Standard offer. Do I think that he should be given the WP:Standard offer? Of course not. Like I stated, he has repeatedly blown that offer, and he continues to edit disruptively, including by getting indefinitely blocked at other wikis. I don't see him ever being a productive Wikipedian or other productive wiki editor. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if I or someone else catches one more of his WP:Sockpuppets, I am going to propose a WP:Ban on him; I might do that before then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Case solved: RJR3333 gets to mention me as much as he wants/be as disruptive as he wants at his talk page without any interference from me. Yes, I will be proposing that WP:Ban eventually, and I have no doubt that it will be successful. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I struck through part of my "03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post because of this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I just looked through the history of this case and the talk pages of some of the sock accounts, Flyer22. He is remarkably consistent in his block appeals, the ones from 2011 and 2012 read like ones he made this year, saying that he learned his lesson, if you look at his recent edits, they are good and that he will never sock or vandalize again. And they the cycle just repeats itself. He still believes he is eligible for the Standard Offer even though he has violated every promise he has ever made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, that's why I was upset when Tiptoety suggested that I was antagonizing RJR3333. Yes, I understand that RJR3333 can be annoyed/upset by me commenting on his talk page, but think of how annoyed/upset I am by having to repeatedly deal with his disruption, inaccurate descriptions of me and/or my actions, and derogatory comments/emails. And, like I noted above, "I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community." Yes, someone could state that I am bringing this on myself by interfering with RJR3333 (you know, victim blaming), but RJR3333 continues to edit topics where I will recognize him. It's not like I am actively seeking him out. Furthermore, someone should always interfere with his disruption. Should I just sit back and let him have at it when I spot him messing up articles? This person has been indefinitely blocked at other wikis; he went to those wikis trying to prove that he can edit productively here. And yet we want to give him another shot at the WP:Standard offer? Not me. And for more detail on what I have been through with this editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me. As seen in that first archived discussion, I was not as good then at identifying WP:Sockpuppets as I am now; I was good at it then, but I am significantly better at it now.

On a side note: It sounds like you wouldn't want to give RJR3333 another chance. If so, I'm surprised, since you seem to always want to give disruptive editors another chance. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do believe in second chances. For everyone. But at this point, it's sixty chances. His promises to never vandalize or sock again in 2012 are word-for-word the same as in 2015.

Also, the endless attempts at loooong explanations about how pedophilia isn't really pedophilia is a telltale sign that someone is working overtime to justify a point of view they believe others view as unacceptable. Over the past few months, I spent some time reading old talk pages of editors on this wiki and other projects who were offering these same explanations and, you know what? These editors all eventually ended up being blocked, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he does distinguish between pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse in ways similar to how I and others who are well-versed in those topics do (such as at Talk:Pedophilia; current state of that talk page here), but he is not well-versed in those topics, and he often goes about editing them (or speaking of them) wrongly. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm refuses to discuss anything

Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be entirely unwilling to discuss any changes to any articles, or to even glance at their Talk pages, preferring instead to repeatedly revert against clear consensus. This is evident, for instance, in both the Talk page and the edit history of Ace Combat, where he has repeatedly completely disregarded both. Multiple good-faith requests for collaboration on his own Talk page have been answered by removing the comments with edit summaries like, “my talk page my rules, get lost.” He’s already been blocked more than once for edit warring, which seems completely ineffective at altering his conduct, so I humbly request a conditional block. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a full protection at WP:RPP because of the edit warring. As for the user's actions, a little unnecessary if you ask me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I really think the pattern of behavior should be addressed rather than a single instance… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree there needs to be an assessment of a pattern of behaviour. I'm just wondering if it is not the anon IP here that should be investigated however. Looking over the recent edit history for this IP, they seem to be doing nothing but attempting to be the wiki policy police and seem to have flawed understanding of the policies they are suggesting should be enforced. If I wasn't the kind of person that exclusively follows WP:AGF as if it was some sort of suicide WP:PACT, then I might be led to believe this IP is a WP:SOCK that attempting to prove some WP:POINT by editing as an IP to WP:EVADE a block or something. I'm sure that the IP would love a little more WP:ROPE and I'm sure we should probably give it to them. I've responded on the talk page for the article that needed request from Callmemirela for protection, that redlinking to a page that doesn't exist whose topic fails GNG so it can never be an article per REDNOT. I've also declined the request for an article by the IP on the WP:WPVG/R page for the same reason, after an intense search the topic fails to meet the GNG (and honestly fails to show any indication of importance at all).

I'm also disappointed that this IP editor that is so keen on requesting others be blocked was not blocked themselves for being disruptive for the following chain of events: made a BOLD edit to the page, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, re-reverted by Drmies (who simply reverted on the grounds that Eaglestorm wasn't discussing, not because they are incorrect that REDNOT says these kinds of redlinks are not appropriate), reverted, then some more stuff happens until the IP admits in Special:Diff/659620279 that the thing they wanted to be a redlink in the first place has no sources and as such fails GNG and redlinks are not allowed per REDNOT. At this point, I believe this IP should have been blocked for their disruptive behavior for initiating an editwar with another user without researching why it was inappropriate for that redlink to exist. I also think that between being forced into an edit war and being harassed by an IP who insisted on continuing to post on their talk page despite being asked not to multiple times (per WP:DENY through calling it a "desperate anon post"), Eaglestorm appeared to be extremely frustrated and of the mindset that this IP is a WP:VANDAL who's WP:NOTHERE and I can't say that I blame him, nor can I blame them for not wanting to come and discuss it because they are likely struggling to stay WP:CALM, and I've honestly been wondering the same thing about this IP. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Barely veiled assumptions of bad faith aside, I made every attempt to calmly and reasonably discuss the matter in good faith, both on the article Talk page and the user’s own, and my edits were in line with the clear consensus among the editors who did discuss. If this user had offered an explanation, whether on the Talk page or in an edit summary, you would have a point. But he didn’t. And unless I have a flawed misunderstanding of blocking policy (namely that blocks should be preventative and not punitive), a block against me is unwarranted at this time. If there’s a problem with my own conduct on Ace Combat, no one has bothered to inform me until now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't know, desperation play, my talk page my rules. get lost, and my talk page my rules get lost. desperate anon make it pretty clear to me that this editor did not want you posting on their talk page (yet you continued to do so). I'd say that goes against WP:HARASS (I'd almost go so far as to say that it appears to me that you were WP:HOUNDING this registered editor) and is indicative of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior which is damaging to the encyclopedia in which case a block to prevent you from continuing that behavior might be warranted if an admin felt so inclined. Anyways, it appears to me that the administrators aren't particularly interested in this complaint, and I've not interest in continuing this discussion any further at this point either. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, that's an interesting set of diffs that clearly allow for two very different interpretations. I wouldn't go as far as to see possible harassment in here, though, and some of the stuff that was removed included notifications and stuff. If Eaglestorm would clearly and unequivocally say "editor X, do not post here anymore" it'd be a different matter. Thanks Technical, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've already indicated that to them, hopefully I can break the barrier and get some kind of discussion (I'm tempted to go to email if needed). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More to the point: As best I can tell, this user never discusses anything. That’s the issue that brought me here—not that he won’t talk to me, but to anyone. This encyclopedia is a collaborative project, but it’s arguably impossible to effectively collaborate with someone who never communicates, especially when going against consensus. I never wanted him blocked out of malice or spite; it’s a stretch to say I want him blocked at all, but I only want him blocked until he shows a willingness to communicate with other editors (especially when making reversions). If I’m wrong in any of this, then, again, please let me know. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, they don't communicate on talk pages (perhaps they're not English speaking or have some other reason they avoid discussion). I realize discussion is important, but who are you to demand that this user communicate and who are you to initiate an edit war with an editor who has been around over a decade and has 12,536 local edits to back up their experience. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Technical 13: I haven’t gone through his edit history enough to know how many of those edits were reverted as being against consensus or otherwise improper, but if I ever have the time and inclination to do so, I’ll be able to better answer your question. But for the time being: I’m a more communicative user who has been frustrated by silent reverts seemingly made per WP:ABF, and I’m clearly not the only one. Now, if you wouldn’t mind explaining, why are you being so defensive of him and aggressive toward me? If that answer doesn’t require administrative attention, please post it to my Talk page rather than here. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, editors who refuse to discuss tirritate the hell out of me, and Eaglestorm is one of those. There's nice, healthy talk page discussion in which they are not participating. I don't see how the IP is so disruptive: their edit summaries are much better than Eaglestorm's and they're participating in talk page discussion (as is Technical). It's hard for me to judge the content of the edits since it's all just fan stuff on a completely trivial topic that a real encyclopedia ought to be embarrassed about, but hey. (I mean, what on earth is this about, what is its content, what are its sources--we're citing this as a reference?) Anyway, as far as I'm concerned Eaglestorm looks the worst of them, and we have blocked editors for being incommunicado; it might well be that this one is next. They could, of course, start talking here in this thread, and sound like an adult. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand Drmies, and I don't disagree that Eaglestorm should respond to someone, someplace. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see what the IP might've done to deserve Technical 13's unabated and bitter criticism. Some of the comments he's made are especially worrying: where he appears to look down on the IP for no other reason than their being an IP, and where he - seemingly - questions the importance of communication. With respect, Technical 13, you're not making the situation here any better. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "unabated and bitter criticism"? Interesting take on it, I simply don't see it that way. I don't begrudge constructive editors for not wanting to create an account (and actually I've campaigned for their rights to edit as IPs in the past and continue to do so). However, when an IP editor who has no verifiable background takes it upon themselves to be disruptive to discussions and pages by edit warring without justification and insists that the changes they made must be applied quoting a policy that they apparently hadn't read. If they had actually read the policy, they'd know they need to check that what they want to redlink actually could be an article. Then that IP refuses to WP:DROP the stick when an editor tells them that such redlinks aren't allowed and ignores repeatedly being asked to stop posting on said editor's talk page about such silliness as a redlink to a topic that would be quickly deleted if it was created as an article about a topic that isn't encyclopedic in the first place... Then that IP editor has the nerve to drag a well established editor to ANI because they wouldn't state the obvious (for whatever reason, such as maybe it being obvious), then I suspect that some investigation as to why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses, insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can. I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question, although I suspect that I'll have to spend a day digging through archives and whatnot and try to duck duck goose this IP for anything to be done about it if they don't hang themselves in the meantime. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If they have been doing something wrong, calmly explain what it is. You don't need to go off on a prolix, character-smearing investigation of their hypothetical motives and motivations. Your style of argument is simply counterproductive and does nothing to ease tensions or to resolve any of the issues. Alakzi (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe I gave justification. And the other editor pretty much refused to. As for the rest, I’m not going to defend myself here for unrelated events unless you wish to start a thread about me, but feel free to request a WP:CheckUser if you wish. I’ve explained my other actions elsewhere already. Now please stop assuming bad faith of me; I got quite enough of that from Eaglestorm, and that was mostly unspoken. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Replied to the rest on Tech’s Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The very beginning of my post here says that I exclusively WP:AGF, and now you're accusing me of ABF. Yet, I am going to choose to not get upset about that WP:PA, and instead am going to encourage you to read WP:AOBF. I've also responded to your second post to my talk page, but I (edit conflict)ed with it and don't have the energy to respond to the "additions" you made since it is almost 1AM. Good night. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Accusing me of being here to cause disruption, for one. AOBF: “The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part” should explain my ABF accusation. But hopefully we’re both done with that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm simply commenting my observations. I view your actions as disruptive. This simply falls under WP:Call a spade a spade. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have reviewed the recent contributions of Eaglestorm and find that there are valid grounds for this complaint. For the number of reverts he/she performs, they hardly ever takes part in talk page discussions. (The last contribution to the article talk namespace was 2 December 2014.) This behaviour is not compatible with collaborative editing. I have watchlisted the user talk page and will likely block for a fortnight if this recurs, on consideration of the number of previous blocks for similar behaviour. I find Technical 13's steadfast defence of this behaviour strange and unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not defended and am not defending Eaglestorm's lack of participation in discussion. I've personally attempted to reach out and get this editor to participate in discussions. To me it was just a matter of pointing out that this user was right that the redlink trying to be forced into the article was inappropriate. I appreciate your criticism of my behaviour, as evidently the reason I first commented here was missed. My point was that this IP needs to be watched as well because I've found their insistance on pushing changes against consensus and against policy and refusing to drop the stick after being told "no, that's not how it works here" and given an explicit reason as to why with links to whatever may be appropriate they still push forward with their insistence. I equate this IP to my child in the backseat asking "but whhhyyyyyy can't I have it" after I've told them they can't have an ice cream sundae at 9pm just before bed and explained how it will keep them awake and cause them discomfort when they wake up in the middle of the night after finally getting to sleep because they are a little lactose intolerant and it doesn't get processed quickly enough when they are asleep. Anyways, I've stated my case (and responded to too many "but whyy" from the IP here in this discussion as it is). Need to get back to school work. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You've had the timeline explained to you: nobody at the time considered the possibility that an article on the topic would not be notable; Eaglestorm was not "right". The IP got a little impatient, but we all do sometimes. Your characterisation of the IP as a child is unwarranted. If you continue down this path, the thread concerning your behaviour should be unarchived. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • So, you are claiming that because no-one else had thought to check if the topic was even notable, that Eaglestorm was wrong and the redlink should have been allowed against long-standing policy and consensus because an IP and a couple of editors said it seemed reasonable without doing any checking? Really? Then, you are going to back up your claim that despite being backed with WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG, it didn't matter that Eaglestorm was right that such redlinks are not permitted. Finally, you're going to suggest that a new thread about my behaviour for defending WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG should occur (because unarchiving the last thread to talk about this entirely different topic wouldn't be appropriate)? Do what you will, if you want to start a new thread on me for that, go for it, I won't be particularly offended. Anyways, this thread has gotten completely off-topic and should probably be left to fade away and die... If you think a new thread is appropriate, by all means feel free to create it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Eaglestorm did not cite WP:REDNOT or WP:GNG. The first time, he said "makes sense NOT to link to nonexistent article", which does not address the possibility of it being notable, or not; the second time, he accused the IP of a COI. You're conflating their being right with the outcome being right; the two are quite distinct. I'm not sure if you appreciate the offence you've caused - why would you jauntily invite me to start a new thread on your behaviour? It would be better for everybody if you were to simply apologise for comparing the IP with a baby, or for insinuating that they might be evading a block, or for any of the rest, really. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Alakzi: Thank you for that. @Technical 13: I don’t know whether you’re trying to bait me in a public setting (you’ve been much more civil toward me on your own Talk page), or you’re just failing to filter yourself, but please just stop it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue with large-scale changing of terminology...

