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

Deception, impersonation, sock puppetry, vandalism, topic ban, block, and scrutiny evasion

I apologize for the long post, but I feel it is necessary for the reader to get a full sense of the entire picture. A TL;DR summary is at the end for convenience.

AnulBanul (talk · contribs) is an account that demonstrably belongs to user Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) a fact that runs counter to his blatant lie that he has "no connection to the said user whatsoever". [1] The user, in spite of his "Armenian who lived in Serbia" persona [2], has never once edited the Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org) or Serbian Wikipedia (sr.wikipedia.org). [3] Note that Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [4] and that later AnulBanul joined WikiProject Armenia as editing from Georgia [5] then Russia [6]. He then began building his persona changing his intitial name from Anulmanul to Anna Sahakyan [7], then Anushka [8], then Yerevani Axjik [9], and then to his current name AnulBanul. He then uploaded a selfie image [10] to presumably impersonate a person named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan that he took off a Facebook profile or VK (Russian social networking website). He proceeded to use that image on his userpage and refer to himself as "Anna" [11] and created a backstory for the said individual. Numerous FB and VK profiles exist under that name, but I won't link any for their privacy.

Note that AnulBanul instead edits the Croatian Wikipedia which when he does concerns right-wing and far-right Croatian politicians and parties. [12] which is quite odd when the user labels himself a liberal from the University of Belgrade. [13] Indeed it's hard to believe it's anyone other than him when he does such obscure and specific edits such as [14][15] (among the litany of other identical ones shown below). Note that the Wüstenfuchs account became inactive on 20 September 2014, [16] two days later the AnulBanul account became active on 22 September 2014. [17] The last edit of Wüstenfuchs (Bilal Bosnić, ISIL recruiter) and first edit of AnulBanul (Military intervention against ISIL) are both related to Islamic extremism. Further note that Wüstenfuchs' Mostar IP was blocked for block evading in order to edit war. [18] That same IP (93.180.104.124 (talk · contribs)) edited three articles, all of which were created by Wüstenfuchs and all of which were later edited by AnulBanul/Wüstenfuchs with the same POV: Avdo Humo (IP: [19], AnulBanul: [20]), Hasan Brkić (IP: [21], Wüstenfuchs [22]), and Osman Karabegović (IP: [23], Wüstenfuchs: [24])

On 26 May AnulBanul was topic banned from anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina for 3 months [25] Immediately the day after he proceeded to vandalize a Bosnia and Herzegovina related userbox in order to troll. [26] A week later he violated his topic ban via IPs 185.38.146.201 (talk · contribs) and 93.180.126.249 (talk · contribs) both Mostar IPs. Both have the same exact lines and POV on obscure articles with one of them being pushed against Dragodol, his edit warring buddy that was also topic banned, in the Nijaz Duraković article [27][28] and in the Jovan Divjak article the same exact line of unsourced nonsense that he was a "show general". [29][30] Note that the 93.180.126.249 Mostar IP's contributions on the Croatian Wikipedia. He picks up where Wustenfuchs and AnulBanul left off on the Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina article [31] and on the Croatian Democratic Union 1990 article [32] where his Herr Ziffer (blocked) and Wustenfuchs accounts formerly edited and on the Croatian Party of Rights (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [33] article where Wustenfuchs formerly edited. Another IP (blocked) that edited all those same articles in the same manner also created the Nijaz Duraković article on the Croatian Wikipedia. [34] He later admitted that those were indeed his IPs [35] however those were not the only topic ban evading IPs. Other discovered evading IPs that AnulBanul did not disclose include 85.94.128.192 (talk · contribs), 46.35.153.151 (talk · contribs), and 46.35.131.167 (talk · contribs) and there are more than likely many others out there. The story does not stop with using IPs to just topic ban evade as he has also used them to vandalize, commit BLP violations, edit war and circumvent 3RR, etc and the AnulBanul account is not the only sockpuppet he has and has used the K. Solin (talk · contribs) and RossaLuxx (talk · contribs) accounts to split his edits, evade scrutiny, and have sleeper accounts. There may be many more such accounts out there.

Evidence that ties the accounts together:

AnulBanul

First ever upload on commons by AnulBanul was uploading a map of the Croatian 2014 presidential election [36], this same map was added to the Croatian presidential election, 2014–15 article by a Mostar IP [37], the same Mostar IP created the Teroristički napad u Mostaru 1997. (1997 Terrorist Attack in Mostar) article on the Croatian Wikipedia [38] which AnulBanul later created on the English Wikipedia as Mostar terrorist attack [39] Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [40], later AnulBanul joined the WP as editing from Georgia [41] then Russia [42] Dragan Čović, AnulBanul uploaded an image of the Bosnian Croat politician and credited it to Herr Ziffer [43] Herr Ziffer was Wustenfuchs' sockpuppet handle at commons [44][45] Talk:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, removal of WikiProject Former countries by Wüstenfuchs [46], later same removal of WikiProject Former countries by AnulBanul [47] Džafer Kulenović, same "Croatian politician" POV [48][49] Osman Karabegović, article created by Wustenfuchs [50], expanded by AnulBanul [51] Hasan Brkić, article created by Wustenfuchs [52], portrait image uploaded by AnulBanul [53] Milan Gorkić, article created by Wustenfuchs [54], expanded by AnulBanul [55] Nermin Nikšić, article created by Wustenfuchs [56], end of term added by AnulBanul [57] Bilal Bosnić, article created by Wustenfuchs [58], updated by AnulBanul [59], addition of Wikiproject Bosnia and Herzegovina by 5.133.xxx.xxx [60] Bariša Čolak, article created by Wustenfuchs [61], updated by AnulBanul [62] Marinko Čavara, article created by Wustenfuchs [63], updated by AnulBanul [64] Fadil Hadžić, identical denial that the man is Bosniak [65][66] Asaf Duraković, identical denial that the man is Bosniak [67][68] Ante Jelavić, infobox update by Wustenfuchs [69], infobox update by AnulBanul [70] Croatian National Assembly, article created by Wustenfuchs [71], later moved and updated by AnulBanul [72] Independence Day (Bosnia and Herzegovina), article created by Wustenfuchs [73], later moved and updated by AnulBanul [74] Barryevi amandmani, article created by Wustenfuchs [75], updated by AnulBanul [76], updated by 5.133.xxx.xxx [77] Croatian Peasant Party of Stjepan Radić, moved by Wustenfuchs [78], later moved by AnulBanul [79] Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian language removed and Serbo-Croatian added by Wustenfuchs [80], same edit later done by AnulBanul [81] Jure Pelivan, article created by Wustenfuchs on the Croatian Wikipedia [82], Croat ethnicity added by AnulBanul on English Wikipedia [83] Križančevo selo killings, concerning the deaths of Bosnian Croats, moved by AnulBanul to Križančevo Selo massacre [84] Bosnian Muslims, same removal of redirect and replacement with DAB [85][86] Canton 10, same return of unconstitutional symbols [87][88] John Kasich, same concern of Croatness in early life section [89][90]

K. Solin

Željko Komšić: addition of "illegitimate representative" content and reference stuffed by Wüstenfuchs [91][92][93][94], sources replaced (note sfn template) by K. Solin [95] removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by K. Solin [96], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by Mostar IP [97], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by AnulBanul [98] Dragan Čović: infobox updated by K. Solin [99], infobox updated by AnulBanul [100] Milan Gorkić: created by Wüstenfuchs [101], updated by AnulBanul [102] and K. Solin [103] (note same HHVM tag) Canton 10: cantonal assembly updated by K. Solin [104], by Mostar IP [105], by AnulBanul [106] Faculty of Law, University of Mostar: article created by Wüstenfuchs [107], redirect created by Herr Ziffer [108], article updated by K. Solin [109] Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar: created by K. Solin [110], moved and updated by AnlBanul to Faculty of Humanities, University of Mostar [111] Commons: Both at the University of Mostar specifically the Faculty of Philosophy/Humanities. Use identical name format using (1), (2), (3), etc. Use identical licensing and summary. AnulBanul uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [112][113][114][115][116][117] AnulBanul uploaded images of the exterior of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [118][119][120][121][122] K. Solin uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [123][124][125] K. Solin updated logo of Faculty of Law, University of Mostar intially uploaded by Herr Ziffer [126]

RossaLuxx

First edit ever edit on Croatian Wikipedia was creating a sophisticated userpage with a gradient and image. Note the code in RossaLuxx's page <div style="background-color:{{prijelazna boja|top|#000000, #CC0000}};"> [[Datoteka: and compare to AnulBanul's page <div style="background-color:{{linear-gradient|top|#fdffe7, #FFFFFF}};">[[File: Added category to AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [127], then uploaded File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG in same style of original, same summary, and same license [128] Mostar IP added AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [129], 13 days later RossaLuxx added File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG using near identical description [130]

Herr Ziffer

Žitomislić: Herr Ziffer blaming destruction of a church on different army, [131], AnulBanul blaming destruction of same church on same army [132], later he claimed that he "wasn't aware" that he made the edit [133] Bitka za Karvačar: Herr Ziffer uploaded File:Bitka za Karvačar.jpg map on commons [134], the map was added to the article by Wüstenfuchs [135], article edited by K. Solin [136] (note there are only 4 editors who have ever edited the page [137]) Dragan Čović: AnulBanul uploaded a crop of Herr Ziffer's copyvio image [138] Rafael Boban: image uploaded by Herr Ziffer [139], added to article by Wüstenfuchs [140]

Note almost all of his discovered accounts have been indef blocked on various Wikis for tendentious editing and sockpuppetry:

• Wüstenfuchs (hr) [141]
• AnulBanul (hr) [142]
• Herr Ziffer (bs, hr) [143]
• Wustefuchs (bs, commons) [144]
• Wustenfuchs (bs, commons) [145]
• K. Solin (hr) [146]
• RossaLuxx [147]
• Ayohayem [148]

As shown above the user shows a propensity to evade scrutiny throughout Wikis by constant logged out IP hopping, fragmenting edit history among new accounts, and making sleeper accounts. In addition to this he has also:

• Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul [149][150] in order to commit sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, and libel by referring to a man as a "shithead" ("govnar") in Serbo-Croatian and pretending it's his surname [151][152]
• Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul to immaturely troll on the Valentin Inzko article [153] and has even vandalised a "on this day" template he personally dislikes while logged in [154]
• Used Mostar IPs to help initiate and facilitate edit wars, avoid 3RR, and then report the other user [155]
  • Canton 10: [156], [157], [158], [159]
  • Herzegovina-Neretva Canton: [160][161][162][163]
• Used Mostar IPs to delete sourced information and/or push POV
  • Bosnian mujahideen: [164]
  • Blaž Kraljević: [165][166]
  • Jovan Divjak: [167][168]
  • Mostar: [169]

His Wustefuchs [170] and Wustenfuchs [171] accounts were both blocked on commons "unfree files after warnings" and abuse of multiple accounts. [172][173] Despite this he has evaded his block via sockpuppets and continued to purposefully upload copyrighted material under false CC licenses with his Herr Ziffer, AnulBanul, and K: Solin handles as the authors.