Dan Koehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently Dan began a widespread replacement of the term "Viking" with the "Norsemen" across many articles. This follows various debates over the last year or so (if memory serves) about when, where and how it is most appropriate to use these terms in articles, which carry subtly different meanings among scholars and non-scholars, and which translate differently (I believe) between English and Scandinavian languages.

There have been various interventions about these changes, including: Talk:Vikings#Former_viking; Talk:Battle of the Conwy#Norsemen; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture#Campaign to replace "viking" by "Norsemen". Among the points raised by @Mutt Lunker:, @Johnbod:, @CambridgeBayWeather: and @PatHadley: and myself on Dan's talk page have been the perceived lack of consensus for these changes, and the apparent technical errors made in the process (e.g. renaming the titles of cited works, changing the content of direct quotes etc.). During the course of today, Johnbod, @Dudley Miles: and @Ealdgyth: have raised the issue on my talk page, User talk:Hchc2009#Vikings, variously proposing and expressing support that an administrator be asked to intervene.

I am convinced that Dan is acting in good faith but there is a lack of community consensus for his changes, which appear to be causing some irritation to many editors. Administrator assistance in calming and bringing this episode to a productive conclusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy for ways to deal with a content dispute. Moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments would be two possibilities. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Super-unhelpful! It's well gone beyond that. He has had the usage of "Viking" in English carefully explained to him by several editors over weeks if not months but takes nothing in, perhaps partly because of his iffy English, but mainly because he won't accept that the meaning of terms in English will often differ from their meaning in other languages. Of course he is acting in "good faith" but these edits to several hundred articles, many producing grossly incorrect English, impose a huge burden on other editors who need to revert them. An immediate block is required. A few examples I've reverted, from hundreds that I haven't: "The town has Norsemen roots in common with..." at Crosby, Merseyside; "Ormen Stutte (Short Serpent) was a Norsemen longship...", at Ormen Stutte (longship); "Later it saw the influence of the Norsemens as seen in the name of Carlingford Lough." at County Louth. All these basic errors are repeated many, many times. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I agree. This is something that an admin needs to address. GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains that change of "Viking" to "Norsemen" on Brooklyn Historical Society. I guarantee that when George B. Post desihned the building in the late 19th century, it was a statue of a Viking he called for, not a Norseman, which is why I reverted the edit. This sounds like another political correctness argument, which, or course, is essentially a POV argument, which eventually leads to the euphemism treadmill: "Viking" is all of a sudden considered to be insulting, so it is replaced by "Norseman", until that becomes insulting and is replaced by something else: "Scandians", maybe.

I'd say definitely needs a consensus arrived at in a centralized discussion. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clearify, I have changed from viking (activity pirate related) to Norse, in such instances when its clear that the text related to Nnorse people of Scandinavian ancestry. While the term viking is a controversial term, (will not go into details with that) Norse, and Norsemen is certainly not. Therefore I see no harm or dramatic in this, a visitor to Wwikipedia will through the link come to the article about Nnorse people with background to Sscandinavian as an ethnic Nnorse speaking group, rather than to a page with emphasis in pirate activities. My hope is to reduce confusion with this. There is a reason why the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture is not called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viking history and culture, and since the Nnorse culture were not sleeping or sent away throughout the viking age (800-1066) its perfectly normal to relate to the Nnorse as ethnic group before, during and after the viking age. In cases of raiding s, plunder etc, I have not changed the word viking, only when it replaced the correct for the people, Nnorse. Please don't forget, that even if Eenglish speaking books relates to Scandinavianscnadinavin as pirates and vikings during this period, there was a vital and fruitful Sscandinavian culture, before during an dafter the viking age, and its called Nnorse, and the people Norsemennorsement, they spoke Nnorse. There was no people called viking and no language called vikingish.... Comments regarding large scale; well, some users obviously made large scale links to viking, instead of Norse, when they related to ethnic group, and culture, it was here the error was made, not by me. I hope this clearances. Theres nothing controversial with the term Norsemen, like with viking, not until toady, anyhow. The term Viking is popular among laymen and people moved by the 1800 century romantic stories, but Norse is the term historians and archaeologists use for the ethnic groups in Scandinavia during iron age. clearifies. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(restoring link above) Dan, I'd be grateful if you didn't delete the links that I posted above. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In the instance I cited above, the source said "Viking", so that's what the article should say. You should not presume to think you know the intent of the source, whether it meant "pirate", "raider", "perfectly nice people from the Northlands" or whatever. Here in the U.S, there is generally no negative connotation to "Viking". All of this is why your mass change is in need of a consensus. BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And "clarify", the word is "clarify", not "clearify". BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no use trying to explain English language usages to him, he knows better, which is the whole problem. Regardless of terminology issues, most of his edits are straight ungrammatical - he cannot grasp that, unlike "Viking", "Norsemen" is only a plural noun in English. There is already a very clear and wide consensus against these mass changes, far larger than the average RFC picks up. He needs to be told very firmly to stop making them, or ideally blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan's bizarrely mistyped and unfocused post above is perhaps an extreme example of his talk postings, to the extent that it may possibly be due to a temporary factor, but it demonstrates that at the very least he does not have sufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to be editing on the English Wikipedia, and particularly not regarding the usage of a term which in English has significant differences to its usage in his language. Is such demonstrable incompetence not clear cut grounds to put a temporary block on him as he is resolutely intransigent in acceptance of efforts to explain his misunderstandings regarding both definition of the term and grammar? He's causing mayhem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's already a consensus about this, then is is allowable for some one with one of the automated program to just undo his edits? I could do it, but my finger would get chafed from all the button pushing. (I don't use automated tools except HotCat). BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, unless something has changed, I thought AWB was only supposed to be used for non-controversial edits? These seem controversial to me, which would suggest that perhaps his right to use AWB should be revoked. BMK (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked that question at WP:AWB. BMK (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say, that I find it not polite to try to make this discussion a personal issue, rather than focus on the subject.
• When YOU accuse me of making large-scale changing of terminology, I wish to remind you, that someone did this before, but the other way around, linked everything Norse to the article viking, which is such an amateur porridge of non-science that it will never be a real article, until someone gets the bright idea and start to write about vikings on the article vikings, and let the article Norsemen be an article about the Norse people in general
• The term Norsemen is over 1 000 years old, and I find it amusing that you ask for a consensus for its existence.
• Norsemen were so much more than the trapped comic strip archetype you have made them to in the article viking.
• I ask you please stop this crusade and accept that when speaking about language, culture, ethnicity, the word viking is hopelessly wrong to use, while the old word Norse is natural and correct.
• I believe we all want a better Wikipedia. My suggestion is that we put some faith to the members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. Just repeat prestigious claims of "traditions" isn't enough to develop this, you need to to think outside your box.
• Like the Norse did.
• I guess and hope that no one wants to remove our history, culture and ethnical ancestry, and remove the pages Norsemen and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture? And if you don't want to remove those pages, I hope you don't want to remove links to the pages either.
• And I hope you will not remove all the written sources on Wikipedia, that makes it clear for a 7 year old child, that Norse and Viking was not the same thing:

1. The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into:ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticamwas directly translated to vicingus.

- You complain about my english, I hope you can read your own (old-english) language above, and what it says? (I can...)

-No, Macedonia is not in Scandinavia... And in the Icelandic sagas even arabs are described with the word Viking, when they are attacking the Norse ships...

2. King Harald the Hairfair heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavian Norsemen were, fighting vikings.

3. Egil Skallagrimsson about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)

Only with those three examples (and theres hundreds) you will have extremely difficult to explain what a viking is, and what difference there is between vikings and normal people from Scandinavia, if you stubbornly use the same word for two different meanings.

For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated.

This is probably the reason why the article viking is still on start level after 13 years on Wikipedia. Because in order to get the stories there OK; a lot of facts and sources must be excluded. With this concept you will never reach a good article, it will remain pubertal comic strip "information", and people have to translate the German article about vikings to get some scientific substance.

But Im not telling you what to do, Im just saying that there is no need for a consensus that I am from Sweden, and have blue eyes, there is no need for a consensus that the sky is blue, and there is no need for a consensus, that the correct term in English for my people, their culture, and medieval language is Norse. You can't change this by voting.

So why, did you revert my links to the the page Norsemen, when I only did the links in text where it was clear that there was reference to people and a culture, and not to raiding pirates?

And please remember, its not me who use my language to call you things which is not true, so could you please give a little respect to my ancestors, and stop calling them pirates? You have stopped calling other people with different skin colors for names you used for hundreds of years, it must be possible to quit this game of "all Scandinavians ARE vikings" game?

Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful Norse farmers, and their wife's, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900!

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Dan Koehl should be blocked for disruptive editing unless he will agree to stop making these changes. And his access to WP:AWB should be immediately withdrawn. See his contributions for all the usage of AWB to change Vikings to Norsemen. AWB must not be used to make controversial edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I stopped over 24 hours ago. 2. Can you please explain to me, what is controversial by making a link to Norsemen from a chapter that tells about Norsemen? If Im from Sweden, would you also forbid me to make a link to Swedish, and block me, if I don't make a link from my person to Viking? Whay shall everything Norse be linked to Viking, and not to Norse?

Or, put it the other way around, what can, according to your opinion, be linked to Norsemen?

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see why this is controversial I wonder if we should take seriously any promises from you to behave better. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When multiple other editors object to your mass edits, they are, by definition "controversial", especially when you do not have a consensus to back them up. Therefore, I second EdJohnston's suggestions. Dan Koehl should be blocked until he agrees not to change "Vikings" or "Viking" to "Norsemen" (in whatever form), and his AWB rights should be removed immediately, unless and until he can show that he will not use the program to make non-consensus edits. BMK (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of a block, or a topic ban, or not, the AWB rights do need to be revoked immediately – only editors that demonstrate competence with special tools should be allowed to maintain them, and that has definitely not been the case in this instance. --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarize: you claim that Norsemen and Vikings are the same? But when I make a link to Norsemen from an article where its easy, from the text to define that the text is about Norsemen, this is controversial? Is it only controversial if I link to Norsemen, but not to viking, is this the logic? And, making links from text about Norsemen, to the article Norsemen is such a crime, that you speak about blocking me, remove rights to AWB etc, this almost sounds like what happened some hundreds years ago with the guy who claimed that earth is not flat...

Where is the will of cooperation, where is the will of making both articles better, where is the will of making this all understandable for the website visitor, where is the will to improve Wikipedia? I only see politics here?

I must ask again, why don't you delete everything written with the word Nors, or Norsemen, if its not OK to make links to the article?

I think I need to remind you what is written in Norsemen:

Norsemen refers to the group of people who spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between the 8th and 11th centuries. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, and is the earlier form of modern Scandinavian languages.

Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in England, Scotland, Iceland, Wales, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Ireland, Russia, Greenland, France, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, and Poland, as well as outposts in Sicily and North America.

All the links I did to the article where from text where it was relevant to link to Norsemen, why do you speak like if I have made a crime? If I would have made links from 100% of the text I could understand, but like I said, I didn't make links from text where it was about raiding and piracy, I made links where the norse people where discussed. If Norsemen are not banned on Wikipedia, what is wrong with making a link to them?

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OR, if anyone here claims that Viking and Norse are synonymous, can you please point me to a consensus about hat? And if they are the same, what is wrong with links between them? Why must 100% of the links be to viking?? But if they are not synonymous, can anyone here explain you position, what is according to you the difference between Norsemen and vikings, making it a crime to link text about Norsemen to Norsemen, and good if text about Norsemen is linked to article viking? Where are the discussions, the decisions, the consensus for all this?

You are speaking to me as if I have made a crime, and I want to tell you, I'm a user on Wikipedia since 2002, Im admin on 2 Wikimedia projects, I fight vandalism almost every day (see my log) and I'm not a criminal, and I can't see that anyone can logically even explain what I have done wrong, except for coming up with opinions, that a certain text should be linked to article viking, and not to Norsemen, but without a valid reason or explanation? All I want is to improve Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have "made a crime" - in your twisted English idiom - and that is that you have made major changes to the encyclopedia without having the approval of the community to do so. This is not the place to get approval for doing so; here, admins can only sanction you; for not getting approval, because this board only deals with aberrant behavior. Approval has to come (and I believe this is the fourth time I'm saying this) from a centralized discussion of the entire Wikipedia community and not just from the approval of a mere Wiki{Project. I believe that the senze of this discussion is that you must stop making those edits until that consensus is determined. If you do not stop, it appears to me that there are a number of Admins who are willing to make you stop by blocking you. If that is what you want, to be blocked from editing, keep on doing what you're doing -- knowing that there are a number of editors who will revert your edits as being non-consenual, and you will end up being blocked. If, instead, you wish to deal with this in the Wikipedian way, you need to begin the centralized discussion I mentioned above, and produce straightforward and understandable' evidence to support your position. Really, the choice is yours. BMK (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I stated yesterday above, I havnt made any edits since two days now. You most probably know that, but try politically to make it look like Im breaking rules etc. Sad. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try again. I'm not sure how it's still possible that there are still misunderstandings in this thread but, since Dan Koehl is using lots of bulleted lists: here's my attempt to reframe the terms of the issue:

1. The issue is not whether Norsemen is either:
   1. A useful or accurate historical term
   2. Referred to a real people (ethnically or linguistically) from Scandinavia in the 8th-13th centuries
   3. More politically neutral than Viking
   4. What such people might have used as a term to refer to themselves
   5. A more frequently used term before the C20th

All these issues are real, interesting and deserve well-referenced coverage on the (already pretty good) etymology section of the Vikings article and possibly elsewhere. Dan, you have continued to make points (many of which have been conceded by others) on these issues but have failed to address the points of others:

1. The issue is when Norsemen is a more appropriate and idiomatic term than Vikings on English Wikipedia. This depends on:
   1. The terms used in the scholarly literature - Viking is used extensively and CANNOT be changed when being referred to or quoted
   2. Whether Norsemen makes grammatical sense on articles. In many of Dan's replacements it does not
   3. The terms that are most frequently used by the wider public (in the 21st century!). Vikings is far more popular and relevant. Compare: Google search for Vikings with Google search for Norsemen. Also see the explanation Who were the Vikings? on the web page of the UK's most popular Viking museum.

There may be a few articles where, despite the above points, Norsemen is more appropriate. These should be sought out and changed individually, not with AWB.

Dan, are there any of these points you're prepared to address? If not, might I suggest that a discussion is begun on Swedish Wikipedia's village pump (there's no embassy). Perhaps another fluent, bilingual editor could help explain that the use of Vikings on English Wikipedia is neither inaccurate or an linguistic slur. There must be terms in Swedish that have similarly changed meaning in the last few hundred years. Let's hope we can get through this! PatHadley (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an intellectual problem here. You are discussing the term Viking, Im discussing the term Norsemen. I made links to Norsemen. There is no available consensus, that I can find, that making links to Norsemen, should be a poor choice. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And now I'm supporting a block on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --IJBall (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan Koehl, we are not here at ANI to have a content discussion about Vikings. Since almost everyone agrees that your edits pose a problem, we want to know if you are willing to stop these changes. If you continue with the vague statements (all of which assume the correctness of your own position) a block would appear to be the simplest solution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This has gone to far now. I did a normal Wikipedia action, making links about Norsemen to the article Norsemen. Since there were so many, I used AWB. Now theres allegations against me that I have abused AWB, and should be blocked, with the motivation that, linking to the article Norsemen is some sort of crime, however not specified why. Although I stopped making the links the same day, (several days ago) there's repeated "threats" written above, that if I don't stop (which I already did) I will be blocked from Wikipedia etc. I can see no other reason for this, apart from that for a reader it should look as if Im daily, repeatedly, vandalizing Wikipedia, which is for sure not the case, contrary, Im active daily as patroller. The use of "everyone" (against my links) made me suspicious, and after reading through this thread, as all as making a second analyze of the entire issue, as well noticing how personal the critics against my person are, instead of focusing on the subject, and the efforts to try make it look like I have vandalized Wikipedia, (when all I dd was making links to article Norsemen I now see:

• The article Viking is for some reason preferred by a group of users
• There is less than 100 links to article Norsemen.
• There is less than 100 links to article Norse, and most of them from talk pages.
• But there is thousands of links to article Viking.

Someone, or group of people, have a POV campaign going on, changing all links Norsemen, into links to Viking. Its like they want to kill and remove the article Norsemen?and they are now upset, when I interrupted this. Im not particularly focusing on the controversial term Viking, but on the absence of use of the terms Norse and Norsemen, and the reasons behind this. Those two articles are the natural names pace to tell about Scandinavian culture and history, but for some reason the article is more or less getting censored by a limited, but strong group of people, against logical arguments.

This issue is much more serious than I though, and for sure needs attention from admins and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. This is against how Wikipedia should work, and against the NPOV rule.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And, again, we get WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, now with a side of not assuming good faith. There is nothing to suggest this editor even realizes their editing is a problem, let along acknowledging it as such. Again, support loss of AWB privileges at a minimum, and support a block if they start up on their previous course of action of changing "Viking" to "Norsemen" against Consensus. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the editor's continued focus here on content, despite being told that the matter being discussed here is behaviour, shows that they either refuse to take heed or have an inability to comprehend the issue. Either way they are not suitable to hold AWB privileges. The editor did finally stop their editing campaign but only after repeated notifications that the edits were both ungrammatical and controversial, points they have still not conceded apparently. A topic ban is also required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but note that having started his campaign at "A", he only stopped when he had reached "Y", ie probably when he had run out of articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, no extenuating circumstances then. I wondered what had prompted the abrupt stop as it clearly wasn't acceptance of the points being made. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In my view if he understood the issues with grammar and context and promised to do any changes slowly and manually, with discussion on an article by article basis, that might be the best outcome in terms of improving the encyclopedia. But I definitely agree he needs to be prevented from making any kind of automated edits in this area. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How much more can possibly done to help him understand? He's impervious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo's edit warring, WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN-behavior

Peter Isotalo has completely appropriated the article Sweden in a clear WP:OWN violation. For years, the stable version of the article said Sweden was consolidated in the Middle ages. In February this year Peter Isotalo unilaterally imposed the year 1523 instead [121], and has kept reverting back to his own version ever since [122], [123], [124], [125]. Even though Peter Isotalo is alone in pushing his version and several other users (at least four) have expressed their opposition, Peter Isotalo insists Wikipedia does not operate by consensus [126] which may be true insofar that a consensus cannot overturn sources, but Peter Isotalo has never offered a single source in all his edit warring. Furthering displaying how obvious a case of WP:OWN this is, Peter Isotalo insists that what goes into the infobox "needs to be stringently monitored" [127]. As Peter Isotalo changed the established version and has since kept reverting to his own version, apparently he has appointed himself as the guardian who should do the stringent monitoring. Last but not least, in a rather obvious case of WP:HOUND, Peter Isotalo responded to my edits at Sweden by heading to List of languages by number of native speakers, an article he had never edited once before but where I'm active and had edited earlier today, to oppose my work there [128], [129].WP:HOUND does not come any clearer than this, and it is a typical example of the battlefield mentality of this user. All of this, the edit warring, the strong WP:OWN and the obvious WP:HOUNDING shows that Peter Isotalo is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI was brought here a full 2.5 hours after the dispute over Sweden arose. Not the most constructive use of this forum, I'd say.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely untrue, and you know it. The dispute at Sweden goes back to February, as the diffs above show. I haven't been involved in the dispute before, but you certainly have. And as I already explained on your talk, it is the combination of your WP:OWN with your aggressive WP:HOUNDING that led me to bring this to ANI, as it's one of the clearest cases of battleground mentality I've seen in years.Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have consistently removed claims at Sweden in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and no sources have been forthcoming. You've simply referred to other users to reinstate those unreferenced claims.

And I have been involved in articles relating to both languages and Sweden for years, so it's not particularly odd that I commented on problems raised by others at talk:list of languages by number of native speakers. I noticed this by checking your recent contributions. Last I checked, this didn't qualify as WP:HOUNDING.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that it's pure coincidence that in all your years at Wikipedia, you never once went to List of languages by number of native speakers but after I challenged your edit on Sweden, you headed straight to the latest article I had edited to oppose me? Yes, that's most definitely WP:HOUNDING and your denying of it is profoundly dishonest. My apologies, it was late and I misread the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did Peter suggest that? Here he seems to suggest it isn't a coincidence, rather that he's been active in the general subject area for a few years, and noticed one particular issue by checking out your contributions (I presume due to concerns over your editing brought up by the dispute). Checking out a persons contribution in response to concerns you see over their editing or just because you're interested after encountering that person and are wondering more about them, is perfectly normal and accepted. Commenting solely on the issue at hand, when you happen to see something in those contributions that you feel you can help in, or where you have concerns over the direction of discussion is also perfectly normal and accepted. The question of when it becomes hounding is a very complicated one, but I think it's rare that a single instance will cross in to the hounding threshold. More importantly, as I said at the beginning, your response is fairly confusing as it doesn't seem to relate to what Peter actually said here. If there is somewhere else where Peter suggested it was "pure coincidence", can you link to that? If you were solely responding to Peter's comment here I'll be blunt I'm tempted to check out your contributions myself as it sounds like you have a problem understanding peoples comments, and to make spurious accusations due to that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, and I was. Not that it's an excuse, but it was late and I read Peter's comment to quickly. He says he noticed it by checking out my contribution, so my comment about him claiming it was a coincidence was inaccurate and I have struck it. My apologies for that mistake. As for the policy, perhaps I've misunderstood WP:HOUNDING. The way I understood it is that we should avoid following users with whom we have a conflict to articles they are editing to spread the conflict. Of course I could go to several articles Peter has edited to start opposing him there and he could go to even more articles I've edited to oppose me, but I really don't think that that would be helpful for the community. As for the rest of my original post, the strong WP:OWN remains. Since I posted those diffs, I added sources to several claims Peter had tagged [130], and his response was the usual as it has been to anyone editing the infobox on Sweden since Febrary, reverting me [131] to remove all the sources to insert his {cn} even though every source was WP:RS and in each showed that the dates are correct. Once again, every user except Peter Isotalo is in favor of the consensus version and this reverting of anyone disagreeing has been going on for three months against any user who does not agree with Peter's (unsourced) decision that Sweden did not exist prior to 1523.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should add that the edit warring against consensus and strong WP:OWN is not limited to Sweden. At Melee, Peter Isotalo is doing exactly the same thing, endless edit warring to impose templates despite being alone in his view [132], [133], [134], [135], [136]. All of that edit warring is just in the last week, showing that the problematic behavior at Sweden is part of a general pattern.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I was informed of this conversation by Jeppiz presumably because Jeppiz wishes me to explain the context of the disagreement over Melee. Melee is an article I recently visited for the first time in years because articles I am composing on the Waterloo campaign use the term, and I wanted to see if the content supports the link. So now for some recent editing history of the article involving User:Peter Isotalo:

• There was a proposed move Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 to move "Melee" → "Melee (warfare)" and "Melee" (disambiguation)" → "Melee". The decision was "No consensus that other uses challenge this one". User:Peter Isotalo was in favour of the move stating I see no indication whatsoever that the modern meaning of "melee" has a specific military meaning. This article is devoid of sources and a merger to close quarters battle has been suggested. In my view, it smacks of original research. ...". there was an exchange in which it was pointed out anonymously that "The term has certainly been used in military scholarship" eg "The Battle of Hastings: Math, Myth and Melee". to which User:Peter Isotalo replied "It's also an attestation that 'math' and 'myth' have been used. That doesn't make them relevant encyclopedic topics."
• User:Peter Isotalo put the article Melee up for deletion on 6 April 2015 which starts with "As pointed out in the recently closed move request, this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic." This was closed with 'The result was no consensus. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes.' User:Peter Isotalo wrote in that AfD "Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK".
• Having made similar arguments in two different forum (the RM and the AfD) and not gained a consensus User:Peter Isotalo has set about the article with a vengeance. User:Peter Isotalo has been removing any information that is not source because AFAICT User:Peter Isotalo still has the opinion that Melee is not a valid military term so nothing in the article can be verified against it (I admire the logic, but disagree as I think it is a perfectly valid military term). This means that for example a paragraph on cavalry tactics has been removed with the comment "removed unsourced statement" not "removed as unverifiable". That in itself is not an indication of sort of problems that Jeppiz refers, but I think that the removal of of this sentence on a well sourced paragraph (with a link to the source), and the simultaneous addition of two templates, is an indication the having gained no consensus for views expressed in to other forum User:Peter Isotalo intends to try to overturn those view by reducing melee to just a dictionary definition, (presumably to then request another delete) Ignoring the consensus expressed in those two recent forum against such a change. This I think is behaviour, coupled to the insistences on adding and readding different templates to the to of the melee article without a consensus to do so, has moved from reasonable (as it was in the two forums) into tendentious editing. As I have not been involved in editing any other article that User:Peter Isotalo edits in recent years, I will leave it to others if this to decide if this indicates an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PBS, I had noticed as well that Peter Isotalo first was very active in reducing the article and then started adding templates, but knowing nothing of Melee, I preferred another user to expand on it, and I'm glad you did. For the record, this behavior is also emerging at Sweden now. After a number of users have expressed their opposition to the version Peter Isotalo has kept reverting to for months, he has started adding a large number of template [137], [138], even removing sources to keep the tags [139]. Just like at Melee, to echo PBS's words, this look more like vengeance, and the same goes for following me to List of languages by number of native speakers to start adding templates there as well, at an article he had never once edited until I "crossed" him. Taken together with what PBS says about Peter's behavior at Melee, this seems very much to be a battleground behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As User:Thomas.W concludes, Peter Isotalo's tactic seems to be quite simply exhaust people by refusing to WP:HEAR until they tire and he "wins" [140]. And in absence of any action, Peter just continues to revert everybody, against the clear consensus [141]. Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information

The Nassim Nicholas Taleb article historically has included many, many citations to Prof Taleb's personal webpage.

I came on to the article recently, doing a bold edit, finding sources for several, removing some as redundant, and when necessary, placing for other cases, because I believed, based on reading:

• WP:BLPSPS
• WP:SELFPUBLISH
• WP:VERIFY
• WP:NPOV

that it was not the aim of wikipedia, as an encyclopedic venue, to reproduce personal biographical claims from an individual's self-published webpage, in an article about themselves.