• Uploading as AnulBanul an image crop of a file uploaded by Herr Ziffer which was removed for copyright violation [174]

• Uploading as K. Solin an image crop of a file uploaded by AnulBanul which was removed for copyright violation [175]

• Uploading an image [176] taken from [177] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license

• Uploading an image [178] taken from [179] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license

• Uploading several other copyright infringing images as sockpuppets Herr Ziffer [180] and AnulBanul [181]

TL;DR:

In summary his activity on Wikipedia involves:

1. The absolute denial of any connection to his sockpuppet AnulBanul account and creation and non-disclosure of any other sockpuppet and sleeper accounts (K. Solin, RosaLuxx, etc)
2. The impersonation of an Armenian female individual named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan to appear more neutral, completely unrelated to past edits/accounts, and assume her identity (even going so far as to upload her selfie image) in order to deceive other users
3. The constant splitting of his past edit history through new accounts and IP hopping to game the system, sockpuppeteer, deceive users, vandalize, commit BLP violations, circumvent 3RR, and avoid scrutiny
4. The forging of a clean slate that is without previous ARBMAC warnings and blocks to appear in good standing and receive more leeway around admins
5. The willingness to repeatedly avoid blocks and topic bans if he was sure he wouldn't be caught

--Potočnik (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not once edited with any of those accounts at the English Wikipedia, except Wustenfuchs, and I have the right to do so, I can switch to another account for several personal reasons. This was in order to protect my privacy and to protect myself from vandal attacks and other attacks after I edited several pages related to the Syrian civil war back in 2012. It is not my fault that Wikimedia creates accounts on all wikis if you create an account on a Croatian one. Those accounts remained inactive and will remain so. I was blocked for using IPs on your report, and my block ended today. Moreover, I said those were my IPs. Another thing, you will respect my gender identity. I'm not "he". --AnulBanul (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know you that finally admit to the fact that Wüstenfuchs is indeed your account after claiming that you had "no connection to the said user whatsoever" and again admit to editing from Mostar and not Armenia, Serbia, Georgia, or Russia as you wished to purposely mislead others into believing.

The valid reasons for multiple accounts are listed here. None of them state that doing what you claim to have done it for is valid. In any event all the edits of the K. Solin, Herr Ziffer, RossaLux accounts were in 2014 and so have nothing to do with some 2012 harassment.

Nonsense those accounts have edits on English Wikipedia and correspond with your POV as demonstrated by a litany of diffs. Accounts are automatically made when you visit Wikipedia in another language (that's understandable), but you not only did this and edited on the English Wikipedia. You edited the Milan Gorkić page on 27 November 2014 as AnulBanul with HHVM (note tag in summary) ‎[182] and then three days later as K. Solin on 30 November 2014 with HHVM [183] Adding content as AnulBanul [184] and picking up where you left off as K. Solin [185][186] with references you had previously added as Wüstenfuchs. [187] But I suppose that the brand new account adding info in your POV in an obscure article that you created with the same 1984 Croatian work you used is not you?

In my past correspondences to you as Wüstenfuchs I referred to you in male pronouns (Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male) and you never raised this issue, and up until this point the same with your AnulBanul account. I have a hard time believing that you're a female... or that your name is actually Anna, or that you are Armenian, or that you studied at the University of Belgrade, or that you were born and lived in Yerevan, or that that is your selfie image. More likely you are impersonating some poor girl using her name, photo, and location to deceive users. --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly my name is not Anna, as I said, I used this previous account. You can proceede with sock puppet investigation, if you wish. I'll admit I used K. Solin as my account. But had no intention of hiding my edit history. If that's wrongful, I'll suffer the consequences. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be shocked if others don't jump in on this, very much TLDR. Let me clear up a couple of things here and allow you to restate the things that really matter: First, whatever happens at Commons or other Wikis, we don't really care so much here. We have no authority there, the rules are different on different wikis, so our focus is really on activity HERE, under most circumstances. Having the account does't matter, only what you do with it matters.

• Next, ANI is the wrong venue for a sockpuppet investigation, and in fact, it is the worst possible venue because it doesn't generate all the autolinks for investigating and ANI isn't a formal board like SPI. Regardless it is here, but you've made it more difficult to investigate.

• What really matters most is overlapping edits on the same article, etc. Secondarily, a clear showing of avoiding scrutiny. If they are avoiding an Arb warning, you can typically just add that Arb warning to their page and be done with it. If they are using multiple accounts for reasons under WP:SOCK that are acceptable, then they aren't sanctionable. It isn't clear because you have focused on quantity rather than simple linkage here. Can you please narrow it down to what really matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned commons and the other Wikipedias to demonstrate that the behavior isn't restricted to a single language or part of Wikipedia and to show what he has a propensity for doing. I didn't dwell on it much. A sockpuppet investigation shouldn't be necessary in the first place as users who do have multiple accounts are supposed to have them "fully and openly disclosed" and not create personas for them, deny any connection to them, and keep them hidden. But if you insist then I'll post the matter there also. None of the valid reasons for using multiple accounts is applicable here. As shown above he has been "avoiding scrutiny" by "using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. (...) it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" (AnulBanul, K. Solin) and "editing logged out to mislead" by "editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy." (edit war and avoid 3RR, delete sourced info, POV push, sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, troll) --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is, you muddy the waters when you add all that extra stuff. Show links to articles where he edited first as an editor, then as another editor or IP. Those are facts, all the other stuff just makes it too long to read and determine. Sockpuppet investigating is about dry facts, no opinions. Honestly, WP:SPI is where it needs to go, as you are claiming four accounts, and there is the need for a formal board where random input from other editors isn't an issue. They key is getting it right, not getting it fast or in the ANI crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have violated my topic ban, and was blocked for ten days - that is, until today. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree this goes beyond sockpuppet as it seems to be all about long-term gaming the system and may need to go to arbitration. Even if it's tl;dr, I read and it's good detective work. The whole back story doesn't matter (there's no problem to invent an identity, outside of taking someone else's photo) except it's very easy to prove untrue and thus provides no plausible alternative as to another identity. Additionally, someone who goes to extravagant lengths to edit here is not likely to be dissuaded by the usual sock blocks. AnulBanul, if you are an Armenian (or Russian-Armenian, by your name Anushka) would you prefer to discuss this situation in Armenian or Russian? You only edited one article on the Russian Wikipedia and I can't understand it [188] - in the infobox, you changed the link to Split (town) to Split (the disambiguation)... a bit odd. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I already explained myself. See my other post. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry AnulBanul, which post is that? This one? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The one where I said, that I created additional account in order to distance myself from possible vandalisms made on my old Wustenfuchs account, after editing Syrian civil war topic. --AnulBanul (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What vandalism against Wüstenfuchs? Your account was already blocked! You made AnulBanul in September 2014, right after Wüstenfuchs was finally blocked on the Croatian Wiki. (Btw, Wüstenfuchs was blocked for two-years after 19 PREVIOUS blocks on the Croatian Wiki. Wüstenfuchs was also blocked eight times on the English Wiki.) Then you made K. Solin in November 2014. So you didn't just make one additional account, you made at least two.... all to "protect yourself" from retribution against edits you made two years earlier? —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep picking and it all falls apart. First he claimed he had "no connection whatsoever" to the Wüstenfuchs account and that it wasn't his, [189] then claimed all accounts but the Wüstenfuchs account weren't his, [190] and then claimed all but the Wüstenfuchs and K. Solin accounts weren't his. [191] Note he's deleted his AnulBanul userpage likely to make evidentiary diffs of his user page null and to make the RossaLuxx claim unverifiable. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal to take this to arbitration. I have been trying to go through all this information across the various wikis and admin reports, admissions of using multiple accounts without disclosure, admissions of ban evasion, admissions of violating topic bans, etc. I don't think ANI or SPI is the right place for either as the response will be "tl;dr" which is benefiting AnulBanul, as is the "different wikis have different policies" reasoning. He created the AnulBanul account after being given a two-year ban on the Croatian Wikipedia, in order to evade the ban (behavior not allowed on any Wikipedia) and AnulBanul was indeffed on the Croatian Wiki after being caught. As AnulBanul's favorite topics are areas under oversight, I think it needs to be taken to arbitration. Taking a random person's someone's photo off the Internet and uploading it to Commons as a "self-portrait" in order to use it on the a Wikipedia userpage to disguise oneself (sorry, this is not you [192]) is a significant violation of the rules, and should be investigated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't propose to take it to Arb, you either take it there or you don't. Please note that if you haven't even filed an SPI so a formal investigation can be done (and likely completely deal with since they can deal with anything, even behavior, and use Checkuser) then it will surely get thrown out. Arb is the final step after everything else has failed, not the first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See my comment to Мандичка above. SPI is unnecessary and the evidence against the other two accounts are just as definitive. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK struck out the proposal part. But my intention was to ask the people more familiar if they would like to take it to Arbitration. I just became aware of this situation, but it seems to me that the usual check user/ANI is not being effective in this case and are only of slight inconvenience to this editor. There are not enough people interested in taking the time to wade through this information on ANI. There is considerable, very aggressive gaming the system to avoid blocks and topic bans on multiple wikis, going back to at least 2008, all in order to make disruptive posts, and IMO there needs to be some kind of global checkuser to see the full extent. I've never created an Arb case so I don't know how to proceed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly cut-and-dried. The report is a bit TLDR, but its pretty blatant when you take a look. Uh.. will someone step in? -- Director (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Director, I honestly don't know what it is going to take for anyone to actually pay attention. Dennis Brown's response ("that's too long for me to be expected to read") is indicative of the apathy that has allowed this to go on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will eventually take the time... -- Director (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the complexities involved here (stemming from apparent wiliness in a seemingly problematic editor) mean that an arb case might be the most ideal solution, but those who want action here really ought to heeding Dennis' pragmatic advice on the matter. The arbs are going to be less than impressed by the issue being dropped into their laps without any intermediate steps in formal investigation. No matter how much a foregone conclusion the linking between the accounts is seen to be by those seeking action here, if they are not willing to file the arbitration case themselves, the best alternative course of action remains SPI. From a practical respect, it is most likely to lead to action regarding any breaking with policy. And if it doesn't work out, you'll be able to demonstrate that lower channels were pursued before taking the matter to ArbCom. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've posted an SPI. While I think it's redundant given all the surmounting evidence I also do think it's necessary to go through the lower channels before taking it upstairs as you've said. I note that AnulBanul is busy ridding evidence of his misconduct. [193] --Potočnik (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda

After an admin posted a warning not to violate WP:BLP at Talk:Battle of Shuja'iyya, the author of the source being discussed, Max Blumenthal, was then described by User:Averysoda as both an anti-Semite and a bigot, in successive edits.

• here and
• here

Averysoda was further advised by an admin on the inappropriateness of these remarks yet he brushed them off.

I advised him to strike out the offensive comments.

I notified him on his talk page of the problem.

He appears not to take these warnings seriously, since he talks past them.

The user has been alerted here.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Given his personal hostility to a known and established writer, his insistence on smearing him, I ask that he be sanctioned by being asked to refrain from editing any articles or pages where Blumenthal is being cited or discussed.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? I didn't know how to "strike off" comments until now. It wasn't my intention to offend your sensitivity and I deeply regret it.--Averysoda (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Your edit summary says:per censorship asked by Nishidani.

This means that you think striking out a smear is not compliance with policy, but bending to a threat by another editor who is acting as a censor. If you believe Blumenthal, against all the evidence, is an anti-Semite, and a bigot (as opposed to a critic of bigotry, you shouldn't be editing anywhere near articles where he is cited, or discussions boards regarding him as a source. My sensitivities have nothing to do with it.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent. Notice the sanction being requested (for an alleged first offense by a relatively new user) would solve a problem for Nishidani, not the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's problem, as far as there is one, was solved when "bigot" was struck out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Another personal attack, as several on the page. I am asking for an independent judgement not a partisan harangue by either side. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Nishidani. I recognize I made a mistake. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Strong words like "antisemite" and "bigoted" are not appropriate, even when they were written in the heat of discussion, as you may understand (in response to the "repulsive Jewish state" you mentioned). I won't repeat those words again. Could we move on with the main subject of the debate, which is to determine whether Blumenthal is a reliable source or not?--Averysoda (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda's recent comment suggests the editor doesn't understand that WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, not a matter of violating another editor's delicate "sensitivity". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read his comment just above yours? You neglected to mention he removed the comment you reference above, 15 minutes after posting it and before you brought it up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow the sequence of events before claiming a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent? Cus I see the user declining to strike claims that a living person is a bigoted anti-semite until this was brought here. Might be a better idea to advise your pal to not smear living people on Wikipedia instead of arguing with the people who specifically asked him to remove the comment at his or her talk page before anyone brought it up here. And even after being brought here, its not that the smear has no place here, its that Averysoda thinks the problem is offending [Nishidani's] sensitivities. You know what is pretty clear here? When a user goes through these acrobatics at AN/I it isnt because they actually recognize a mistake, its that they are worried about being sanctioned so they say whatever they think they need to so that they may avoid that. Oh, and its also pretty clear that a support network will come to their aid in waving off any problem instead of trying to take them aside and informing them that we have certain standards of behavior here, and insulting living people without basis violates that. nableezy - 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that most of your edits in the last month were either reverting or talking about edits by the subject of this report, regardless of a BLP violation. I doubt your ability to read their mind (or perhaps you were just projecting). It's also pretty clear that a new editor is unlikely to respond well to this kind of "request". And lastly, it's pretty clear that treating new editors harshly doesn't serve Wikipedia's dwindling editor count that well, either.