Specifically, in Talk, coincident with the edits, I described them in this way:

Extended content

The work I did, therefore, was to move the article away from (1) the appearance of being a repository of the authors ideas based only on self-published sources, and from being (2) a mess of citations that while largely sound, appear[ing] in many cases in URL-only form (see remaining uncorrected cases, nos. 9-11, 39, 43, 65-66, etc.), and other cases very redundantly appearing (e.g., see what is now the Stephanie Baker-Said 2008 citation, no. 12). To start, I removed a citation to the title subject's Facebook page as an inline citation (as it is not an acceptable WP citation, and it already appeared in in the external links). Then, in some cases the text gave only a self-published citation, but it could be traced to an actual published article, online or otherwise. In these cases Taleb's website was left as a second online source of the information, the actual publisher's site being the first. These cases are clear if searching "fooledbyrandomness" and finding two URLs appearing in the citation. In other cases, the citation of Taleb's personal web page appeared as one of several attached to a bit of text. In this case the citation was simply deleted as redundant (with the 1, 2, 3 other proper citations still appearing). In still other cases, the citations were to quotations from Black Swan, and in this case, I added the citation to the book, and indicated the need for a page number, with the tag. Finally, in the remaining cases, there was no way to trace the web page material to an independent source, and in these cases the personal webpage citation was deleted, and the sentence was marked wither with or . I encourage other concerned editors to look at the diff for before/after my work today, and to add citations from standard WP-approved types of independent published sources to remove these tags. Please do not simply re-introduce the nonindependent references, and please, under no circumstances remove the inline citation tags, because they mark areas I and others can return to, to work. Note, in no case was offending, unsourced text removed; this will come later, if it remains unsourced for a long period. Otherwise, I did other cleanup work, including: (1) removing many redundant citations (to his books, to Hélyette Geman), (2) created the Influences section so that information appearing only in the infobox, with and without sources, could appear elaborated in the text itself, and (3) moved all infobox and some lede citations to the appropriate points where the same material appeared in the main text (so to cleanup the box and lede).

I move this discussion here because various editors have been weighing in, with opinion divided as to how to interpret the policies. Moreover, in some cases reversions being done not only reintroduce the Taleb personal web page citations, but also undo significant copyediting and citation completions/cleanups.

I ask administrators to address us, @LoveMonkey:, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechezkelZilber:, @LoveMonkey:, to make clear under what circumstances we should allow the appearance of the title subject's self-published materials.

Note, I have no issue with any specific edit of any of these editors.The question at hand, is if Taleb's personal webpage, [142], should be used as a recurring source at his WP article. Thank you for your attention to the matter.

Finally, (1) please forgive the "shouting" in the Edit history. I was trying get rapidly arriving editors to differentiate between contentious issues (as is being raised here), and other corrections that should not have been contentious (including the removal of redundant citations and the completing of incomplete citations).

And, (2) please move this to a more appropriate Noticeboard, if I have, in my naiveté, posted this in a sub-optimal discussion.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor my job is to improve a page, by adding info. A source by an author on his own ideas is a source but it may be insufficient. It is not to be treated as irrelevant (when it comes to exposition of material) but to be added upon. So a reponsible policy is to find additional citations, and possible replacements, which requires some effort. Removing contents such as statements about one's own religion is not responsible editing. The problem is that edits by LeProf7272 appear to be erratic, to say the least, not counting his rants and shouting in all-caps. For instance, removing something that has a dead link (rather than adding "dead link" for someone else to add a citation would be more responsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Le Prof went into a road rage on my page mistaking me for another editor.

An apology was issued when I understood I that you had done some, but not most of the knee-jerk reversions of sound copyediting. If you have issues with that matter, please feel free to take it up with me directly. The ANI issue i about how the policies apply to use of an individual's personal web page, including his self-published CV, being used as a source to support BLP biographical information at his article. This is what the ANI needs to address for us. You believe it fine, @SPECIFICO: and I do not. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Further, looking at Taleb's pages, much of the stuff is itself referenced by him and linked and his FB account is verified so his citations about his ideas are not invalid, though other sources would be more authoritative on other material. And bio material like resume is OK to take from CV as public figures are under severe scrutiny and the smallest lie is detected and used against them. Common sense. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Can we use self-published CV and related material, absent supporting material, in a BLP article context? I proposed removal of all unsupported references to the [143] (personal Taleb) web page. LT and others reverted these replacements of fooledbyrandomness.com with . How should we proceed? Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally Le Prof Leprof 7272 seems to be edit warring and went beyond the 3RR (4 RR if I am not mistaken). Limit-theorem (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I protest this misrepresentation. The article has multiple matters going on. I have asked that these be separated, and all seem to use their reversion ability freely, and so throw baby out with bath water. The ANI is being addressed about the self-published citation issue. This matter is being confounded with other edits that have nothing to do with the ANI matter. My earlier edits moved incomplete citations in the lede to the main body, and completed those citations. Reverting these, as Limit-theorem has done, puts a deadlink source back into the lede—in this interim, while we wait for the ANI to speak—and I object to leaving the article in bad shape, and to confounding the ANI issue with unrelated issues. I will do no more edits, but I wish Limit-Theorem would appropriately parse the issues, separating the ANI issue from the correction of bad citations that had appeared throughout. His insisting on the reversion of the lede and PhD section edits as an ANI issue, is both incorrect (it involves no "fooledbyrandomness.com" citations), and puts incomplete, redundant citations into the lede (the ones in body are complete and all that is needed). Please, compare the citations between lede and main body carefully, LT!

And once again, all of this is immaterial to the ANI matter, of self-published source use, and I will not touch any of this again. No good deed goes unpunished here, it seems. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, to obfuscate matters, Limit-theorem has again reverted the non-ANI edits, and is making further edits to remove the deadlink, and so make it appear as if I have no case. When a discussion is taking place, and the opponent's arguments are undercut by modifying the article to make his issues disappear, there is no hope for unmuddled discussion, or fair outcomes. This is utterly base, and I wash my hands of the matter. Limit-Theorem can have his article, and reference it with whatever self-pblished material he wishes. I remove myself from this matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear all. Please note that authors/academics are allowed to post on their website gated material, articles and papers (I am an academic and am allowed to so do). So references to scientific articles that are gated can come via an author's website, though one needs to be careful to avoid self-reference beyond what is necessary and obviously useable. Removing all deadlinked (actually gated) references would be irresponsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The "gated material" comment is simply not germane to the bulk of the issues at this article. (I am aware of only one edit to which this description might pertain.) The bulk of the issue has to do with unpublished biographical material at Taleb's personal web pages (CV and unpublished essay material) that is making its way into his WP article. Other cases involve draft or other versions of Taleb writings whose connections to actual published material is not as simple as "gating".

And as a fellow academic, I stand by my contention that the stated WP policies bulleted above are violated by citing self-published material in ones WP article. That such is done at other places in WP, or by academics does not make it consistent with the policies cited. Otherwise, because of LT's tactics of obfuscating matters by continuing to edit the article, in particular to remove issues I have called attention to, I can no longer interact with him (can no longer AGF), and I recuse myself. I support the suggestion of @SPECIFICO:, stated at the end of the discussion here, [144], to move this discussion to BLPN, but lack the experience to make this move. Cheers, thanks all for attention, bonne chance with resolute, issue-marginalizing Prof LT. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are several different issues being conflated here. Peer reviewed journal articles can be used as appropriate, and are not self published. The citation should be to the journal.

If the author republishes it on their website, a link to this copy can normally be included as courtesy link. The exceptions would be if the copy isn't the same as that which is published. Or it's feared that the are copyright concerns as. Generally an author is allow to have such a copy so we normally accept such copies particularly when on a university website. However if there is sufficient doubt, it's possible it may need to be removed as secondary infrigement per WP:copyvio.

The inclusion or rejection or the presence or absence of such a courtesy link in no way affects the validity of the citation which is ultimately to the originally published article, not the courtesy link. If people are rejecting such courtesy links, examples should be given. If however Leprof is correct and these courtesy links are not an issue under discussion, then it's an unnecessary distraction to bring them up.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources

BeastBoy3395 has a habit of misrepresenting sources. The most egregious example is this edit to Political positions of Ronald Reagan; the source cited for the first sentence actually says, "Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights." The New York Times article BeastBoy3395 adds does contain the Reagan quote, but it also says: "A grass-roots lobbying and legislative campaign had forced Mr. Reagan and Attorney General William French Smith to abandon their plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation." - thus it cannot serve to show that Reagan had started supporting the legislation. That's not a one-off; here he claimed "multiple sources show love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it" when the source he presents says no such thing; when I pointed that out, he cited the Guardian to support the same claim when the Guardian does not say so but in fact pretty much says the opposite. That's not acceptable. At best he's wasting the time of other editors who have to debunk his spurious claims, at worst he's directly attacking the veracity of Wikipedia. This may serve as an indication of his motivation. I'm obviously too deeply involved to take administrative action myself, but I do not think someone who routinely misrepresents sources has a place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose administrative action: I don't believe that I am, in fact, misrepresenting sources. Reagan did indeed support the extension of the VRA in 1982 after a massive lobbying campaign, and it was a federal law to provide blacks with civil rights; thus, Reagan supported a federal initiative to provide blacks with civil rights, which means that I was right when I put "Reagan initially did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, but changed his mind later on". Therefore, Huon is wrong on this. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout Huon It's very clear that you decided to search through Beastboy's contribs in search of something (in an article you've never edited) to shaft him over, due to your previous disagreement with him in the rape jihad and love jihad articles. You've demonstrated this by immediately going to ANI, instead of trying to discuss it with him on his talk page or the articles talk page. If this ANI thread were truly about Beastboy's edits "attacking the veracity of Wikipdia" you would have at least bothered to revert his edits to the Ronald Reagan article, which as it currently stands still has all the misrepresentation of sources you claim Beastboy added. (To clarify this isnt necessarily an endorsement of Beastboy's actions I just find what Huon has done very dodgy) Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher, do you seriously expect me to "discuss it with him on his talk page" if he misrepresents another sources on the same article talk page a second time after I pointed it out the first time? How often should I, in your opinion, "discuss with him" that the sources he presents routinely are not reliable and/or do not say what he claims they say? Indeed I checked his contributions after I fould them inappropriate in one article; after he misrepresented sources in a second place I was anything but impressed, when he did so in a third place I came here. You're right, however, I forgot to clean up the Reagan article; will do so now. Huon (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've undone your reverts to my edit; it wasn't helpful. Also, Reagan clearly did later on in his career support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, which was shown by his signing the 1982 federal extension of the Voting Rights Act. I also removed this sentence "His opposition was based on the view that certain provisions of both acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners.[35]", as the source doesn't support it. The source says absolutely nothing about Reagan thinking the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like BeastBoy3395 has done about a dozen reverts Rape jihad in the last 24 hours, someone might want to explain 3RR to him. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• With thanks to Gouncbeatduke's remark, the Beastboy is now blocked for edit warring on Rape jihad; they are clearly editing against consensus, and I'm putting that nicely. Now, if they return to their previous behavior, we can discuss an indefinite block. Huon, is that alright? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• He was also edit-warring at the Love jihad page yesterday, and I didn't realize he was even more busy at another page. Another editor was considerate enough to open a talk page discussion but he exhibited a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And before he was blocked, he reinstituted the claim that Reagan changed his mind on civil rights legislation based on one source that says Reagan "never supported" it and on another that says he was "forced [...] to abandon [his] plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation". WP:SYN had been pointed out to him, so ignorance is not an excuse. Huon (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Huon, because Beastboy was given a block for edit warring, not misrepresenting sources, I expect you want this case to continue its discussion of his edits? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I expect the more serious behavioural issues, ie routinely misrepresenting what sources say in favor of BeastBoy3395 thinks we should report, will re-surface as soon as the block runs out. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable, and I see no indication that BeastBoy3395 even acknowledges there is a problem. So yes, I still think more permanent measures are required, but we can return here the next time BeastBoy3395 claims a source says something it doesn't. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Second Opinion

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

---

I noticed that Dribbble, an article that has been recreated a number of different times, had been reincarnated again and proceeded to delete it on grounds that there had been an afd for it that was closed as a copyvio deletion. My deletion grounds were recreation of a page substantially mirroring a previous version that was deleted per afd discussion, but since that afd closed early I would like a second opinion on whether I was to quick on the trigger here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reckon so. All versions appear to be the work of accounts with no history other than creating and re-creating articles on non-notable companies. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right outcome if not necessarily 100% the right process. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute here... That doesn't seem to be an appropriate deletion reason. The deletion log reads:
  • 04:02, May 11, 2015 TomStar81 (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
  • 15:01, April 2, 2015 Peridon (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  • 14:09, February 8, 2015 Diannaa (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/11/the-ultimate-guide-to-everything-dribbble/)
  • 16:59, March 7, 2012 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Dribbble (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Where was the AfD for the deletion that it supposedly mirrors? I only see CSD deletions there. I'm not saying that the article should stay, but I would like to have the content emailed to me so I can review it, please. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a copy vio of this page, and closed the concurrent AFD discussion as moot. Therefore the article was never deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. The version that was deleted by user:TomStar81 did not have the copyvio issue, but may qualify for speedy deletion under another criterion such as A7 or G12. I have put a copy of the most recent deleted version in a sandbox (User:Diannaa/sandbox) so we can figure out what to do next. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Diannaa. I see some sources there so this certainly doesn't fall under A7. I agree it could probably use some more sources and some copyedit, but I don't think it's very promotional, especially since the most reliable source used was the last one in the list that seemed to be in support of the controversy section. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to move it to Draft: and see if it is improved in the next 6 months. No improvement/submission then it can be G13ed. I do intend to see if I can personally clean it up and improve it when I get a little time. Since I'm not a reviewer (don't want to be, please don't add me to meaningless checkpage) I'll submit it when I'm done. Feel free to WP:BLUELOCK the title in the mean time if needed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now restored the article and moved it to draft space Draft:Dribbble -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

In Order to Prevent Edit Warring...

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding to prevent edit warring, a Wikipedia admin should look into the issue and identify what are the best sources on the matter. The discussion is about the topic Saudi Professional League. Thank you. MedStudentIMAMU (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Could a moderator or an admin in Wikipedia look into this situation? The issue at hand is that there is a disagreement about Saudi Arabia's League founding. Both the Saudi Pro League Association (SPL), a branch of the SAFF, and the RSSSF, hold that the league was founded in 1975-76, but the other user (user:حزل) consistently edits to remove and omit these sources in favour of an editorial piece on a feature in FIFA's website. FIFA itself holds a note that states "The honours listed above are considered to be the club’s major titles and, as such, are not intended to be a full list of achievements.". In other words, claims stated are not necessarily all-encompassing, and just highlight feats, and are prune to inaccuracies. Warmest Regards MedStudentIMAMU (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:DRN Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Hcobb & BLP's

User:Hcobb continues to make inflammatory edits to BLP's that either mischaracterize the source(s) provided or are completely unsupported by the sources. Given the editor's experience and the long-term duration of the edits, in my opinion the edits could possibly be characterized as WP:vandalism. I attempted to warn him off a year ago. However, the following edits have been made since then:

1. Political Positions of Jeb Bush Mischaracterization of source. (According to the source, Bush didn't say the Iraq invasion was necessary and didn't characterize post-invasion security as a "blunder".)
2. Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaign Statement unsupported by source.
3. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
4. Marco Rubio Statement unsupported by source.
5. Ronald Reagan Mischaracterization of source.
6. Scott Walker Mischaracterization of source.
7. Rick Scott Mischaracterization of source.
8. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
9. Lindsey Graham Mischaracterization of source.
10. Political Positions of Rand Paul Mischaracterization of source.
11. Bobby Jindal Statement unsupported by source.
12. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
13. John Boehner Statement unsupported by source.
14. Political Positions of Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
15. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
16. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
17. Political Positions of Mitt Romney Statement unsupported by source.
18. Jeff Sessions Statement unsupported by source.
19. Chris Christie Original research.

CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that "blunder" is exactly the word that reliable sources state that Jeb used. What exactly was the problem? Hcobb (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Bush—Which impartial sources? The one cited attributes the characterization to George W. and NOT as a quote, so someone needs a solid source if they want to use the word, put it in quotes and attribute it to Jeb.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Huckabee—Your Huckabee statement is grossly wrong. While I'm having trouble tracking down his exact claim, and it may well have been a dumb statement, the source you cited doesn't remotely support your claim. I've only looked at two so far, so I'm not yet ready to recommend what action should be taken. I see someone else has removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Cruz—Given the discussion of sodomy, it should be handled very carefully. I haven't done enough research to see whether your claim is supportable or not, but it may be.
• Rubio—I have no idea whether Rubio supports privatization of the VHA, but the cited source does not make that claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, this is not the right place to debate content. I checked a few, to see if the allegations had merit. They do, but there are better places to debate content.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hcobb, can you please cut/paste the relevant text from the corresponding sources to support the following claims <emphases mine> in your edits:

2. "In his announcement he promised to put the 37.3 million retired Americans to work."

4. "Rubio has endorsed a proposal to privatize the Veterans Health Administration."

11. "In 2015 Jindal traveled to the UK to speak out against the 'no-go zones' he imagined to be there."

12. "In November 2014 Paul moved to recognize the government of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."

13. "The third law firm selected finally filed the suit in November 2014, after Boehner criticized Obama's unilateral moves on immigration policy, taken after Boehner had scheduled no votes on the Senate bill for over 500 days."

14. "Paul claims that the government is lying to the American people and that he alone knows how "incredibly contagious" Ebola is.

16. "Paul then welcomed what he called unconstitutional airstrikes against ISIL.

17. "In September 2014, Romney faulted "Washington politicians" for cutting defense instead of raising taxes."

18. "Sessions said that more federal revenue may be needed for defense."CFredkin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are these good faith efforts to improve the project?CFredkin (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we discussing content disputes at AN/I? Are these not better handled in talk page discussions? For example the Jeb Bush source says The mistakes, [Jeb Ed.] Bush argued, were in the decisions made in the aftermath: “Once we invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn’t focus on security first.” He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of thos.”, so one can assume from that the Jeb Bush agrees with George W that it was a blunder. Granted, there is a bit of WP:SYNTH there, but that can be hashed out in talk, and Hcobb may need to exercise some caution. Shall we move on then? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: makes a good point, this is not the place for an indepth discussion of content. Some of the edits have already been reversed, the remaining should be handled on a cases-by-case basis following discussion on the respective talk pages, while this is a place to discuss whatever sancations, if any, should accrue to the editor. So far, none have been proposed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's the exact text from Hcobb's edit for #1 above, which Cwobeel is referencing: "Bush agrees with his brother George W. Bush that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary, and that the lack of focus on post-invasion security was a "blunder"."CFredkin (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC) In any case, this isn't the most egregious edit by any means. I just listed the edits in reverse chronological (not priority) order.CFredkin (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this been posted to the BLP noticeboard? Each detail you mention is either a SYNTH violation or an outright BLP violation.--MONGO 07:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to go to the BLP noticeboard? I would think that would be a venue for broad discussion of issues that cannot be settled on the talk pages of the respective articles. Step 1 is reversion of errors. Step 2 is discussion on the talk page if the editor continues to insist on the error after reversion and step 3 is a noticeboard if the discussion at the talk page doesn't attract enough input. Separately, the editors actions can be addressed here if they persist after being corrected. Sounds like we are ahead of ourselves.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the editor has a history of misrepresenting sources, and was warned about it in the past, then the discussion on behavior belongs here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And here it is exactly in the source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/10/jeb-bush-says-he-would-have-invaded-iraq/ “I would have [authorized the invasion], ... He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.”

So how exactly did I invent "blunder"? Hcobb (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to debate a content question. Please post to the talk page of the article, and I'll respond there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hcobb's mode of operation is to periodically add inaccurate content to Republican BLP's. When the edits are challenged, he rarely defends them. This allows him to fly under the radar in the hopes that at least some of his edits will remain undiscovered and stick. It seems to be effective since it's been going on for several years. Since we've established here that this behavior is ok, I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. I'll refer back to this discussion if I'm challenged on it. (User:Cwobeel since you stalk my edits, I'll be sure to create a new alias for this purpose.) We can call this mode of editing "catch me, if you can", and it will be a race to the bottom. Cheers.CFredkin (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. ... That would be very unwise and pointy. And BTW, I don't "stalk" your edits. I have your user page on my watchlist and we tend to edit same type of articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel said: "Do I check once in a while on your contrib list? Sure I do." at [145] And it continues...[146]CFredkin (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not "stalking", my friend. And I think that my intervention at Hcobb's talk page was useful. Maybe you need to re-consider your attitude, and be more collegial? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, you did not include my second message to Hcobb [147]]. Why? Uh? Uh? - Cwobeel (talk)

In any case, this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue may be the better way to handle it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the contention is Hcobb is editing political bios but only misrepresenting sources on bios of politicians belonging to a certain ideology then I don't think AGF will wash. I've asked an initial question on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI post is about a long-term pattern of behavior involving the posting of false and inaccurate content to BLP's. My understanding is that BLP's in particular have a higher level of risk of legal action as a result of slanderous and inaccurate content. He was warned at least once a year ago and continued his behavior. (In fact, judging from the posts immediately following the warning, his behavior got worse in terms of posting completely false content.) I believe persistent vandalism is generally dealt with through some sort of block. Instead, you and some other editors here are attempting to position the issue as a misunderstanding over content. I've noticed that you've focused on a single edit involving mischaracterization of the source in particular and completely ignored the multiple edits involving content that is completely false. Personally I have no idea how the post you refer to above to Hcobb's talk page, which appears to primarily reassure him that my ANI post was premature and that he must have been acting in good faith in any way is a reasonable response to his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No really. My post in Hcobb page was that you may have a point on your assessment of his edits, and that we all needs to be careful to stay close to the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue .CFredkin (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The attention that you have brought to this issue, has brought this to the attention of two very experienced editors, and I would be inclined to say that Hcobb will be in real trouble if he/she does not respond to their questions, or if the behavior re-occurs. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're suggesting that Hcobb is on some kind of double-secret probation. That sounds ominous indeed. Hcobb must be quaking, particularly since he hasn't even acknowledged wrongdoing much less offered to change his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Before signing off I'll note the following for the record: This thread documents that User:Hcobb has inserted potentially libelous content into the biographies of living Republican politicians on Wikipedia on multiple occasions over the last year. Since User:Hcobb has been editing since October 21, 2008, it is probable that additional libelous content has been inserted into the biographies of living Republican politicians that has not been identified and corrected. Collectively the admin community of Wikipedia is taking no preventative or punitive measure to address the situation.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried asking on the article talk page what exactly the error was without response. I will try again. Hcobb (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/108.25.74.111

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

---

108.25.74.111 is abusing their talk page privileges whilst blocked by making fake accepted unblock requests and impersonating Barek. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fraudulent misrepresentation.

• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek. Intentionally misleading, unproven entering data in the article Buk missile system, as the official investigation is not over, and the commission's findings have not been published, they introduced changes into the hands of one of the parties to the conflict. At the same time, deliberately removed the audited data for 2013.
• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek, violate the rule of neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Please take immediate action.--Mega775 ~(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinged the other two parties as you were supposed to... also, wowie zowie, already on ANI within your first 10 edits? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to slow down and discuss your edits on the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, not something for admin action. You are already at three reverts with your account and it appears an additional one with an IP address. -- GB fan 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also accusing others of fraudulent misrepresentation is getting very close to violating WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that vydavanie unconfirmed information as fact, it is a violation. This is Wikipedia, but not with CNN BBC.--Mega775 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you do not believe the sources provided with the information verifies the information, then you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page, not edit war. -- GB fan 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• My brief response - unfortunately, there's a history of edit warring to remove reliably sourced information regarding the use of the Buk missile system in the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 incident. Often these edits, e.g., [148], are from IPs (check geolocate information for further insight), other times from newly registered accounts, such as the complainant. In the past, I and others have taken the time to request temporary page protection from new accounts and IPs. I was too busy to do so this most recent burst of such edits. I recommend that now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, this page should be permanently semi-protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Sooner or later the truth will emerge on the surface, and you will realize that you are (JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek) a disinformation accomplices, I hope this time you will remember about me, unless of course you do not do it intentionally.--Mega775 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

New editor (Mega775 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) with under 5 edits immediately comes here to "report" two long-standing editors? Something seems "off" here... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Gerald Fredrick Töben, possible BLP issues

See[149]. "Corrected date: not 1998 but 1999 - I shall be submitting a detailed new version of this flawed and truncated biographical sketch - and seek legal advice if the paid trolls tamper with ityou tamper with it" The IP is apparently Toben himself. As I've been involved in editing the article I'll leave it for others to deal with this. Ah, just realised that isn't the only legal threat, see[150]. As he's not using a stable IP, perhaps protection should be applied. To be fair, it probably needs more eyes, it is a BLP after all. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's OK -- if he sues we'll just deny there's an English Wikipedia or that he's one of its six million articles. EEng (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the article to my watchlist - hopefully others will as well. Given the possibility of a dynamic IP, page protection may be necessary should the behavior persist. The date had a source pointing to the 1998 date, so I reverted. If they dispute the date another source will be necessary. I've also done some minor formatting cleanup and removed an unsourced claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and repeated insults from 70.51.38.110

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

---

Note: that user already contacted you here, when he asked you to block me for false reasons. His request was denied here (simply not motivated by true reasons, in fact he lied). This users just takes a personnal revenge on my talk page or elsewhere. When his request was closed here, I closed his discussion on my talk page and instructed him that it was terminated. As I promosed him, I deleted ALL the replies he added to the thread I had visibly closed on my talk page.

See the history of his actions my talk page here on EN.WP for example.

He doesn't stop after he's been told to stop repeately. (that user has always refused to create an account on this wiki, but he continues weeks after weeks to use the same IP). He is also sometimes sending such insults or harassments on several others of my talk pages on other Wikimedia wikis where I have an account (I also found occurences outside Wikimedia, however it is hard to track and often no way to act on these places), or on various talk pages that I would have visited (not just my own talk pages).

I don't reply him, just delete his posted junks.

What he does is simply harassment and just pollution (this takes also some time for me to cleanup and I need to keep my time for something better). Can someone take action against this IP (blocking it globally if possible, because EN.WP will not be enough) ?

May be he thinks that posting this junk via an IP protects him (I think he reall has a true account on wikis, but does not use it to post his junk). He also refuse to sign his posts (the IP signatures are autoadded by monitoring bots only). Blocking the IP should also have an impact on the related WM accounts he may own (I can't investigate it, only IP-checkers can do that, but blocking the IP would also block all connections to his account from that same IP).

Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked 70.51.38.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks for the repeated personal attacks. If you keep getting incivil comments from other IPs, please report them to WP:AIV which is most often faster than this board. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ser Amantio di Nicolao and AWB abuse

Ser Amantio di Nicolao with AWB privileges is adding questionable gender categorisations to thousands of biography pages. It first came to my attention at Omar Khalidi page : diff, which I reverted citing policy WP:CATGRS. He repeated the edits the next day. I explained the issue in detail on his talk page: diff. More discussion on my talk page User_talk:Kautilya3#Gender_categorization, after which he self-reverted. So far so good. But he has been continuing to do the same questionable categorisation on thousands of pages using AWB, as evident from his Contributions list [151]. More and more articles on my watch list are popping up with "male" added to their categories. This needs to be stopped.