He made a minor BLP violation and corrected it. Please explain why you are agitating for a sanction for a first offence that was corrected fairly quickly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I didnt know my edits were the subject here. Or yours for that matter. Calling a living person an anti-semite and a bigot is not a minor BLP violation and refusing to take it down when asked to by 2 editors until an AN/I report is filed, and then saying that they are taking it down to rectify the offense to another's sensitivities is not correcting it fairly quickly. I havent agitated for anything by the way. Id just like to see a Wikipedia in which people dont rush to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating, and instead tries to advise them what the proper thing to do is. Guess that aint what this place is yet tho. nableezy - 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A. He called him a bigot, not an anti-semite. B. It was corrected within 2 hours and 7 minutes. That's fairly quickly in my book. C. I'm fairly certain he now understands what he can and can't say re living persons. D. Do I need to show some examples of you "rush[ing] to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating"? Because that won't be hard to do. So kindly cut the bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A. he also said And I don't care if that guy is Jewish ... I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him. B. It might be fairly quickly if it hadn't been a shade under 2 hours from when this notice was posted. A notice that was answered in 2 minutes with a I'm going to completely ignore the issue comment. And then another request that the material be removed was likewise fairly quickly shrugged off as "meaningless". It only was fairly quickly removed when it was brought here, when a praise the heavens Saul has fallen off his ass moment appears to have struck, and either it was that the user self-reflected during the 15 minutes between the last time the user decided that it was meaningless to call smearing a living person offensive and come to the conclusion that it really is against out policies to use such language, or it was fear of being sanctioned and doing whatever they felt necessary to reduce that chance. Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say it was the latter. C. Im not. D. Go right ahead, though that would once again fall under obfuscating from the issue at hand, but I would be interested in seeing what you come up with. Because I, nor you, are under discussion here. And as much as you would like to deflect from what is, the fact remains that it is Averysoda's actions that are pertinent here. nableezy - 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That was very long and I kinda lost interest somewhere in the middle. What's your point? That he should receive some kind of serious sanction because for two hours it said on a talk page that a living person was a bigot, and that Averysoda didn't respond well to someone who was a complete jerk to him? What do you want exactly? I think the fact you follow him around and revert him on pages you've never edited before [194] is quite relevant to why you're here, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe if you pay attention and make it past somewhere in the middle youll see I havent actually asked for sanctions. As far as following him around, when a user repeatedly makes poor edits and says dishonest things in their edit summaries which result in unambiguous violations of policy, I sometimes check where else that has happened and correct those issues. I think you should actually read WP:HOUND and see the part about fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. But again, my edits arent the subject of this report. Deflect all you like, but your pal is the one that has been editing poorly. nableezy - 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda seems to be engaged with various editors on a number of pages, he seems not interested in dialogue but to create various edits to suit a POV or nationalist agenda. Another report has been added on his page today, I fear this will only escalate as obviously Averysoda has been caught up in a very serious nationalist agenda. I see no alternative but to a 6 month topic ban in relations to History of Israel, conflicts in involving Israel including pre-modern state and all Arab-Israeli conflicts. --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This was a WP:BLP violation, but in my limited interaction with Averysoda, he seems to be amenable to reasonable argument. For instance, he reverted his edit here, after I explained policy to him, and also he understood my explanation of WP:PRESERVE here. He seems to be a new user, so a bit of leeway is fine. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I think this latest edit sums up what we are dealing with here. Averysoda actually broke a 1RR rule, but then relised his mistake reversed this, and wait until today to revert without breaking the rules. Surely if we were dealing with a constructive and friendly editor in the time awaiting to revert within the rules, he could have taken to the talk pages. This will only get worse. When I have more time I will go through his full history --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That does look bad. I wonder if he realizes that WP:1RR and WP:3RR are simply bright lines, and edit warring, even if slow-moving, is not allowed? He should read WP:GAMING. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I've now started to look at his history, I can say with full confidence Averysoda is fully aware edit-waring isn't allowed, there has been enough warnings on his page. He has also demonstrated he is not willing to engage with anyone in the talk pages, as I'm really struggling to find any talk page comments from this user. Clearly has set himself on a path of editing and edit warring until pages look how he wishes with very little engagement with other users.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL! That's funny. The pot calling the kettle black (Rockybiggs is seeing the mote in one's brother's eye without noticing he has been engaged in clear edit-warring many times before).--Averysoda (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Far from pot kettle, this was clearly edit warring by yourself, I've engaged on the talk page and a consensus was reached by a majority. You have taken no interest in that talk page or any page you edit, I cannot find one talk page comment. This causes myself and others great concern, as your actions go against the community, and why I strongly back a topic ban and until you prove otherwise--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rockybiggs, can you please explain your next attempt to add "terrorist" word to a Lede w/out any discussion? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Next Rockybiggs's attempt w/out any reply, as min, here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Igorp lj I'm not actually sure if you are serious, as you mention 'attempt to add without any w/out any discussion?'. This has been discussed with the majority in favour of adding Terrorist to the lead. Averysoda is the one who months later has come along, NEVER posted on a talk page and started reverting. I presume you haven't seen this talk page or just a supporter of Averysoda POV agenda. here is proof we have an editor who is engaged in WP:IDontLikeit in nearly every page he edits and edit wars all over the place--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious and see these your non-consensus edits/reverts made w/out any discussion (and even after this edit of someone who surely isn't supporter of Averysoda :) as a trick and POV-Pushing . --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are serious and you keep making the odd claim I haven't discussed this on the talk page, when a 2 second view proves I have, I can only assume your a supporter of the POV Averysoda, and this will be my last post in this rather pointless discussion.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed now that you are plunking, without reading the text, a blob or two from a dated book by a novelist who ventured into the intricate history of the PLO, on several pages, and whose book is so dated she only got it back into print by self-republishing it. This is becoming a behavioural issue. At South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) here and here. This broke 1R. The same blob is introduced now at 1982 Lebanon War

That article has a well documented section which reads:

Between July 1981 and June 1982, as a result of the Habib ceasefire, the Lebanese-Israeli border "enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968."[7] But the 'calm' was tense. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig's fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.[29] The 'calm' lasted nine months. Then, on 21 April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer while he was visiting a South Lebanese Army gun emplacement in Taibe, Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force attacked the Palestinian-controlled coastal town of Damour, killing 23 people

The blobs you introduced from [[Jillian Becker] then read:

after constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee in northern Israel.(lead

From the ceasefire, established in July 1981, until the start of the war, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad).Becker, Jillian (1984). PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization. AuthorHouse. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4918-4435-9.

I.e. we have sources saying there was calm on the borders preceding the war. And you come up with a source with an outdated piece of official propaganda no one takes seriously any more, which says the exact opposite, a piece of hasbara at the time which was buried by later research, and edit-war to keep it in.

(a) Becker's work is so dated, and is only the Israeli official line which historiography doesn't accept, even in Israel, that the edition you cite is 'self-published'.

(b)You haven't even troubled to read the text. The figures you introduce stand in start contrast to the actual data given by the UN peacekeeping body observing Israeli and Palestinian behavior on both sides of the border. Articles are meant to have internal cogency and be neutral. You cannot plunk 'stuff' in that implies the documented remainder of the text is false. You are hyperactively dumping 'stuff' without considering the mess it causes, as here. Sheer POV-pushing in multiple articles, with very little talk page justification. Any attempt to revert you gets reverted.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Becker is a reliable journalist that was on the ground during the Lebanon conflict. In addition, I found two more reliable sources (from books) in just a few minutes, also reporting PLO attacks from Lebanon as a reason for the 1982 Israeli invasion. In any case, I don't understand why you refuse to discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of here.--Averysoda (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Except you blatantly distorted at least one of those sources. nableezy - 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

- @Averysoda: Violating wp:blp is a serious matter, but next time you might say: In 2013, Blumenthal appeared in ninth place on that year's Simon Wiesenthal Center list of anti-Semitic Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be disruptive. Anyone critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians is ipso facto anti-Semite in a certain quarterbaked lowbrow variety of polemics that thrive on smear for want of arguments. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• "reasons given (by Simon Wiesenthal Center --Igorp_lj (talk)) being that chapter titles in the book Goliath were used to "equate Israel with the Nazi regime" and that Blumenthal had quoted "approvingly characterizations of Israeli soldiers as 'Judeo-Nazis.'"

):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal mentions being on the Simon Wiesenthal Center list with pride. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWrOuGNrzZc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.178.10 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: pls more details about "blatantly distorted" --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scientus

I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

• Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[195][196] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[197][198]
• Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.

There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [199]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [200] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• In making the following personal attack, "...FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!", Scientus blanked the warning and then rebuffed the admin that warned him about the attack. This isn't promising.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [201] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk, contribs) has engaged in an array of disruptive editing over the past five days, edit warring and violating 3RR on numerous pages. He has also used roving unlogged-IP addresses to evade 3RR (mostly of the series 212.5.158.xxx). He violated 3RR at Tervel of Bulgaria (history) on 26-27 June. He was blocked from editing for a day on 27 June for edit warring and misuse of logged-out editing at Kardam of Bulgaria (history). On 1 July he engaged in further disruption at Kardam and at several other pages: for example, Krum (history), Malamir of Bulgaria (history), and Kotrag (history). The editor repeatedly adds POV content and non-RS sources. This has been explained to him on multiple talk pages: especially here, but also here, here, and on his user talk page. WP guidelines such as RS have been pointed out to the user, but he has ignored them. His edits have required users such as myself, User:Cplakidas, User:TodorBozhinov, and others to track and remove them and repeatedly explain WP policy to him, to no avail. The initial block on his editing privileges clearly has not stopped his disruptive behavior, and a further block should be instituted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User is currently evading their block by using IP's (212.5.158.188 and 212.5.158.218) to edit the articles and leave disruptive user talk page message. I've added one month page protection to the articles. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: User is now evading the block under the IP 176.12.58.89 (contribs), edit warring with the same edits as before. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex Page protected, IP block and reverted all their edits. I have a feeling this will take awhile till they stop. Give a yell if you see any more "fun". Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP

Here's the legal threat against Nigel Ish, which is enough to block the guy. However, what is needed here is a rangeblock to stop this persistent IP-hopper who has also used the account Philm540. Here are some examples of the IPs he has used in the last two months:

IPs used by Philm540

2600:1002:B026:3B15:5023:A0CF:239A:54A5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) July 1 2600:1002:B02A:6E9F:A440:A154:A891:C66E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 20, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B02F:7360:274:FBFC:C740:AE58 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 20, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B012:481D:9FDC:FFF4:D8B7:11BD (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 18, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B010:4CF5:6151:BA46:10A3:AD99 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 18, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B021:745F:6936:DA24:2C8F:5CC2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 16, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B012:E1F9:83BE:9989:1BC0:18C9 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 16, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B012:F6EA:61F1:44A2:84FD:F46A (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 15, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B018:3E84:A9E4:4531:471E:FFA1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 14, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B021:39B3:D3E0:214D:B0D:BC09 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 13–14, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B02A:146F:4B45:60B:2EDC:3F9E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 13, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B002:D06F:D3FE:240E:7C41:4CE4 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 12, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B02C:990A:FD35:654E:BF35:F679 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 11, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B004:FE2D:C571:E033:7D59:41A2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 10, blocked for 31 hours 2600:1002:B025:785E:6A25:DBF1:88AC:91C6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 8 2600:1002:B021:4531:9672:AC80:E0DB:C659 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 7, blocked for 72 hours 2600:1002:B012:7C5B:BF9A:8719:A745:997E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 7, blocked for 36 hours 2600:1002:B02B:7E37:6467:468A:438B:7AB5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 6 2600:1002:B020:1D4C:C2D4:1D6A:70B2:941E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 5, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B01A:8ABD:B7B7:EB64:7394:DFD8 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 5, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 5, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B023:61A7:BF0A:E9DC:25D8:F585 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 5 2600:1002:B005:FC0E:C81A:6599:227C:46E3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 4 2600:1002:B021:651E:A02D:9800:4DA1:4EAC (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 4 2600:1002:B010:D028:AFC4:ADB5:453D:290D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 4, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B00D:405:FA26:7363:F8F0:2AAE (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 4 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 3–4 2600:1002:B003:FE65:591C:60B8:8DF5:9A4 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 3, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B021:C8A4:7D58:C5AD:61AE:CDD5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 2, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) June 1, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B01C:F2F4:CE18:C836:521E:F31D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 30–31, blocked for one week 2600:1002:B00F:563C:35C7:2CD9:3B84:73C (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 30 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 30 2600:1002:B018:6A5F:B25E:122C:D609:A553 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 29–30 2600:1002:B001:F56:70D2:24B1:BC19:4566 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 29 2600:1002:B001:5F8A:BCEB:9125:6444:12CA (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 29 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 28–29 2600:1002:B121:F8D9:28E9:7CD1:8E76:919E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 27 2600:1002:B117:1F1:B66A:6DFC:5761:AEF3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 27 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 26 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 26 2600:1002:B007:1A52:BB64:A4D7:DC35:303D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 25 2600:1002:B002:C707:829E:F5DC:9AE3:1F5D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 24–25 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 23–24 2600:1002:B02E:6C76:E04C:2B3C:876:9C66 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 23 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 22–23 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 22 2600:1002:B002:9140:AF95:F05E:7146:3F3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 22 2600:1002:B10C:D911:ACFD:FFF1:F0AC:6EE4 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 21–22 2600:1002:B00A:6AE1:683E:6854:A938:FB6F (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 21 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 21 Philm540 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) May 21 2600:1002:B02F:B257:9505:79F7:7AE9:55ED (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 20 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 19 2600:1002:B015:3D2:535:7FE0:E0BC:CF2D (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 18 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 17–18 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 14–15 2600:1002:B02C:5817:FFEE:E01B:49F2:A273 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) May 5 Some of his contributions were by way of IP4 addresses, an early one from Pennsylvania, and a later one from Delaware and then back to Pennsylvania. 70.192.143.183 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) July 1–2 70.192.135.127 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) June 20-21, 2015 70.192.142.18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29 70.192.132.95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 29 70.215.70.52 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 27–28 70.192.141.249 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 17–18 70.192.143.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) May 3–5

The username Philm540 has been used on various military-aircraft-topic online discussion boards, some with a full name appended to the post.

One of the problems we are having with Philm540 is that he refuses to cite his sources, since he is a self-reported world-wide expert recognized for decades as one of the very best in his field. He apparently believes he can make any statement against a published source and have his word trump the source.[202]

So for a rangeblock, it looks like it would have to be as broad as 2600:1002:Bxxx. Settling for 2600:1002:B0xx would get most of these IPs, as there are only a few 2600:1002:B1s. I have not seen any other activity at these IPs so I am not worried about collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All seem to be Verizon Wireless IPs. Would 2600:1002::/47 work, or is that too big? Still having the troubles with figuring the IPv6 rangeblocks. The IPv4 range is a /20 for the 70.192.x.x group, and that might be too broad. KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, that would be far too small. I think you would need to do 2600:1002:B000::/39 which would cover 2600:1002:B000::-2600:1002:B1FF:: if my understanding is correct. Your proposed block would block 2600:1002:0000::-2600:1002:0002:: *I think*. Monty₈₄₅ 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: you're right - it's 2600:1002:B000::/39. Until/unless he gives us more data and we can narrow it down we should block the IPv4 addresses individually. KrakatoaKatie 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I should show my work in connecting Philm540 to the IPs. First, I cannot say what I know about the real life identity of Philm540, but I can say that the person lives in Pennsylvania, the same area to which the IPs geolocate. Second, Philm540 made this strange edit, which is a copy and paste of this edit by one of the IP6s. Third, Philm540 made this edit with Saipan spelled Siapan, and AAF written Aaf, and Group spelled Goup. All of the IPs listed here have spelling and typography which is equally bad, such as "engiine fire extingusher", and this tangle of typos. If I find the exact above-listed typos in the hundreds of posts by IPs I will be surprised. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This user has been blocked previously for personal attacks and disruptive edits, due to the nature of IP hopping I have had to block the pop-up IPs sometimes one or two times a day, I and others have tried to discuss his edits and blocks but it is has been clear that the user doesnt understand how wikipedia works and the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thanks to the work of Binksternet he has tied the IP use to User:Philm540, also note that at [203] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as an IP. Perhaps after the legal threat and previous personal attacks we should consider a site ban of user. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Todays IP is 2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 2 July - still in the same 2600:1002:B block. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it does look as though we need a rangeblock. If there is collateral damage it is unfortunate, but necessary. The alternative is going to long-term semi protection of all affected articles. An action which would appear to involve more collateral damage than the proposed rangeblock. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2600:1002:B000::/39 blocked one month for sockpuppetry. Holding on the Philm540 account because I think a site ban proposal is a good idea. KrakatoaKatie 13:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to KrakatoaKatie for the rangeblock! Note that another IPv4 has become involved: 70.192.143.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I started a long-term abuse case page about Philm540 which can be seen here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540. That page has a few more IPs which are not listed here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can do 70.192.141.0/24, which is 256 addresses, then block the other IPv4 addresses individually for now. Opinions? KrakatoaKatie 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would help, I'm sure. That's the central area of IPv4 disruption. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done 70.192.141.0/24 and the other IPv4 addresses listed in the LTA case blocked one month. If the month is insufficient and someone wants to extend them, I have no objection. KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Philm540

• Philm540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of his insulting personal communication style, his refusal to work with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and no original research policy, and especially because of the legal threat made against Nigel Ish, I propose that Philm540 be banned from English-language Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support the user is clearly not here to work with others, refuses to listen and attacks other editors including legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne Surely the problem is that the legal threat is not substantiated. Obviously other issues are of import but, if an editor has not broken the law, an editor can reply to a substantiated "legal notice". GregKaye 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry GregKaye I dont really understand your comment, the user clearly made a threat to use legal action against one or more editors, I dont understand what you mean by "substantiated" in this context it is not a term mentioned at WP:NLT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne one human being presented what was claimed to be a "legal notice" against another human being. One thing that has long been buzzing in the back of my mind is to ask if there is a legal president for saying that Wikipedia can deny access to legal options. Within which court was this decided? GregKaye 17:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Still dont understand what you are on about the user made a threat of legal action, if you have a problem with wikipedia policy then I would suggest you raise it at the WT:NLT as it is not relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that in a situation in which wrong has been done according to relevant national or international laws then a person naturally has the prerogative to maintain her or his legal rights by any means of their choosing. Editing Wikipedia is certainly a privilege that that can be taken away for any reason by editorial consensus. However I would find it questionable for an editor to be excluded because they followed their constitutional rights.

However this is in no way meant to indicate that I dispute any of the other issues presented. GregKaye 17:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not the forum for GregKaye to question the policy of WP:NLT, which Philm540 has certainly violated. If GregKaye thinks NLT should be modified, there's always the option of starting a discussion on the NLT talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support clearly this editor's presence here is highly disruptive, refuses to follow policy and will not engage constructively with other editors. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a "smoking gun" that links this account to the disruptive IPs? (Yes, I agree there's circumstantial evidence here, but I'm hoping for something more...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment at [204] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as a 2600:1002 IP. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Regretfully Support. I think this editor is a very informed expert in a variety of fields and could become a very productive member of Wikipedia. I am willing to be a mentor if the editor chooses to come back under a "new" identity, and takes the time to learn the "ins-and-outs" of the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, he's a topic expert, but I think he's best suited to publishing his work external to Wikipedia, with an editorial team combing through his grammar and facts. I don't think he's cut out for collaborative teamwork. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Though disruption has stopped due to the blocks, he cannot be allowed to make legal threats. KrakatoaKatie 15:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley, genre warring again

Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([205]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.

Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

They will not stop. Just a few from today: [206], [207] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are admins ignoring this? All the damage he is causing will take so much time to fix. You can't just simply remove genres with no excuse. Many of the genres are sourced, but in the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.

Earl King Jr. is a single purpose account dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc.]] to a single article, and reducing the text in that article. In that effort, King has successfully removed the Zeitgeist Movement page and crammed all mention into a small paragraph on the Zeitgeist (film series) page. King is tendentious and bullying in discussion. See:

• 2 July 2015
• 00:26, 1 July 2015
• 01:36, 30 June 2015 (subsequently modified by King when I pointed out that it was a personal attack)

King frequently attributes improper motives to other editors, accusing them of being "Zeitgiest supporters," "sock puppets," and "meat puppets." See:

• 00:46, 20 May 2015
• 16:25 00:35, 22 May 2015
• 16:25, 19 May 2015
• 07:20, 19 May 2015
• 00:27, 16 May 2015
• 07:56, 27 December 2014]

King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [208] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources. My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [209] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

The last AN discussion was [210] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have:

Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. Thomas.W ^talk 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been editing on the Zeitgeist page for about two weeks (drawn by RFC), during that period I have agreed with EKJr on almost nothing. However my experience of his behaviour has been that he 'backs off' when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. In contrast, other editors on talk don't simply 'lose their cool' occasionally, but appear to prefer a 'gladitorial' approach, of which this ANI and the recent BLP are manifestations. I invite others to examine the recent talk page and come to their own judgements as to whether banning EKJr, would achieve anything.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has pointed out to me that my invovement at the time of this post was actually 3 weeks and ! day, not 'about two weeks'.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmmm The original complaint here is that EKJ is "dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc. to a single article. Well, as for the Zeitgeist Movement, looking at the last version, pretty much 90% of the content and sources were actually about the movies. So in that case, EKJ appears to be correct. And that article, since its redirection, has seen nothing but sockpuppets trying to restore it. Meanwhile, looking at Peter Joseph, he looks a bit marginal in notability terms as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015

Perhaps it is not correct to accuse people of sockpuppetry until you open a sockpuppet investigation. Some of us are just trying to create a respectable Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support (response to Pincrete's oppose) Two weeks isn't nearly enough, I think. I've been watching this topic for years and EKJ really stands out with his relentless efforts to make these articles as negative and crappy as possible, and argues over damn near everything he possibly can. Look at his edit analysis and top edited pages to see the extent of this. From what I've seen, he interprets policy to fit his own agenda (i.e. he's not being truly neutral), and his own improvements to the articles have often been sloppy/poorly written. The Zeitgeist talk pages are full of angry arguments every single day and this has been going on for ages now, literally years. I think the rest of us really deserve a vacation from him. There have been plenty of other editors active on these pages who are neutral (I mean, not-pro-Zeitgeist) who are perfectly capable of keeping these articles in line with policy and dealing with the occasional pro-Zeitgeist SPAs that show up every now and then. EKJs participation isn't necessary and frankly I think he's the one who has wasted the most of our collective time (and nerves). The topic itself isn't worth it. These movies are relatively old by now. Why is it such a big deal? I don't know. A forced topic ban seems like the best way to deal with this. Pincrete, I completely understand why you see that "the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated" -- it's happening now because we've finally had enough of him and we feel the need to make it very obvious. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I forgot about King inventing WP rules to support his edits, e.g., alleging that WP does not mention paid events,[211]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing King's serial copyright violations on other pages, I think a General Ban is in order. Such editors are a liability to the Wikipedia project, and not just a topic. (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC))
• Support I think EKJ deserves credit for combating zealous pro-Zeitgeist SPAs screwing with the page, especially when it was at the height of its popularity, but his contributions outside of that have been mired in consistently pushing sloppy anti-Zeitgeist content to such extreme lengths. It is a polarizing article/topic and emotions run high, but when it gets to where you'd use capitalization as a weapon, it's time to find another article to work on. He has demonstrated he is capable of spotting poor/weak content when it fits his agenda, so I believe he'd be an asset to any collaboration on a mainstream article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. EKJ has a long history of using Zietgeist-related talk pages as a soapbox for venting his own personal opinions, routinely characterises contributors who disagree with him as 'SPAs' or claims thet they have been canvassed to edit, and as a matter of habit assesses sources not on their reliability and significance, but instead on whether they conform with his personal perspective - see for example his recent attempt to use a conspiracy-theorists forum in support of arguments, [212] (see the first link - to here [213]), and his attempt (in the same post) to cite a source [214] as evidence that TZM is 'right wing', when the source actually writes "in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom - The community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing by multiple editors on this subject in the recent past. It is true that EKJ has engaged in tendentious editing on Zeitgeist. At the same time, User:AndyTheGrump has engaged in over-the-top personal attacks on EKJ. A previous WP:AN thread was archived without action. Singling out any one editor for sanctions would oversimplify the scope of the problem. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify multiple problematic editing patterns. While some of the topics of Zeitgeist are already within the scope of discretionary sanctions under either September 11 conspiracy theories, American politics since 1933, or biographies of living persons, imposing discretionary sanctions on all aspects of Zeitgeist would be helpful also. A full evidentiary hearing should be requested to identify multiple patterns of disruptive editing. (My own involvement is that I attempted to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mediation resulted in three RFCs and was unpleasant due to battleground editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I will readily admit that my behaviour over this issue hasn't always been ideal - I would however prefer it if Robert McClenon didn't single me out , and then go on to imply that I was engaging in 'battleground editing' in a DRN discussion I took no part in whatsoever - it should be noted that I wasn't involved at all in the 'unpleasant' DRN discussion. As for taking this to ArbCom, I personally don't think it would be necessary if EKJ is topic banned, and will reiterate what I said in the last ANI discussion - that if EKJ is topic banned, I am happy to stay away from the topic myself. I had voluntarily stayed away from the topic for a long period, and only returned to it as a result of seeing the way EKJ's behaviour was affecting encyclopaedic coverage in a clearly unacceptable manner - the fact that few people apparently like the movies, the movement, or Peter Joseph isn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to cherry-pick sources in an entirely partisan manner. Either the subject is notable, in which case it deserves balanced treatment, or it isn't, in which case it doesn't merit coverage at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - Earl King Jr has in the past made groundless accusations towards other editors, made up policy as he goes along (for example 'Wikipedia doesn't mention paid events'), been unable to recognise his own bias, treated articles as if owned them and used policy as a threat. He seems to play a tactic of mirroring arguments made by other editors, for example, if accused of a personal attack, he will say he is being attacked; or if BLP violation is raised then he find his own BLP issue.

All that said I believe his behaviour towards other editors has improved. Also, he has and can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would recommend a temporary topic ban of six months. This would make him consider his behaviour without being too punitive. It could also lead to a broadening of his Wikipedia edits.

Additionally, AndyTheGrump should also be topic banned for six months for making personal attacks against Earl King Jr. This made it harder to keep on track discussing the controversial issue of Zeitgeist, as an experienced editor he should have known this isn't helpful. As AndyTheGrump has volunteered to stay away from the topic if Earl King Jr is banned this could be a mute point.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand how an editor can be topic-banned from personal attacks. Personal attacks have been forbidden since 2002. AndyTheGrump has been banned from personal attacks since August 2010, when he began editing. He can be warned about personal attacks, but a ban on them that expires would exempt him from a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant AndyTheGrump should be topic banned for six months, because his edits there have included personal attacks that have not helped the situation. Not that he should be topic-banned from personal attacks banned for six months.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom. The Zeitgeist area has, from the beginning, attracted problematic pov-pushing which has defied attempts at resolution through the usual wikipedia mechanisms. When I last worked on that area, EKJ was mostly a force for good, although I was worn down by the constant battles (and extensive sockpuppetry and quotemining by people trying to make Zeitgeist articles look really positive) so I haven't looked closely for some time. If the battles continue, then I think Arbcom is the best option. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Earl King Jr. knows how to be covert and subtle and for over 3 years, with great success, he had been able to dominate and overrun well meaning people looking to simply put truthful, neutral and honest data on Zeitgeist related pages. Many talk about how there are "fluff" forces from the Zeitgeist Club. This is what he started as a theme if you look at his history. Anyone who is not negative must be a "pro zeitgeist cult member" in his own words. He started in 2012 and since then has been a single purpose editor focused entirely on making sure nothing balanced is ever put on Z pages. I am amazed at how biased and intolerant Earl King Jr is and how obsessive his interest to flame and pollute has been. He should be removed from ever editing anything Zeitgeist related if there is any expectation to see neutrality.JWilson0923 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Obviously Earl King has no intention of being neutral about anything Zeitgeist Film or Movement related. He/she is exactly what makes people not trust Wikipedia Sanjit45 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The ArbCom filing finally convinced me to look at this thread and into his edits. An edit-warring, disruptive SPA bent solely on non-neutrally and unilaterally wiping out content from Wikipedia? Has my vote for a complete topic ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If Earl can benefit the encyclopedia, it isn't on this or related topics. He is far too biased and disruptive to be of any use here. OnlyInYourMindT 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Dennis Brown. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. BMK (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose...topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft. I've mentioned before that this "movement" doesn't even exist...almost zero references indicate that it does. The documentary producer is also not notable...that is why these articles were all rolled into one. The movies are notable but not remarkably. There must be a better solution than a topic ban. Why not simply put the article on 1RR and monitor the talk page for policy violations. Earl King surely knows what his boundaries are by now.--MONGO 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

MONGO: The first problem with your argument is that it assumes the "movement" or the "director" are relevant to the discussion. This is about EKJ's conduct. But, since you are playing games (and are likely a sock-puppet of EKJ) - the "movement", as per any simple search via Google shows endless notability and secondary press, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Marker, the Guardian, the Examiner, Hollywood Today, Russian Today, Ora.tv and beyond. As far as the "director", he not only made globally known, award winning films, (all of which meet Wikipedia standards and have been translated in a dozen languages and beyond), he is professional music video director with credits like Black Sabbath and Lili Haydn. He has also deviated and given talks at the Global Summit, Leaders Causing Leaders, Occupy Wall St. and two TED talks. He also had a recent Huffington Post profile article for his new film InterReflections. Also, all of these articles have been with Wikipedia for 4-6 years. It has only been people like Earl King Jr. that, in the deep minority, have forced their will to create these false claims of a lack of notability. So please...JWilson0923 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft" -- that's a completely invalid (and inaccurate) argument, and sounds manipulative as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me show you manipulative...that's when you remove cited information that is in quotes and is accurate and claim its some BLP violation...as you did [here. Why would you do that? Because you didn't like the information? How is it a BLP violation? Like I said, if Earl is eliminated it allows fancruft to take over.--MONGO 09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No single individual stands alone with his finger in the dyke protecting the Encyclopedia from a tide of "fancruft." There has been little vandalism in the last few months and no Zeitgeist "fans" have been identified. An imaginary horrible enemy should not be used to justify very real disruptive editing, personal attacks, and bullying. Evidence of the former is missing, while evidence of the latter abounds and is cited in these ANIs. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We are presented with the contradictory argument that (1) there is no movement, and (2) Wikipedia must be ever vigilant and use extraordinary measures to protect that truthful statement from the "flood" of movement members who would edit the article to say otherwise. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are we presented with this argument? It isn't anyway contradictory. I've no idea whether there is a movement, I know there are insufficient sources to say very much about WHAT it is. IPs spamming WP individually or in floods isn't proof of anything.Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per MONGO. EKJ doesn't seem to be the worst offender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe SPA is a good reason to ban someone, I imagine many experts wish to edit few articles. That said, EKJ has shown extreme bias, over an extended period, on this article and has lost the ability to be trusted.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP ia not the vehicle for spreading cruft and Earl King Jr. is just following guidelines and policy. This appears to be a content a dispute, not sanctionable behavior. Failing to convince him that he should change his views and failing to establish consensus is not a basis for a topic ban of a single opposing editor. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support for a topic ban. Without question one of the most disruptive, battleground editors I've come across during my years here. I had followed these articles for a long time and had come across Earl many times. Here are 6 ANI's that have been brought against him: [215] - [216] - [217] - [218] - [219] - [220] ---- If you've had little or no involvement with this editor, take the time and have a look at these past ANI's. The fact that a topic ban hasn't happened yet is, in my opinion, largely due to the small number of editors that have watched these articles over time. At the end of the day the question for me is this: "Does having Earl editing this topic area result in a net benefit to the overall project?" ---- Now, have IP's supportive of the movement sometimes disrupted the page? Of course they have, but it's nothing other editors can't handle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it is some time since Somedifferentstuff was involved with this article, (apologies if I'm wrong). I know that he was one of a number of editors canvassed to vote here [221], (all of those selectively contacted on their talk pages have so far voted to support a ban, except bobrayner who supports Arbcom)Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe it was some time since MONGO was involved with this article too. I wouldn't presume to undermine MONGO's opinion on that basis. Notices were posted on articles and attracted involved/uninvolved individuals. Whether right or wrong, it is unjust to single out one editor from many who joined the discussion and argue for dismissing their participation. It's rude. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If Mongo was contacted privately to come here, I hope someone will point it out to the ANI.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Reading the talk page, its a battleground over content. It doesnt appear they are the only problem here and removing one side of a content dispute is never a good idea. Are there problems? Yes, but it doesnt appear they rise to the level of a topic ban. AlbinoFerret 13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• As per comments by User:Jonpatterns, Oppose any topic-ban that does not also apply to AndyTheGrump. To single out one disruptive editor would send the message that personal attacks are an appropriate way to deal with tendentious editing. Weak Support for a topic-ban for both. Would still prefer Community General Sanctions or Arbitration, because the problem is complex and not limited to one or two disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This feels to me too much like trying to resolve a long-running content dispute by collecting everything a user has done and dumping it all at once in hopes that he'll be removed. His behavior certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's pretty clear that he's not the main source of the problems on that page; there's a longer-running content dispute for which people on all sides have responsibility. I'm also a bit bothered by the number of comments above that say things like "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act" or the like -- the purpose of sanctions is to get users to improve; if he's behaving now, then it doesn't make sense to sanction him. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think anyone has said "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act", but rather he doesn't soapbox as often and is getting better at defending tendentious edits civilly. Legitimate improvement or not, it remains disruptive. By comparison a content dispute would be a picnic. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think you have to go back more than two weeks to get the full picture. He's been under the eye of the last report for the last 4 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown I have only skimmed past discussions and so will not comment, beyond saying that if the purpose of a ban is not to punish, but to effect change, even less is it as an excuse to punish for 'stale' crimes. Could we have the diffs to make our own assesments? My own judgement over the last few weeks is that the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are in the discussion, the archives and the previous ANI that was linked. And the purpose of a topic ban, like a block, isn't to effect change. It is to prevent disruption. Unlike a block, a topic ban lets them contribute elsewhere, and in time, show they can eventually edit in that area again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, clarification, I didn't mean to affect change to the individual, rather to the 'climate' on the article, so in that sense we agree.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, it just wasn't in the typical "wikispeak" I'm used to. That said, I know very little about the editor except he is a regular source of controversy. Either the community will support or oppose, but hopefully we will be done bickering either way. Sometimes you have to just put it on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm an IP, so I don't expect my opinion matters much, but in the short time I've been active I've noticed lots of sloppy edits in the article, that, if not originate from EKJ, are/were defended doggedly by him. Like including cherry picked from unrelated sources, blanking synopsis and recommending negative film review take it's place, weird edits that push POV OR that article should stress over the top that films/organization/name are owned by the director 1, 2, edit warring on capitalizing proper noun, and inserting flamebait which probably makes article the source of so much vandalism. That said, I think his greatest contributions have been keeping out FRINGE Zeitgeist supporting primary source content. I don't know if that excuses the sloppy anti-Zeitgeist POV pushing that ends up creating just as much work to wade through and clean up though. I'm pretty sure any of the neutral editors that hang around article would be capable of improving quality of article without fueling as much drama. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You are an IP, you have as much right to !vote above as anyone else, so feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned in the opening statement regarding the Zeitgeist articles and Earl's desire to see them merged together (as such I feel this is a valid exemption as outlined in my conduct noticeboard ban). To respond to what Black Kite is saying, a big part of the reason the article on The Zeitgeist Movement was mostly about the movies is because of Earl's editing. See these two discussions I previously had over his edits to minimize material about the movement in favor of material about the movies in the article on the movement. When these articles were merged it was actually because an RfC I initiated over whether the reception section should be about the movement or the movies got hijacked into a merge discussion. My involvement in this has included past discussions of Earl's behavior in this topic area. You can see some evidence I presented in that thread from a few months ago regarding his edits, a link to a past discussion about his conduct where I was involved, and evidence of him engaging in copy-right infringing edits on multiple articles related to Cambodia, which still remains a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Without characterization, must be seen to be believed: [222] and [223] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• AndyTheGrump cites King's copyright violations in an earlier ANI: [224][225][226][227] on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 July 2015