I also think all these edits need to be undone, because they set bad examples for others to do the same thing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the issue as stated. I believe that Category:Male historians and other such categories are valid because of the past creation of such categories as Category:American male writers and some of its subcats, and Category:British male writers and some of its subcats. (I would note, incidentally, that a number of these categories have been brought up before CFD, a couple of years ago, and were all designated as to be kept.) They are proving to be as useful as the subcats of Category:women writers. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure Ser Amantio feels as if he is doing a service by adding these categories. But, it can't be right. The categorisation should be done using a defining characteristic principle as per WP:DEFINING. WP:CATGRS says that gender and other characteristics should not be used to subdivide the category unless there are reliable sources that do it. Nobody thinks of writers, scholars, historians etc. as male and female. They are just writers, scholars and historians. He cites the example of Category:Women writers as justification. But that is a category that has been created after extensive discussion in the CfD process. There are reliable sources as well as justifiable reasons for that category. However, women-writers are not the same as "female writers" and it doesn't warrant a parallel "male writers" category. It should also be noted that Women writers is a non-diffusing subcategory. Women writers don't stop being "writers" by virtue of being women writers. There is an undercurrent of unfortunate gender battle, and a fundamental lack of understanding of categorisation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio is one of the most productive AWB operators on here. Far from "abuse", he's been of enormous assistance over the years and has done a massive amount of work organizing categories. While you might have a point about splitting some of the occupations by gender, unless you can prove there's a significant consensus against what he's doing this remains largely a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. That he ignored what you said seems to have angered you and prompted a rude message to him and this here. And knowing Ser Amantio, if there was significant consensus against what he's been doing I know that he wouldn't be continuing. He's not that sort of editor. My only concern, and I've said this previously, is that if you're going to split a main category you really need to have a hatnote at the top explaining that it's been split by gender and main category links to them emboldened at the top. Especially if there's loads of sub categories finding "male" and "female" can be particular difficult and not convenient for a reader in browsing. But please don't post here as if he's some abusive vandal who needs to banned asap. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't personalise the issue. I am not "angered" by anybody. The AWB privilege comes with the responsibility to follow Wikipedia policies. Ser Amantio should not be doing mass changes without a proper understanding of the concerned policies. When we point out the relevant policies, it is doubly contingent upon him to do so. The very first principle of categorisation under CATGRS states: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. He has not said single word about how maleness is relevant to being historian or a writer. His only justification seems to be that people "like it." This is not the way to build Wikipedia. In the ARBIPA domain where I edit, there are a lot of things that people write that other people like and equally other people hate. Policies exist for a reason. He needs to follow them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, at one time there was a rule against splitting actors and actresses. Now there is official consensus to split as there was a lengthy RFC in some place and I believe it was decided to split them. Writers I supposed the split has to do with the WP:Women's writer group and rooting out how many articles on women we have and what needs work. as well as improving navigation for those interested. You do have a point about how far we should go with the gender splitting. If you do think he's violating consensus or some policy then request an RFC and decide on how far the gender split should go. But please assume good faith from him on this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus comes into picture only when there is genuine disagreement within policy. We don't need "consensus" to decide whether to follow policies or not. If he stated a policy-based rationale for his categorisations, I would have been glad to take it to a CfD. He hasn't done so. He hasn't produced a single reliable source that justifies any of his categorisations. So, this is a meaningless debate at this point. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with your interpretation of gender not being a defining characteristic, I understand your sense of urgency. It is quite easy to make sweeping changes with categories and have them go unnoticed because they are often edits of small size at a lot of different articles. And, unfortunately, the category page itself has no record of what subcategories, articles or pages have been added to or deleted from it. It's quite easy to do a lot of damage in just a few hours which can be difficult to undo or which goes unnoticed for months or years. But, in this case, I think Ser Amantio di Nicolao is making a valid interpretation. Gender categories come up frequently at CfD and they have a mixed success, sometimes they are kept, sometimes they are deleted or merged. But the folks at CfD are familiar with the categorization rules and, as Xezbeth says, you should probably take this discussion there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, for the record, that I came to the creation of these categories after long consideration...the fact that a number of the "male writers" categories had been up at CfD a couple of years ago, had been accepted, and have remained in use led me to feel that perhaps it was time to expand on that beginning somewhat. Women writers categories I am using mainly to find categories to mirror with male-only categories. E.g. - I created Category:Male essayists because there's a category Category:Women essayists. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If Category:Male essayists or whatever is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. If it isn't a problem, then adding the category to a suitable article cannot be considered abuse. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any abuse here. What I do see is an editorial dispute. If you don't want the category, send it to CfD, or open a discussion about it. Epic Genius (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Whether a category/subcategory should exist or not is a matter for CfD. That is not AWB abuse. Rather, AWB abuse is in adding thousands of articles to these categories without obtaining reliable sources. WP:CATGRS says: As to the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources. This was the very first point I made to him: diff. While he accepted my point for that page and self-reverted, he kept on doing it for thousands of other pages using AWB. Am I expected to chase after him and block him at each and every page that he adds by automation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose where I, personally, am having a problem is with the question of reliable source: what constitutes a reliable source on the question of gender? Use of the pronoun "he" in a discussion? Mention of the word "male"? I don't know how deep to take it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you in the above diff that somebody being a male and a historian doesn't make him a "male historian." If you looked at any of the old CfD's on gender-related categories, you would have seen such reliable sources being mentioned, but only for the categories that make sense. The WP:CATGRS itself gives the example of "female Heads of State" as a category that exists. There are plenty of reliable sources for it. Since you are creating categories that don't make sense, you are not able to find reliable sources. If there is indeed a category called "male historian" in the real world then you would find it being mentioned in a reliable source. But there isn't. It is just something you pulled out of your own hat. So, obviously you can't find sources. Your inability to find sources should tell you that you are trying to do the wrong thing! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But the point is if you take your argument to CfD and persuade other editors with your argument, the category will be deleted. You won't have to go to each individual article and remove it. It's clear from the discussion so far that no one but you is stepping forward to propose sanctioning Ser Amantio di Nicolao so your best bet (which I don't even agree with!) is to present your case at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:DanJazzy on Kenny G article

User:DanJazzy continues to remove smooth jazz from the list of genres on the Kenny G article, and keeps on adding a criticism section to the article, giving it undue weight. I tried to discuss the issue with him, but he refuses to comply, accusing me of disruptive editing. He is clearly gaming the system to try to get his way, when all reliable sources state that Kenny G is a smooth jazz musician. Looking at his edit history, this isn't the first time he has attempted to game the system to enforce his POV on specific issues. User is clearly a genre warrior. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, I say you didn't really have consensus to classify him as a smooth jazz artist, but technically there hasn't really been recent discussion of the matter, and the rationale of those opposing it in this section is some truly uuuuuuurgh-inducing sourgraping with no factual evidence by way of RS to back it up. So it comes down to what reliable sources say-- is he a smooth jazz artist, or no, and do the RSes say so? Per this piece in the Washington Post, smooth jazz appears to be described as a jazz-sounding song with no improvisation component-- however much of an authority this holds on the definition of smooth jazz remains to be seen-- and is also quick to mention Kenny G's work as part of that genre.

Anyway, this is a very content-dispute-flavored kettle of fish and you two ought to talk on the relevant article talkpage for it, but... My take on it is you're not giving the RSes you're saying prove he's a smooth jazz musician, and the onus is on you to prove it to attain consensus. Same onus is on Dan for the adult contemporary thing. As for the Criticism thing Dan wants to put in, WP:CRITICISM is an essay, so it can't be taken as the hard-and-fast rule for Criticism sections. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, AllMusic includes smooth jazz in his list of styles [152]. Amazon also categorizes his albums as smooth jazz. Any sources that state otherwise (nearly exclusively from jazz purists) are not reliable sources, because they are in a perspective of a jazz purist rather than a neutral point of view. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I guess Amazon's perspective is that of a company that wants to sell people things and not a reliable source on categorization of jazz musicians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh... so there are no "appropriate" sources for the categorization of musicians by genre?! (That's why I'm getting out of this thread!) I'm thinking this is going to lead to problems... Is there a guideline specifically on this topic – genres for musicians, and what qualifies as a "reliable source" for such? --IJBall (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

agree with Liz. As far as WP:RSN has covered it before, to answer IJ, Allmusic has been considered reliable for music topics, but Andros is going to have to dig up more than one source to sway consensus in their favour since it's evidently contentious among editors what to classify his music. Additionally, taking the stance that anyone who disagrees with the smooth jazz POV (that's a statement I never thought I'd have to use, heh) must be a jazz purist, or worse unreliable, is not going to help matters-- you're verging on combative, genre warrior behaviour yourself by doing that. Take their analysis with a grain of salt, and focus on those with considerable academic merit or expertise in music, of course, but don't immediately discount their stance just because it's not yours. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

to clarify, by "anyone" I mean that you shouldn't discount stances taken by RSes just because they disagree with you/yours; if editors DONTLIKEIT and can't counter it with RSes of their own, obviously they'll have to muster the strength to deal with it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki

This was moved from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Sorry for starting in the wrong place. Not easy to get your footing where the right place is. Thanks to User:TransporterMan for pointing out my error.

I would like to draw your attention to [[153]]. The editors that proposed this deletion have been running their own personal vendetta.

This deletion request is, in my opinion, a vendetta against my arguments to keep the article NIM. [[154]] by Padenton|✉  and Msnicki (talk) who have tried to retaliate by deleting a slew of articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by Padention and Msnicki. Notice from a comment in the comment in the Nim deletion discussion how many articles are now missing.(Written by Itsmeront 23:06, May 11, 2015‎)

• Keep. There are Wikipedia articles about hundreds of programming languages. Many of them don't have any secondary sources. So why do you think Nim is not notable, but the following languages are? Obol (programming language), Picky (programming language), Little Interpreted Language, Seph (programming language), Halide (programming language), Roy (programming language), Plaid (programming language), Join-calculus (programming language), Objeck (programming language), Nemo (programming language), Ooc, Cl4 (programming language), Slave Programming Language, PureScript, Hope (programming language), MX Language, MCTRL, SmilScript, Wigzy, Mobl, Napier88 (I have just picked some random articles) --Trustable (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• That argument is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉   00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note in [[155]] when the vote when against them Pandenton 'Msnicki' decided to inappropriately push the issue [156] "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me. Please take it to DRV if you think it has any merit.--Ymblanter (talk)"

This is just another long run of actions that should have wikipedia editors to consider the modivations of these editors.

Itsmeront (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Time for a WP:BOOMERANG.

1. The article you made as a memorial for your friend does not establish his notability and his notability is in question, which makes it perfectly fair game to be nominated at AfD, especially since searches do not establish his notability either.
2. Those were all deleted fairly, you're welcome to talk to the closers and seek deletion review. Otherwise, get over it and stop re-posting this everywhere hoping someone will care, because they won't. I doubt even Trustable cares. You're welcome to ask him/her.
3. I have NEVER edited on Ymblanter's talk page, and the history proves it, so don't accuse me of stuff I have never done. The vote also didn't "go against me", it was no consensus for both the AfD and the deletion review.
4. It's nice that you notified Ymblanter on his talk page. But you failed to do so for myself and Msnicki as you are required to do in any editor dispute.

Can someone close this as there isn't a single honest thing Itsmeront has said and this isn't even close to being the correct venue? Though he's been forum shopping on this already a fair bit. ― Padenton|✉   04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the reference above and attributed the blackmail to Msnicki. I also added a notice on both of your talk pages. Dr. Raab was was notable on his own, he was the heart and soul of a very large open source community, the deletion request is a tatic and harrassment. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese for previous warning and collusion and the following on Msnicki (talk) page:

Please stay as far away from me as you can. If I do something wrong, surely somebody else will notice and take care of it. You do not need to try to police my activities or to make frivolous accusations that I started an attack page. Really? The nerve!

[diff] Content was deleted after I pointed to it.

Itsmeront (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to ( Trustable Talk) I do think that the comments from Caroliano are very useful and should also be reviewed.

@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Itsmeront (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Itsmeront: Not sure why you're linking the Roscelese enforcement request I brought to ArbCom, it doesn't support or serve as an example of a single claim you've made. All it shows is I'm a responsible Wikipedia editor that seeks admin assistance when an editor with previous restrictions reverts 1 1/2 weeks of a new editor's changes, possibly providing insufficient explanation. But here's an idea: how about you stay out of discussions you know nothing about? It seems more likely that you are the one with a grudge here, if you're digging through my history looking at every discussion I'm involved in. Is your goal to link to random discussions involving responsible acts by those you've accused in the hope that the reviewer of your claims will not read it and judge us guilty based on our being in those discussions? I said ask Trustable if he/she cares, not ask Caroliano. ― Padenton|✉   14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

section deleted by request of EdJohnston. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Everything above copied and pasted by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) (this line written by Padenton)

Statement by Padenton

Once again, I'm not sure why Itsmeront has chosen to stalk me to unrelated discussions about which he knows nothing and then claim that I am the one harassing him. I am certain that EdJohnston would be happy to comment on taking his words so wildly out of context. My statement on Itsmeront's complaints regarding me and Msnicki can be found here: [157]. I don't have the time nor interest in making sure Itsmeront has accurately quoted everything I said above (given the proof shown that he has made false accusations towards me before), but you can read my statement at that link. Once again, I am requesting this be closed with a boomerang of some kind for Itsmeront for the reasons I have already mentioned in my responses at that link. ― Padenton|✉   18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Padenton. It makes no sense that User:Itsmeront has done a cut-and-paste from an unrelated posting about ARBGG at WP:AE#Roscelese and brought it here. Unless Itsmeront is willing to revert his copying from AE, my suggestion is that an uninvolved editor should collapse that material. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Thank you for your comment. I have removed the material you found non-sensical. The point I was trying to make by including it was that Msnicki and Padenton attack people that disagree with them with an "I'll show them", attitude that I find harmful to Wikipedia. One would NOT reasonably expect reprisals after making a successful argument in support of an article. Attacks against articles that have been adjudicated previously and found to be notable are now brought up for deletion, by the same two people. Other articles mentioned in an arguemnt that were notable, see: WP:N#TEMP are being recommended for deletion on mass. And in my opinion, deleted while nobody is looking, out of spite, or lust for reputation or power without proper research or consideration. I was hoping to show a pattern of this behavior with other users experiences, but I understand your point and hope that others with similar experiences will speak up. I doubt that Wikipedia would want to discourage argument by allowing over zealous editors to fight people that disagree with them with personal vendettas. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's funny that despite everything you've done, you still seem to think that Msnicki and myself are the ones with the vendetta. This "I'll show them" attitude you claim I have is baseless. And far more harmful to wikipedia is your lack of integrity and repeated attempts to falsely accuse me of things I haven't done, your dishonesty in cherry-picking and taking comments out of context, and your attempt to canvas editors you see disagreeing with me in order to start a lynchmob:

1. Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page
2. Cherry-picking comments of a completely unrelated discussion you know nothing about that I am participating in and copying and pasting them in here (especially without making it clear that they are excerpts from a completely different discussion)
3. Failing to notify editors who you are complaining about which I had to remind you of at Editor assistance.
4. Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere (This is called a vendetta, you hypocrite) as you did here: User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki.