It was The Devil's Advocate who earlier raise this, not me. I've not been involved with the articles in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that quite a number of the diffs being offered date back to Dec. 2014, or are not on 'Zeitgeist' pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the diffs in the original list dates from Dec. 2014. The rest are this year. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the diffs offered immediately above date from Dec. 2014, and/or not from 'Zeitgeist' pages. I apologise for not making clear WHICH diffs.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically, the diffs presented in that previous discussion were all from 2014, but a month later Earl did it again in this edit and in this comment to him I noted several instances in the past month where he has again copied from sources. Mind you, this is just the most recent stuff. I can find several more instances of this happening pretty much since he started editing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

IF the old diffs support a long-term and ONGOING pattern of behaviour, they are of course valid. If they don't then this ANI is simply 'settling old scores', a number of supporters of ban above are quite happy to admit that they are 'fed-up' because of past behaviour and aren't too concerned about recent history, An honest position, if not one in WP's finest tradition.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There is another questionable use of diffs above. In his Support, Sfarney/Grammar cites this as instance of EKJ 'making up' a rule that 'WP does not mention paid events', HOWEVER the text EKJ removed 'Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival' is not supported by EITHER of the sources cited. One source (in 2010), speaks of it holding its 'second annual event' the second quotes the first. EKJ was right to remove or amend the text, even if his edit reason is a bit silly.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on King's excision and why I recall it.[228] Notice that though the discussion continued for more than 36 hours, King did not participate. We had only his cut-and-run explanation. King may have been correct to "remove or amend" the text, but only on the "amend" alternative, and that was not his choice. King cites a non-existent rule, his edit reason was erroneous, and the edit was wrong. We don't remove a finger because it has a wart, and we don't remove a long-standing statement from an article because part of it is not correctly sourced. If another editor restores the information so that it is correct, he invites edit warring. A newby might make King's mistake, but an experienced editor should work with others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody in those 36hrs appeared to pick up on the fact that the last RS info about 'Annual events' (and to the best of my knowledge, the last RS info about Zday), is dated circa 2010/11. Shouldn't somebody have actually checked the source before even thinking of restoring it … or making an issue out of it?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

King's edit comment was a misdirector. He wrote he was cutting the material because Wikipedia cannot mention paid events. That did not suggest wrong dates or any other reason. And so far we do not know that he had any other reason or that he was looking at the problems you are now indicating. Let's at least credit him with stating his own reason correctly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So, he had a mainly wrong reason for removal, which means he should be banned, others had an equally wrong reason for reinstate which means ????.Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the "wrong reason." In his own words, he said he removed it because Wikipedia does not mention paid events. We debated that point for more than a day, but he did not clarify his position or correct his reason. I think we should presume he knew what he was doing. Either he was deliberately inventing reasons to remove content, or he was unconsciously inventing reasons. Either way, it's not a good sign. And when content is being restored from a wrongful removal, usually we don't examine every sliver, reference, date, etc. It's not like new content. That is just a fact. And whether King should be banned is a matter for the administrative council to decide. I have already offered my opinions on that, and so have you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I was citing King's plagiary your post: No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright. [229][230][231][232] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- True, Devil's Advocate provided a longer list of King's Plagiary: See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, these two edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- Copyright violations are an absolutely basic issue about which no editor could be naive, and this is a serial offense. On further reflection of King's overall performance as a WP editor, I seriously question that King is an asset to Wikipedia, and I must vote for general ban. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe procedure is that you propose a general ban in its own section, in order to keep discussion readable.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, it may be true that EKJ's editing has contributed historically to unreasonably negative content about the films and 'movement'. However the main reason response to the films is negative is because there are almost NO positive reviews. The main reason description of the movement is 'patchy' (at best) is because there are almost no RS articles to say what this 'movement' is. After 2-3 weeks involvement, I am still no clearer in my mind whether the 'movement' actually exists in any more tangible sense than 'the hippy movement' or 'the punk movement' existed. The sources just aren't out there.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason for a topic ban is, that over what appears years of, uncivil behaviour, ownership and game playing/incompetence. He exacerbates discussions by bringing up irrelevant or illogical points making it impossible to discuss points properly. A recent example is premature phony closing of RfC diff.

He is not the sole defender of the article against the 'waves' of pro Zeitgeist editors - as the varied response to the recent RfCs show. He could be good for this if his behaviour did change, and it has improved - but not convinced this isn't part of the game. That is why I recommend a short ban.

The Zeitgeist movement is not a movement - as in a social or cultural movement. It is a political advocacy group. It certainly exists, even if not notable. Not sure I follow your argument on 'the hippy movement' and 'the punk movement', see Counterculture of the 1960s and Punk subculture. Anyway, arguments about the movement are off topic. Earl King Jr isn't the only sceptical editor, and isn't the only one working to remove bias from the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonpatterns. Without going too much off-topic, the 'movement' doesn't appear to be an advocacy group in the general sense (Registered members, structure etc … which also implies opening itself to outside scrutiny). I'm old enough to have used the term 'the hippy movement' approvingly, my meaning today was an amorphous set of loosely shared values, with little definable structure, strategy or purpose. My reason for making the analogy was to say that RSs don't really tell us WHAT it is that makes it more than that, I am unclear therefore whether it actually IS, though I would not oject to its claims being described in 'its' voice.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question: If Earl's problems are in the past (per Dennis Brown "You have to go back more than two weeks" and diffs that go back to 2014) then what is the benefit of imposing a sanction? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  

See my reply to Pincrete above.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Grammar'sLittleHelper, it is not appropriate to selectively contact individual editors to invite them to contribute here, even when the message left is neutral, especially since several have long since 'disengaged' from the article. This is called WP:Canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I completely agree, but your implication that I have "selectively" notified others is incorrect. Those who are on the current talk page (like you) that I knew were watching the page, I did not bother to notify personally: I put a notice on the recent BLP section[233] (non-selective). I have just put a notice on the topic:talk page now.[234] I notified King personally and everyone who had been involved to any extent in recent months (non-selective). If you know of others that I missed, by all means invite them (non-selective). The history of controversy with King is huge and involves many people who have many facts and much evidence to bring to the table. I could not cover it all myself. King has so far said little in his own defense. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, many of those you contacted privately ARE regular editors, who would have seen a neutral talkpage notice, whilst Arthur Rubin and myself were not contacted (who just happen to be the only refular editors to oppose). As soon as you contact individuals, it's called canvassing and DON"T DO IT.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps I had already put a notice on the talk page AS SOON as I (accidentally) became aware of this noticeboard. Your defence compounds the impression of canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, and your characterization does you no credit. Here is the complete list of those I contacted directly, and even the total is not "many."

• 18:24, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Bobrayner ‎
• 18:18, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎
• 18:02, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:AndyTheGrump ‎
• 17:50, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:NeilN ‎
• 17:48, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+538)‎ . . User talk:Betty Logan ‎
• 17:46, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Willondon ‎
• 17:45, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+546)‎ . . User talk:Jonpatterns ‎ (→‎sibel edmonds)
• 17:44, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+548)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎Earl King Jr.: new section)
• 17:36, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . User talk:OnlyInYourMind ‎ (current)

As can be seen by that list, none of those above except AndyTheGrump had posted to talk:Zeitgeist pages in the last couple of weeks, and might never have received notifications of this discussion. And AndyTheGrump was inconsistent in his contributions to these talk pages and might never return -- his range of topics is wide. There are two issues here: (1) The people who have been offended by King far outnumber the people who support him -- even if I had notified every single person who encountered King in the last 6 months, the numbers could be portrayed as "canvassing" because of the overwhelming imbalance. (2) Your logic presumes a partisan alignment on these topics, but the reality is more in line with WP:Good faith. The editors are not lined up in voting blocks. They are accomplished and experienced editors who have valuable opinions. The situation is really not as King repeatedly portrays it, that a "FLOOD OF SOCKPUPPETS" would take over the topic pages if King were not standing guard. I haven't see any sockpuppets in my two months in these topics. Incidentally, if you know of any other topic pages associated with Zeitgeist, please add notices of this discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing fine spamming talkpages on your own...even article talkpages in fact...why are you posting notices about this discussion on the article talkpages for 9/11 conspiracy theories and elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of spamming.--MONGO 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, contacting ONE editor is canvassing. Your actions will probably have no appreciable effect on outcome but you were caught doing something inappropriate FULL STOP. Piece of friendly advice, own up, back off, don't do it again.

You compound it however by continuing [235], the advise you gave was wrong, JWilson0923 should strike through the remarks, if he wishes, not 'doctor them' as you advise him, otherwise my and Mongo's comments are left in limbo.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … ps I have left a short message on JWilson0923's talk page correcting the misinformation, as neutrally as I could.[236]

In case anyone is reading this, the real wp:Canvassing policy says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would include 9/11 conspiracy as it is frequently crossed into the Zeitgeist discussions by King himself. So those editors should be involved in this discussion. Up to them. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, I'm happy to let others be the judge of whether your actions showed intent to 'broaden participation' or to 'canvas support'. Especially as you failed to take the obvious step of putting a note on the talk page until after being warned by me to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I published the notice immediately on the BLP page, which is where the trigger incident for this ANI occurred. With your helpful advice (I didn't realize it was a warning -- what was the threat?), I added all the talk pages associated with Zeitgiest. But then Mongo complained I was spamming, so I guess you can't please everyone, eh? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Referring to Pincrete's vote statement, Pincrete has been participating in the Zeitgeist discussions for almost a month. He has agreed with EKG on a number of things, most recently on the BLP question, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Non-factual_smear_on_Zeitgeist_the_film_page Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, I think my involvement is about three weeks actually, but what is your point exactly? To the best of my memory, the two matters EKJ and I have agreed on are 1) the need to 'cool down' the personal attacks, 'grandstanding' and general battlefield mentality of the talk page (no editor above disputesseveral editors above agree that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks). … … 2). I agreed with EKJ on the BLP that an attributed quote describing the film negatively, is not 'slander', and is not even a BLP issue, simply a weight issue. But so does everyone else on that noticeboard except you. Grammar'sLittleHelper, what was 'the trigger incident' on BLP? Because EKJ's posts there are calm, courteous and rational IMHO, and the debate had largely 'died', because of no new opinion coming in.

As I've already said, others can judge whether your intent was 'notifying', or 'coaching', 'canvassing' and 'spamming',Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For an answer to your question, please read the original complaint I posted here on July 2. Since then, more serious details have emerged that show King's long-term conduct does not comport with the WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

??(no editor above disputes that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks)?? I for one dispute that statement most strongly. The trigger incident was King attacking me once again out of the blue with no provocation. Judging from their statements above in favour of banning King, a number of other editors seem not to agree with your broad statement -- but that is just how they seem to me. Maybe you should read them again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, could you please supply the diffs for EKJ personally attacking you on the BLP? I know only of YOU striking through an edit of his, which (in my judgement) was not at all personal, an extremely provocative act on your part, which he was cool/clever enough to not 'rise to the bait'.

(Here are my diffs EKJ leaves a post on BLPn (which he does not later modify as claimed at the head of this ANI) … Sfarney|Grammar strikes half of it through, claiming it is a personal attack … EKJ replies … Sfarney|Grammar replies, with no explanation for his strike through … EKJ leaves his final comment on BLP … Sfarney|Grammar finds this post so offensive that it is the 'trigger incident' to bring the matter to this ANI) Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) updated by Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in the original Jul 2 post to ANI. King's attacks often take the form of ad hominem. That Latin phrase means a characterization of the person rather than an address to the topic. Such was the case here. King often infers or states that the only reason editor X desires an edit on the topic is because editor X is (some variety of a brainwashed groupie) or a "supporter" for the subject. In this post, he twice attributes words to me that I did not write.[237] In the same post, he attributes motives to me that I have not voiced. Then once again (for there are many previous such) he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "supporter" of Zeitgeist. Ad hominem is classed as a logical fallacy. The rhetorical effect is to change the subject from the topic at hand to the person. A Wikipedia editor should not have to defend self and motives repeatedly to get a topic edit done. Ad hominem is a violation of WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'logical fallacy' is claiming that 'and there are many supporters of the Zeitgeist movement that are attempting to present ideas according to Zeitgeist instead of according to outside from Zeitgeist sources,' constitutes a personal attack against you or other editors. Is this the 'trigger incident' ?

I'm happy to let the diffs be the judge of whose account of the BLPn is more credible and who was engaging in and initiating personal attacks on that BLP. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Misconception of proposal

The proposal is about Earl King Jr's behaviour over a long term period, not whether the Zeitgeist articles have become a battleground or not. These are two different issues that need to be considered separately. A quick look at the current talk pages will not give an insight into his long term behaviour. For more info see points I previously raised at AN here.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, I think we all recognise the distinction, however anyone voting inevitably asks themselves whether banning EKJ from the topic would actually be beneficial to the topic, or whether the problem/answer lies elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is problematic. EKJ has cleaned up sloppy POV pushing, but has illustrated this isn't out of a desire to build an encyclopedia, just to insert at extreme lengths his views through sloppy POV pushing. Apart from the mundane cleaning of vandalism, EKJ's contributions are observably counterproductive. The arguments from his supporters those who oppose that without him the article would get taken over by FRINGE content is absurd misdirection and no excuse for his behavior. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, I'm sure no offence was intended, but I think those voting 'oppose', would not like to be characterised as 'his supporters'. Most of us have articulated the view that EKJ is not the root of the problem and banning him not the solution. (no apology needed though). Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just the same, apologies to any who may have been offended. I think the argument that topic banning EKJ won't solve all the problems with the article is [missing] the point in addressing his tendentious editing. His edits to remove vandalism are used to defend him when it appears the rest of his contributions [provoke] that same vandalism. I don't believe Jonpatterns' reminder is unreasonable. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, in my case, the argument is that banning EKJ will solve NONE of the problems, the biggest of which is a 'battleground' mentality in which personal abuse, 'us and them', fallacious argumentation, misuse of noticeboards are somehow justified. Fighting 'the ogre' has become an end in itself and much more fun than the mundane, incremental business of checking sources, working towards agreement etc.. Banning EKJ on its own gives the 'green light' to that mentality. That is why I favour general sanctions or Arbcom.Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the misconception. EKJ engages in tendentious editing. EKJ's actions/behavior may not be THE problem with the article, but they are still a significant problem in and of themselves. EKJ's tendentious editing make it difficult to collaborate constructively on article, independent of whatever other problems arise. The loss of confidence expressed by those supporting a ban is what follows when one burns through their credibility to launch a public war against article's topic. There are plenty of neutral editors willing to work on the article and no good reason to tolerate the drama EKJ's tendentious editing provokes. Straying from the question of EKJ's tendentious editing to explore how to police article is missing the forest through the trees. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions

I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ref: Wikipedia:General sanctions (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Seems reasonable enough at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question what does 'community general sanctions' involve, link to documentation? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to Wikipedia:General sanctions documentation. It seems 'general sanctions' can mean a number of different measures that effect all editors of an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) My support moved to section below

• Support - I'm surprised something like this wasn't enacted back when the article & its prior incarnation were seeing wilder activity. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support in lieu of the proposed topic ban(s). I'm tired of seeing these pages over and over at RFPP. KrakatoaKatie 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As with many essentially religious topics, this is a battleground of belief against ugly fact. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the project requires that we start the process of separating warring parties from each other and the locus of dispute. Note that the Zeitgeist movies and movement are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is too vague as to be meaningful, thus is not able to be closed or enforced. GS, or community sanctions proposals have to be painstakingly precise and narrowly defined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, if this means real action, but I have been disappointed by recent arbitrations -- all came to nothing, without yes, no, or even a maybe. Just silence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, [user:Dennis Brown]'s argument, as short as it is, convinced me to change my vote. I believe all editors, with the exception of Earl King Jr., have worked toward collaboration and cooperation. If I am wrong, there will be time enough to impose stricter measures. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose BMK (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support No value in singling out one editor when others add fuel to problems and neutral presentation is the actual burning presentation, in my view. Let the article go under an extreme microscope and lets get people accountable for future references, ongoing. This is an example of one of my recent edits [238] It seems pretty tame and if anything a little positive toward the subject, but no it is just sourced from a decent content source Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; Dennis Brown has given an abridged version of my reasons, but that will do for now - hopefully ArbCom will address the proposer on the issue of competence in dispute resolution at the proposer's present request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @JzG:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @AndyTheGrump: - for the sake of formality and given the mess being generated from this matter being prematurely referred from one request board to another, can you please indicate whether you are supporting this proposal (whatever it is meant to cover) and the one below concurrently, or if not, revise your comment in relation to this one and add a separate comment to the one below? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it would also be helpful if we all strike though our comments if we have moved them to the new proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) [239]

@Pincrete: Yes it would be, (and thank you for doing so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions II

To address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft:

All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, are subject to community-imposed Wikipedia: General Sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics. A copy of this sanction shall be posted to the header of all article talk pages that it applies to.

Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Properly drafted, but I oppose because the topic ban above is the better way to deal with it. There isn't a showing of MANY people causing problems, and that is what you need to justify general sanctions. If you just get the topic ban, the problems as presented are over. That fits the admin goal of using the least amount of force to get the job done, and it's a lot less ongoing paperwork and drama. If it is an ongoing problem with many users, then mixing it in with a report on an individual is muddying the waters, and it should have been done as a separate proposal at WP:AN. The thread (plus arb) is already too much to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I believe what you're trying to propose is a community discretionary sanctions regime. "General sanctions" refers to various different things, including page revert restrictions, article probation, and discretionary sanctions. See WP:General sanctions for more information. If you want community discretionary sanctions, I suggest you use the likes of WP:GS/GG or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL as templates. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, agree with Dennis Brown. I don't see how general sanctions would solve the actual problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose BMK (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Re-thought this. BMK (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want to make this perfectly clear, since there seems to be some doubt about it: I support both a topic ban for EKJ and Community General Sanctions for the subject area. My "support" vote in the topic ban area should not be discounted simply because I also voted "support" here - the two sanctions are not in any way mutually exclusive. BMK (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

BMK, re your discussion below about 'how to count', bobrayner voted 'send to ArbCom'. Would it be appropriate to 'ping' him to see if he want's to alter his position in the light of the ArbCom rejection? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that canvassing has already been an issue, I wouldn't. BMK (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support This could work, provided that the uninvolved admins take WP:FRINGE (as an interpretation of WP:UNDUE) into account, as well as WP:EW, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:COPYVIO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as reasonable. The overall level of respect and cooperation needs attention. Battlefield mentality on the article is a problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support if we trim broadly construed language and list just Zeitgeist related material (there's not that many). Paving with good intentions sometimes has the effect of infecting a bunch of unrelated articles. We don't really want a bunch of uninvolved editors/articles suddenly subject to GS because the topic was mentioned by a Zeitgeist individual or, say, there was a meetup in a city, etc. Suddenly it needs to be mentioned in the off-topic article to justify the talk page template of GS or it's used as a cudgel against an editor when they branch out from Zeitgeist. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as more clearly worded. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment whether Community General Sanctions are need or not is a separate issue to whether Earl King Jr should be topic banned. Let consider the evidence for that issue here. The issue of Community General Sanctions should be raised separately, and arguments for that considered separately.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Very needed for this battleground. AlbinoFerret 13:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support I'll go along with this, but agree that the topic ban is more important. KrakatoaKatie 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unless accompanied by a topic ban for EKJ. Otherwise, it looks to me too much like postponing any real action over a long-running issue yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not my view that imposing Community General Sections on the subject area overrides the general support shown above for a topic ban on EKJ - they are in no way mutally exclusive, and the !vote count in support of a topic ban is currently at 14-4. BMK (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Five people expressly oppose the topic ban. Additionally you have two who support sending it to ArbCom rather than handling it here. That should be considered seven opposes to the topic ban. You also have BK's comment that should probably be viewed as an oppose and Rich's comment in the discussion seems to lean towards opposing a topic ban. Krakatoa previously suggested general sanctions in lieu of topic bans so that could be seen as another oppose. Given that, you have a minimum 15-7 vote and potentially a 15-10 vote. On the general sanctions it appears to be, at present, a 9-5 vote. Obviously, consensus is more than head-counting and a lot of parties voting either way are involved, which should cause their vote to be considered in light of that, but the vote count is not overwhelmingly in favor of one option or another.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• If I miscounted the opposes, my apologies, it wasn't deliberate. However, the comments concerning sending it to ArbCom shouldn't be counted as opposes, in my opinion, they should be counted as what they are, comments that the problem should be handled in a different venue. Since that's not happening - considering that the arbs appears to be waiting to see what happens here - they're essentially neutral !votes until the editors come back and make a specific vote concerning the topic ban - so I still make it 15-5 for the topic ban, just counting noses without determining strength of argument (which is why admins get the big bucks). BMK (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, also, regarding Black Kite - I assume he's more than capable of writing "oppose" if he is against a topic ban for EKJ. What I see in his comment is him providing more factual information for editors to take into account when they make their determination - so I wouldn't try to read his mind and count his comment as an "oppose" unless he formally makes it one. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, it is clear that you oppose this if it is simply a 'fudge'. However, I think it would help if you clarified whether you would still oppose IF it were in addition or if the topic ban failed.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think my previous comment was clear enough - I think that a topic ban for EKJ would solve any problems that can't be dealt with by normal processes. As for what to do if that fails to work, I'm not going to prejudge the issue, since I don't know what form such 'failure' might take. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Generally mixing the discussion of the behaviour of a particular editor and general behaviour isn't helpful. Would 'general sanctions' help focus talkpage discussion and avoid the walls of text with little useful content? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: This discussion is not being properly defined or conducted. All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, ... but not defined. The survey above asks whether King is to be topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie ... and again not defined. When I posted notices of the ANI for King's ban on the talk:topic pages for talk:Peter Joseph, Talk:Jacque Fresco , Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, and Talk:Post-scarcity economy (which are all related to Zeitgeist), the announcements were reverted by an editor who is now a part of this discussion (JzG, alias Guy), who explains his actions with wp:Canvassing.[240],[241],[242],[243]. As a result, even though Guy himself is voting and speaking in this investigation, he denies knowledge to editors on those other articles who may not know of this investigation and will not have a voice. In effect, the editors involved in Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) will now be deciding for the editors on those other articles. In my opinion, this is not the way things are supposed to be done. The proper action is to notify those other talk pages of an ANI that may affect an editor interacting in their midst with a subtended ANI that may affect articles they are working on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal(s) are defined at the head of this ANI (by you, Sfarney|Grammar) as extending to 1) The film series page ... 2) A page which does not exist, (namely the 'movement page) ... 3)The director's page, ... extending to Jacque Fresco or others might be logical if there is the slightest evidence of intent to disrupt. Otherwise you are attempting to unilaterally redefine the terms of this whole ANI.