The deletions of the articles on the list Trustable made in the Nim AfD. Let's discuss that for a minute.

1. You brought up the complaint that I nominated several of the articles Trustable mentioned for deletion in the Nim AfD.
2. You brought it up in the AfD here: [158]
3. You brought it up here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki
4. You are now bringing it up here in ANI.

And all this time you fail to realize that Trustable fully supported my taking those articles to AfD. I notice you didn't notify Trustable of the new discussion.

That almost all of the ones I nominated ended up with a consensus to delete proves that other editors were unable to find evidence they met the notability guidelines, and that the AfD was warranted. The only articles that I nominated and remain from that list are:

• Halide (programming language) - Closed no consensus. Unsurprisingly, still has little evidence of its notability.
• Join-calculus (programming language) - Closed merge. Essentially a duplicate article of Join-calculus. Pretty much the equivalent of delete, as it will remain merely a redirect after that's done.
• Hope (programming language) - I never took this to AfD.
• Napier88 - I never took this to AfD either.

Clearly, based on the above, people didn't agree with you that slashdot, reddit, ycombinator, and github are reliable sources nor that they establish notability.

Newsflash: Just because you want to give your friend a WP:MEMORIAL, doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia, and any editor on Wikipedia is fully within their rights to dispute the notability. ― Padenton|✉   22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Response From Itsmeront (talk)

My numbering doesn't match yours. Where there is a direct answer I have quoted your comment.

1. "Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page "

• I have already corrected the record that it was Msnicki and not you that was accused of attacking an editor. I know you have read it, and seen the correction but even after it was corrected you mentioned it 3 times.

2. "Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere"

• Notifying users and editors is what you told me to do. I don't see this as canvasing.

3. Your actions to delete the articles were in retaliation to users that disagreed with you. I see no real research. Having other editors not want to take you on, I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. complaints were ignored by you:

@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

and instead you attacked people that dared to disagree with you. See: User_talk:Caroliano Canvasing warning.

4. Not knowing where to air these issues is not the same as an attack against you. You have been citing quick close because this is not the right venue for this complaint. You could have pointed me to the right place instead of letting me flounder around. TransporterMan was nice enough to let me know.

Your words:

@Caroliano:Trustable did nothing. I'm the one who nominated them, as anyone should for any article that does not meet notability guidelines. The only reason these articles have not been nominated before is because no experienced editors had come across them, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a notability fallacy. If the article can stand up to scrutiny, it will remain. If not, it never deserved to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Stop acting like someone is being hurt over this. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This to me is an attack against someone making a claim that blanket delete requests are not in Wikipedia best interest, both in terms of a hostile response, but also hostile actions in your warning, and deletion requests.

About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable. I hope that you will be also be defeated in this AFD by editors that are more reasonable and less hostile then you. Your arguments against NIM are not the same as the augments here. Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, and your argument against Andreas Raab even less. My biggest complaint is not about these two articles Nim and Andreas Raab. My complaint is your attack against people that argue against you. Wikipedia needs to be open to volunteers, and free of these types of attacks so that reasonable discussion can take place to improve the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. Itsmeront (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to these in the order you presented them.

• The correction doesn't change the fact that you attempted to do it without checking your facts, which still seems to be a problem for you as you have continued.
• Read WP:CANVASSING. Notifying editors you have accused is required by WP:ANI policy. Notifying editors involved in a specific dispute is allowed by WP:CANVASSING. What you did was notify editors not involved in any way with this dispute, solely because you thought they would rally behind your attacks on me. This is called WP:Votestacking and is inappropriate canvassing.
• I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. Those "other editors" have trouble understanding wikipedia policy. You have yet to show a single AfD where I did not properly research. You didn't mention them here because you know that they do not support your claim. Otherwise you would have no need to dig through in-progress discussions of no relevance to this dispute.
• Once again you have provided no evidence but your incessant whining. I don't care that you don't see "real research", as far as I have seen you will lie or use any fraudulent information you can to malign any who disagree with you. Anyone with common sense can guess that it would be wrong to pick and choose comments from disputes elsewhere, and paste them in here without even knowing what the dispute was about.
• Caroliano deserved the canvassing warning, again, read the policy here and get over it.
• Forgive me if I don't have the time to help you whine about me to every person on Wikipedia that you can. Especially when reading the top of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests could have easily told you where to go.
• When you went to Trustable's talk page looking for anything you could dig up to attack me on, did you happen to notice the discussion before that post? Yeah....funny you don't mention that.
• Sadly, the say-so of a "friend of 10 years" isn't enough to support the claim that "About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable."
• Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. This is how it works in academia. Anyone can write a paper and papers are not enough to grant notability, especially when they have low citation counts. You can read more about it at the policy link I provided at the AfD, WP:ACADEMIC.
• Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, My argument for the deletion of nim was that it wasn't notable. I'm sorry that you assumed every single person disagreeing with you wasn't a programmer (false) and therefore shouldn't have a say in the AfD (also false), and that github, slashdot, reddit, and ycombinator are reliable sources (yet again, false); but your inaccurate assumptions are not my problem.
• I am normally sympathetic towards new users, it was not too long ago that I was one myself. But my patience runs out when those new users refuse to read policy, make false claims against other editors, and bring up cherry picked discussions from another editor's history(which they know absolutely nothing about) in the hopes it will prejudice others against someone they disagree with. Wikipedia needs to be free of editors like that, you add absolutely nothing to the site and you have no interest in working with others when they disagree with you. Plenty of new wikipedia editors have little trouble reading about wikipedia policy when they're informed of it.
• This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. I have no turf. I'm just not going to sit here and take false accusations from you. Shocker. ― Padenton|✉   23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins unethically taking care of each other.

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

---

Okay, so as you know, I was blocked for 36 hours. About 8 minutes after I was blocked, I posted a very understanding, and worthy unblock request. The only problem? NO ADMIN RESPONDED TO IT. Instead of an admin looking at my unblock request and trying to go over the merits of it, apparently every admin thought they had something better to do and I had to wait the whole 36 hours before editing again. Funny thing is, the user who reported me for this supposed "edit-warring" that I engaged in, Huon, is an admin. Now, either every patrolling admin has had their head up their ass for the past 36 hours; or, admins decided to close ranks and ignore my unblock request. Admins take care of each other, right? Just like cops. This is unacceptable. I'm unblocked, and I'm happy about that, but I'm not happy that Huon decided to get his little corrupt admin friends to completely ignore my unblock request, just so that they could take care of one of their own. Unacceptable, period. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess that's one theory...? Unblock request work isn't the most fun or rewarding task in this volunteer project, you know. Couldn't it also just be that not many people were working on it at the time? I'm an Admin, but I wasn't over here, stroking my beard and letting out evils laughs in my lair as you were blocked. I was reverting vandalism, completely unaware of the unblock log at the time, or doing non-Wikipedia related things. That could be the case for a lot of the admin population... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

uhhh, posting a message like that is not likely to get you unblocked any time soon. I'd suggest , and I'm only suggesting, that you wait out your block for at least today, and strike the above, please. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: as unsavoury as the phrasing of the message above might be, your response here does rather illustrate BeastBoy3395's point about messages not being read… —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I'm reluctant to comment on this rant, but I guess it's somewhat understandable that the user is frustrated. As User:Sergecross73 said, this is a volunteer thing and people could be busy. After several years here, I still haven't discovered this alleged unethical admin conspiracy. The only reason I'm commenting is that despite the ranting tone, the user does highlight a problem I've also noticed. More and more admin tasks go unaddressed, and this is a change. It could be a user not being unblocked (in this case I don't think there was a reason to unblock, but that's beside the point) as no admin looks into it, but it could equally well be a vandal avoiding a block cause no user looks into it. During the past months, I have the feeling that all reports take longer than before, and more reports go untreated than before. It could be obvious vandals allowed to carry on for hours as there's a huge backlog for dealing with vandalism, it could be obvious edit warriors not being treated at all. I also have the feeling more and more ANI reports are archived without closure one way or the other. Once again, this a voluntary task the admins do and nobody has the right to demand of any individual admin to do more. At the same time, there is no denying that if there's a collective slow-down of admin tasks and even more and more admin tasks not being done, it signals a wider problem. That could be relevant to discuss, not the rant about unethic admins. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I definitely think that's true. There are more backlogs all over the place. I've had what I thought were legitimate reports disappear into the aether several times. Many active admins retired or got desysoped in the past year, and few people are stepping forward at RfA to take their place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is just too few admins to go around. I waited two months for the close of a simple RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The shortage of admins is the fault of the admins. If they were truly concerned about it, they would do something about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There may be some truth in that, it's possible they should be a bit more concerned about it as all these backlogs we all note are detrimental to the whole project. Nevertheless, not being overly concerned about backlogs is very far from an unethical CABAL of rouge admins.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Failing to get the job done would not seem to be an ethical issue, no. (Rouge admins. Do we have any beige or bleu admins?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You know it's not that simple though. There's plenty, for instance, who would like to change RFA process, it's just that no one can ever get a consensus on how/what to change. It's easy to point fingers and blame "the collective", but very hard to propose a solution that would gain a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I know I took a break for a few months last fall and one of the first things I noticed was that there were fewer admins putting AN/I on their regular beat than there were when I started in 2013. There used to probably be 15-20 admins that I would see regularly weigh in at AN/I and now it is much fewer who check in every day or every few days. Some of those admins retired or were desysopped. I think that there are some areas of admin work where your actions are more likely to create animosity against you and why face angry editors when you can handle backlogs of page protections, username complaints or vandalism or other less divisive areas of work? This is all WP:OR, just an observation I've noticed. I just think with fewer admins to handle the workload, it's likely that things will fall through the cracks and those who shoulder the burden are in danger of burning out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Template:CUE Oh... Hrmmm... I didn't know Huon, who I knew was an admin, had joined Drmies' CABAL. Well, Huon, I hope you're enjoying being a ROUGE... ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BeastBoy3395, I believe you were supposed to notify me if you launch an AN/I thread about me; please keep that in mind the next time you use this page. I reported you for routinely misrepresenting what the sources you provide say, not for edit warring. I see the edit warring you sincerely apologized for in that very worthy unblock request becomes supposed "edit-warring" as soon as the block has run out. I'm rather active in unblock requests (though for obvious reasons I didn't answer yours), and at times I come upon a request I don't feel comfortable accepting but still don't want to decline - if other admins share that sentiment, such a request can stay unanswered for quite some time even though admins have actively looked into it. Huon (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but I did ping you. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So a "brand new" user arrived less than a week ago, made enough edits to trigger autoconfirmed status and then piled into edit-warring on a toxic article until he was blocked - and people didn't unblock him. I can't imagine why. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I know what you're implying, and it's not the least bit true. And if people didn't unblock me because they suspected me of being a sockpuppet, that's still unethical, as I wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry, and there's no evidence to show I'm a sockpuppeteer. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but he's saying that, even if someone had reviewed it, your odds of getting unblocked were not great. An overwhelmingly vast majority of the unblock requests regarding edit warring or misrepresented sources are denied, especially with such a touchy subject and such short block span. Just an observation. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I think the short length of the block probably had something to do with admins not weighing in on whether or not to unblock the editor. If the block had been for a week or month, it's more likely that there would have been SOME response although whether that would be to unblock or deny the request, I don't know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Additional eyes and voices requested

Additional opinions sought here. Essentially, this user was blocked, deservedly so for his action, however a Discretionary notice was also placed on his page. Both I and Bosstopher disagree that this discretionary notice fits for what he did, and we're both requesting that the admin that placed it, remove it. Feel free to chime in either way. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem?Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Per this section it cant be rescinded. The sanctions already refer to all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

All in all it looks appropriate from my view. Amortias (T)(C) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pass was blocked (deservedly so) for recreating Rape Jihad , however, he has a discretionary sanction that reads in part " The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b)". Rape Jihad doesn't come close to fitting that definition. Both Bosstopher and I agree with this, however, the issuing sysop, Future Perfect at Sunrise does not. While we all agree Pass should be blocked for continuously created a deleted article, the discretionary sanction doesn't fit what we created, nor is it in anyway appropriate, that's why I'm asking for additional input, either for or against. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices are frequently placed on talk pages for users that have not violated it. It explicitly says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." And rape-related articles do appear to be within the scope of WP:ARBGG per this clarification request here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Clarification_Request_.28March_2015.29 ― Padenton|✉   20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing the problem here. It's just a notice, it explicitly says that it is not a finding of wrong-doing, it's a notice that alerts the editor that these sanctions exist. You might have a good argument if the sanctions were the reason for the block but they weren't. Whether placing the notice was justified or not is not clear to me but since it had nothing to do with the block, the answer is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify I'm not asking it be rescinded and am aware that DS alerts cant be rescinded. But I do believe that if GG sanctions were actualy enforced over the rape jihad/rotherham topic it would be an incorrect use of the sanctions. I would definitely take the issue to ARCA were that to happen. However given that the article has been deleted, the chances of this happening seem more unlikely. Bosstopher (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management

Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions.

I first attempted to resolve this with User:Smalljim on my talk page. I guess we did not see eye to eye. I then referred it to DRN and COI. Neither of them felt it belonged on those pages.

Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the DRN page and it seemed like the discussion was getting started. I don't know why the page was archived but I didn't see anyone saying that this was the wrong forum. Maybe @TransporterMan: can explain?

In general though, I think it is a bad idea to copy whole articles into your sandbox and replace the actual article with your new version of it. For one thing, other editors can make changes between the time you've copied the article and the time you replace it with your new version and while those edits would be recorded in the page history, they wouldn't exist in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The DRN thread was closed by TransporterMan, not because it was the wrong forum, but because it was filed manually, rather than using the template for the purpose. The editors can refile using the template, or can continue discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but the discussion at COIN should be closed if DRN is started, to avoid conflicting discussions and forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have 2 things to say on the matter, both of which aren't key to the actual issue.

Firstly, I felt it wasn't appropriate for WP:COIN because they said they didn't have a COI- so the issue didn't appear to be COI.

Secondly, when you report someone to noticeboards, you are obliged to inform them- in this instance, I informed User:Smalljim about this thread, and the other ones at DRN and COI too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I was drafting the following, but I see I've been pre-empted. Posting now without full check, so E&OE !  —SMALLJIM 

Emmanuel Lemelson is a hedge fund manager and, unexpectedly, also a Greek Orthodox priest. We have two articles: one on the person (EL), and one on his company, Lemelson Capital Management (LCM). Both have been extensively edited by Orthodox2014 (talk · contribs), whose only other edits have been to an AfD on the company, an AfD nomination of another fund manager, and a few edits to some related articles (example) and some other Greek Orthodox religious figures (example). This narrow focus has continued despite my suggestion in July last year that he could do something else to avoid the appearance of only being here to promote Lemelson.

In the two articles he has employed promotional wording designed to puff up the subjects (see this version for example), and has packed them with excessive references, on which he has been called out several times (see User_talk:Orthodox2014#Failed_verifications, Talk:Lemelson Capital Management, Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Too_many_references and the LCM AfD). In July 2014 the LCM article was trimmed down to under 10kB in accordance with these opinions [159]. But on 8 Oct, after working on a pre-trimmed version in his sandbox, Orthodox2014 pumped it up again to 23kB with the edit summary "update new references/developments, remove a category", which in fact added only a little new info, and substantially reinstated the removed references.[160]

On 29 April this year, I got round to cleaning up both pages again – a task that had been on my back burner for some time. Soon after, Orthodox2014 started editing a copy of his last version of the EL article in his sandbox,[161] suggesting that he intended to replace the live version with his preferred version again. His response to my enquiry indicates a strong sense of ownership. This is not the behaviour of someone who has WP's best interest as his first priority.

Orthodox2014 has firmly stated that he does not have a COI. Four editors have expressed concerns that he does, as I set out on his talk page, and I think the minimum we need is a topic ban on these articles. He has at least recently expressed a willingness to edit some other articles.[162]  —SMALLJIM  22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should have stayed at COIN. The heading for the noticeboard states This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline . The question here is covered by the first part of that, whether the denial of COI by an editor who has only substantially worked on these two very closely related subjects should be accepted as settling the matter. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Trigger happy Admin

I do not believe this, BD2412 blocked me for reverting this edit as vandalism. I was very proud of my clean block record for the last 6.5 years. IMO this was a bad block, maybe this Admin behavior needs to be reviewed. Does anyone see this as a "Good Admin action" ? Damnit I'm pissed. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I have on more than one occasion seen a vandal revert a good edit as "WP:NOTBROKEN" or the like, as a form of sneaky vandalism, and jumped the gun in blocking before assessing your edit history to determine if this was the case. Clearly, I need to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. bd2412 T 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a very poor block in a number of ways, and given bd2412's apology, is there a way to remove it from Mlpearc's block log? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would endorse removing it from the block log. A 'crat can do that. bd2412 T 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well there you go then, just don't take it to heart Mlpearc =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I wasn't aware that bureaucrats had that ability, hence my suggestion below. BMK (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned that the unblocking edit summary doesn't acknowledge in any way that it was a mistaken block. If I was to look at that block log at the moment without any knowledge, I'd assume that Mlpearc was vandalising but then agreed not to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't fault you, last I checked you were a human with flaws like everyone else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't one way to flag the problem be to re-block Mlpearc for the absolute minimum amount of time, whatever that is (one minute? one second?), with an edit summary saying that the previous block was a mistake and shouldn't be held against the editor? BMK (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Good enough for me, I wasn't looking for the Admins head (kinda) I was more pissed at my no longer clean block record, which I see can be fixed. Thanx all. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, I've asked at the Bureaucrat Noticebaord for someone to take a look at this thread. BMK (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Afaik bureaucrats cannot remove those entries, if revdelete is not enough the last resort is suppression (of the entry, not of BD2412, ofc :p ). --Vituzzu (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I (edit conflict)ed before when trying to say this from my mobile and copy paste doesn't work well. An admin should be able to hide the log entry and/or and OSer should be able to oversight it. This is based on experience from being a steward on DDOwiki and a crat on testwiki: like https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3ATechnical-13. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• The simple way is for any admin, but preferably BD2412 themselves, to block the user again! Block for one second, in order to input a retraction of and apology for the previous block. See this section of the blocking policy: very short blocks are not to be used for recording something negative in the log, but "very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block." Bishonen | talk 23:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC).

• Ah, yes, I see BMK said the same thing above. He's absolutely right. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC).

Unfortunately bureaucrats cannot remove log entries. Also, using rev-delete to redact logs in this manner is specifically prohibited: Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. I'm not sure I agree with that policy but, unless it is changed, the only option may be to add a further short block (say 1 minute) noting that BD2412 has acknowledged that his block was made in error. The fact that bad blocks cannot be readily expunged is precisely the reason why admins should take proper care before blocking users. WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I consider this an instance that falls within Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction; it's not merely prettying up the log, but a removal of a frankly erroneous characterization on my part of the action in question. bd2412 T 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:NeilN/Archive 23#Ummmm?; it's common for accidental or otherwise bad blocks to happen, and the marked block logs remain. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:JoeMCMXLVII and DRN

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

---

JoeMCMXLVII Started a thread at The dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) and was asked to step back from the disgussion by me after receiving a warning and in accordance with Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=662062894). However, he has refused to obey this as can be seen in the following diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662065641 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662067470 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662069380 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662070289 I would like to request he be banned, blocked, or sanctioned in accordance with the mediation policy linked to above. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) , volunteer mediator

Do you plan to do any more mediating in the actual discussion itself or have you abandoned it now? Do we need another mediator? In all honesty your tone was unnecessarily confrontational and unhelpful anyway, in my opinion.109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Rider ranger47, but I did clearly express deference to your request and I did subsequently avoid reference to any person as distinct from reference to content, as you requested. I thought that Wikipedia was a place where we could all express opinions of fact without editorial supression. If I got that wrong then I apologise to you again. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeMCMXLVII: I told you what the policy is, and it is linked to at the to of the DRN page. And you are still editing the page in violation of the policy. @109.145.67: How have I been unhelpful? This is my first mediaton request and I have mediated it to the best of my ability without the help of the co-cordanitor who is not responding to my messages. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I also believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=662079301&oldid=662078397 is a personal attack/civility policy violation. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You've been unhelpful because you've done little or nothing to facilitate the discusssion. Your approach has been confrontational and partisan. As soon as you percieved that someone had defied you you abandoned the discusssion, allowing it to continue unmediated in your absence. There are better ways to handle people and achieve results than giving them ultimatums then running off and reporting them. Who behaves like this in real life? A bit of diplomacy is what's needed surely.109.145.67.105 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I do have a life you know. And I would like to express concern that you are actually JoeMCMXLVII editing while logged out. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to make unfounded false accusations. That would be unbecoming of a volunteer mediator.109.145.67.105 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that 109.145.67.105 is me is beyond any doubt your personal bias. I suggest in the strongest permissible terms that you find something else to do other than attempt to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and denying Wikipedia editors the right to edit the dispute page is defensive to an extreme. I had a great deal of respect for the little girls in my infants' school but, it needs to be said, they didn't behave as badly as you. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Chemonics COI

208.70.228.138 appears to be a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest engaged in blatant self-promotion. The IP is registered to Chemonics and just about all of the edits are promoting Chemonics. Examples: [163], [164], [165], [166] Jon335 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Diff of the IP's edits altogether: [167]. WP:COI allows (though often discourages) edits by an editor who is connected to the subject. I'm not seeing too much blatant self-promotion by the IP. Some, perhaps, wouldn't go to blatant though. The article has been around 2 years, so there does not seem to be any evidence the IP made the article themselves to promote the company. Most business articles do discuss that business's sectors of work, though perhaps a paragraph would have been better. The global presence list was kinda pointless and redundant in my opinion. In the criticism section, 'frequent' is a violation of WP:NPOV, especially with such a small list of incidents and few references. (I've gone and removed that one myself). I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the other removals, so I'll agree the rest do appear to be a COI violation. ― Padenton|✉   01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ordinarily I'd warn you about the dangers of investigating undisclosed COI, but for an IP it's a little different. Several of the IP's edits are things that someone with a COI probably should refrain from doing; e.g., deleting a maintenance tag, adding PR-speak. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI does allow for non-controversial edits, including the removal of maintenance tags that are no longer needed. At the time of removal the article was no longer an advertisement, though I suppose one might argue that the IP made it one after with adding the locations list and the business sector list. Whether that has merit, I don't know. The one source maintenance tag was rightfully removed, it was no longer accurate (the article was significantly expanded by Jon335 the day after it was tagged for one source by someone else [168]), and it doesn't have any explanation for the tag on the talk page. The primary sources tag is appropriate now though, so I added that. I think you're right on the PR-speak though. ― Padenton|✉   02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian POV pushing

MykhayloNaumenko has been deleting Russian names from many Ukrainian articles, primarily involving the Luhansk Oblast. Targeted articles include Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk, and the Luhansk Oblast article itself. [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]

I came across him when I noticed that the Russian name of Luhansk Oblast suddenly disappeared, and then I rv'd that when I found the diff.

Mykhaylo admits to be Ukrainian on his userpage.

He also has edit warred with Toddy1 for months over the Russian names being on enwiki. Ymblanter had blocked him for a day once for this. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Luhansk was affected too: [174] Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

About my edits and User: Joseph2302 on the issue of tagging my articles for deletion severally.

My username is Hilumeoka2000. My full name in Hilary Umeoka. I am a freelancer working and earning a living as a full time online writer at www.freelancer.com, and www.elance.com

Here's my public link on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html

Here's my public link on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/

I noticed several clients on both freelance platforms post jobs for wikipedia article creation. Everyone including companies want to be on wikipedia to gain traffic and reputation. Initially, I ignore such jobs since I don't know how to create wikipedia articles.

I opened my wikipedia account some years back. However, I developed interest in writing wikipedia jobs since March 2015. I decided to learn how to write wikipedia articles. I took my time to go through all the editorial guidelines. I really enjoy learning a lot and also contributing to the best repository in the world.

I made inquiries about paid edits on wikipedia and I discovered this page Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). After going through the page and other resources, I discovered that freelancers are free to get paid for writing wikipedia articles provided the articles follow wiki rules.

My first attempt to create a page on a man "Joshua Letcher" failed. This was mainly because the man was not notable. There are also no media references to use for him. I learnt a lot from that. I read more about wiki editing and grew in knowledge.

I started getting more jobs from clients to create articles and get paid for same at the end. I follow the rules. I don't promote nor advertise about article subjects. I make sure I use available media resources.

I created the following wiki articles for sometime now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu

I also have others in the pipeline.

Now, between 12th and 13th May 2015, I started seeing huge interest by some editors about the pages I already created.

User: Joseph2302 is the person that keeps attacking the pages. He notified me asking if I was a paid editor. Here's the discussion link [[175]]

I opened up to him and told him that I work as a freelancer and I get paid to write articles. But, I follow due process when writing articles.

Joseph2302 ignored my please and went ahead to nominate all my articles for speedy deletion. He cited "Undisclosed paid editing" as his major reason.

User: Safiel reverted some of the deletion tags and told him that, the issue of "undisclosed paid editing" is not a reason since it has not been approved on wikipedia

Joseph2302 reverted back all the pages to "speedy deletion" once more persisting on his former claim of "undisclosed paid editing"

Other editors also came to the rescue. Why other editors revert the article to normalcy, Joseph2302 still refused. It now dawned on me that, he simply attacking my edits for some personal reasons.

Now, Joseph2302 has also nominated the same articles for AFD (Article for deletion)

I discovered there are vested interest among most of the editors that comment on the AFD page. They seem to have issue with the subjects of the articles created.

Please, I want an admin to look into these issues and the wiki pages. I made sure my articles pass neutrality policy. I also make sure they are properly referenced with secondary sources.

I believe many editors take a stand on issues of AFD just to punish the article creator. This has been my case so far. That's why I table my case to the admins.

Finally, if paid edits are not allowed, I would like to know and probably stop bidding for Wikipedia jobs on freelancer.com platforms. But from what I read, the policy on paid editing failed. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)