Your logic also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a noticeboard IS, which especially values input from 'uninvolved' editors, not simply a 'circus' for those with an interest in the subject/related subjects. Put more simply, why would an editor on a 9/11 topic be more competent to assess behaviour than someone who normally edits on cookery?Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are in error. When I wrote the statement at the head of this ANI, the proposal had not been written. Each proposal, written later, contains its own language and does not refer to my words. Also, you are apparently unfamiliar with the words on WP:Canvassing, which states: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Since this ban and/or GS affects multiple articles, the editors on all such article discussion pages should be notified. If comments from involved editors were not welcome, you and I should not be having this conversation on this page, nor should you and I be voting. But you have voted in both proposals and posted more than a dozen comments. Therefore, others should be notified as you have been, and they should have their say and their vote, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why those topics? As I have stated numerous times, King himself ties them together -- he insisted for a while that the Zeitgeist article must state the footage was copied from 9/11 conspiracy videos and the article contains that link. Also, King has been quite active on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is all of a piece to King. Conspiracy theory = conspiracy theory. The complaints about his conduct on those pages are very similar to the complaints about his conduct on the Zeitgeist page.

Now a question for you: If King were conducting himself properly, he should have many supporters willing to come and say so, and the evidence against him should be slim. In such case, you should have no problem with broad publication to every page where King contributes. But King is a single purpose editor and has been for years (except for a few forays into the Cambodia article where he misbehaved in other ways). Everywhere he goes, his offenses outweigh his contributions according to the evidence presented. A good editor is able to show a chest full of ribbons and commendations from his colleagues. If they exist, you should bring those forward and defend him. Where are those ribbons and kudos? As it stands now, the wider the net is thrown among those who know him, the more numerous the complaints and the longer the list of his offenses against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, your Dennis Brown's definition of the breadth of this ANI at the head is film + movement + director … this section head adds plus persons connected (Fresco?), that is the scope of this ANI, that is what people have expressed their opinions on.

IF you wish to extend the topic ban to other pages, PROPOSE IT. Can you not see how silly (and dishonest) it would be to ask people to 'vote' and then count the votes and then try to change the basis of what they had voted on after they had all gone home.

As for the rest of your text, it is precisely the sort of 'grandstanding' and futile speculation (if a cat isn't a monkey doesn't that prove that an Chinaman needs a toothbrush?) which bedevils this article and which is more the root cause than EKJ.

My comments about procedure, about what is spamming and about what is canvassing were made in good faith. I hope a more senior editor will correct me if I am wrong.Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … … bolding simply draws attention to the fact that you left NO note here of your 'canvassing' and "spamming' until after several editors challenged you, you took no steps to remove the 'spammed' notifications. amended Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is canvassing, a single warning should be sufficient. There is no need to argue and use ethnic slurs. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, struck through, I had no idea that the term could be abusive. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support on condition that broadly construed is dropped.--MONGO 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a more appropriate response given the length and depth of the dispute. If EKJ really is a major problem on the article, this will end up either forcing him to shape up or getting him kicked off anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29. It is possible that if general sanctions are enacted here, the arbitrators may decide not to accept the case, but to let community sanctions run. I would prefer a full evidentiary hearing to determine whose conduct has been problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That'll be rejected as we have not yet exhausted other options (e.g. community sanctions). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe tangential, but isn't User:The Devil's Advocate, who commented above, banned from noticeboards by an arb remedy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom Harrison, This is an excellent question. Under WP:ARBGG, The Devil's Advocate is indeed indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard; this is however, with a caveat, "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started". Given that the editor's first sentence of their submission here is "I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned ...", this caveat appears to be in effect; and the edits, therefore, in order.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of engagement that got him banned from noticeboards, he's been "directly involved in many of the discussions" of just about any topic, and with just about every contributor. If that were what arbcom intended by banning him from noticeboards, it wouldn't have been much of a ban. Surely they didn't craft the remedy so he could continue the behavior that lead to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom Harrison, Unfortunately, we're not able to be sure of what ArbCom intended to do, only of what they did do.

What they did do, per WP:ARBGG, is prevent the editor from involving themselves in discussions on matters with which they had not been involved prior to the matter being raised on noticeboards. This is a significant limitation on the editor's involvement in disputes and discussions across the project.

In this instance, the editor asserts that they were involved prior to the matter being raised, and, therefore, the exemption in the caveat to the prohibition applies.

Should editors believe that the prohibition as imposed by WP:ARBGG is not the intended sanction, the appropriate venue to raise the question would be WP:ARCA.

Should editors believe that this editor was not, in fact, involved prior to this matter being raised on this noticeboard, the appropriate venue would be the editor's Talk page, and then WP:AE.

While I appreciate the concerns raised, and understand some of the history, we must accept ArbCom's decision as it is, and work within it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Please review these apparent canvassing attempts. [244][245][246][247]This appears to be coaching a side with "we"[248]. There may be more. This statement appears to be very misleading as there doesn't appear to be any language in the propose topic ban to include all of 9/11 and seems to be an effort to attract attention of editors that may have had disputes with EKJ. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, please see the thread above (in voting on topic ban). It follows immediately after Rich Farmbrough's emboldened 'Question'. Starting with an admonition from me for Sfarney|Grammar, to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, the 'we text' ('The last thing we need now is a round of more accusations when Earl's accusatory conduct is under examination.'), was also moved to a less prominent position from [249]to [250], where the exchange became meaningless as it was not a response to anything.(It is restored and I have invited the editor to 'strike through'). The very least that must be said is that 'coaching' a new editor is inappropriate and moving 'embarrassing' text on a noticeboard equally so.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool off, Pincrete. "Less prominent" means nothing when editors are as carefully observant as this crowd. I tried to move it to the discussion section before the argument became another magic beanstock. But now I see you have reopened your accusations of canvassing in a separate area AWAY from my responses to your earlier accusations. What's up with that? Are YOU trying to hide the full discussion from examination? The last thing we need now is a another round of accusations when King's conduct is under examination. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not open this section DHeyward did. Coaching another (new) editor and then moving his text in the manner you had previously advised that editor to do, is unprecedented in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that he had also moved the comments. The coaching itself was a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "us vs them." Moving the comments to avoid scrutiny in the manner described to the editor is battleground and disruptive behavior that appears to be motivated by reason other than building an encyclopedia. This at the very least should be a 1-way iban against User:Sfarney so he isn't allowed to plot and carry out underhanded dealing with EKG. Possibly a complete topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, battleground mentality is precisely the real problem with this article, of which this incident is only the 'tip of the iceberg' (see talk and recent BLP). My only 'horse in this race' is to argue that getting rid of EKJ will be a victory for that mentality, not the solution to it.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It was definitely no more coaching that any experienced editor would give a less experienced editor. I would like you to consider these points one at a time, because you are seeing them all through a lens of misrepresentation. 1. I counseled JWilson0923 to tone down his remarks and move them(07:11, 4 July 2015 UTC) before ANYone had answered them (08:15, 4 July 2015 UTC). Please check the dates and times and satisfy yourself that this is the truth. 2. I always use "we" when speaking of Wikipedians. The last thing we all need is to turn the administrator page into a battleground of mutual accusations. You don't need it, I don't need it, JWilson0923 doesn't need it, Earl King Jr. doesn't need it, and no honest editor in Wikipedia needs it. 3. Even Pincrete advised the JWilson0923 that his comments were of the wrong color in in the wrong place. 4. I was quite obviously not moving the comments to avoid scrutiny. The only context that would be broken was JWilson0923's comments to Mongo -- When I moved, I kept the whole block together. If you want a long running thread of discussion in the voting area, I did not know. I don't think it is proper. That is why there is a discussion section. 4. Canvassing. I put a general notice on the BLP incident board immediately upon filing this ANI request.[251] I then notified all other editors who had any involvement that I could locate on the talk pages who were not current on the BLP page. Pincrete reminded me I should put a notice of ANI on the talk:topic pages, so that is what I did. Then Mongo accuses me of spamming -- you can't please everyone, I guess. You may not know, but EKJ has often tied 9/11 conspiracy to the Zeitgeist films because the film talks about 9/11. When you look at King's contributions on that talk page, you find he is active there, and the ANI is a discussion of "all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie." That includes 9/11 and would be a part of the topic ban, so those editors should also be involved. The other talk pages I included for the same reason. Let's handle one thing at a time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Sfarney|Grammar's advice to JWilson0923 was before I gave the public advice to strike through on this ANI. I still think that Sfarney|Grammar's actions were WHOLLY inappropriate and his choice of message to JWilson0923 constituted 'conspiritorial coaching'.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) …

ps Sfarney|Grammar I didn't remind you to put a notice on the talk page (Why would I? I had already done it), you did it only AFTER I had counselled you to stop canvassing. You misquote the message you left on JWilson0923's talk. You 'can't please everyone' when you knowingly act outside guidelines, in order to 'whip up' solicit support. Who elected you to decide which pages are included in the proposed topic ban? If you thought all those additional pages should be included, you should have proposed them. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did remind me -- perhaps not intentionally, but remind me you did. And I don't think it's appropriate for you to appear to quote me with words I have not said or written. That is not held to be good conduct. As to whipping up support, take a moment to think about what you are saying. If a public notice of this Incident report is broadly known, it should whip up support for King in equal measure to the proposal to ban him. A general notice would whip up support for the ban only if King's adversaries overwhelmingly outnumber his supporters. And that is not improper -- that is what the proposal is intended to determine. How would you alert all involved of this Incident report and proposal? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, if I have 'appeared to quote you', I will correct, but since you don't say where, I cannot.Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … … Ah I think I see now, fixed! Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed those posts as inappropriate canvassing. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The we can presume you will be posting a notice with more neutral wording so that all the communities within the topic will know of this discussion and provide meaningful participation. All those who know King to be a constructive presence and Wikipedian will have full opportunity to speak in his favor, as well as those who have had other experiences. But public sunlight is always a good thing in these situations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, clarification, IF those pages were part of the proposed topic ban or IF evidence was being offered of EKJ's disruption on those pages, then such a notice would be appropriate, otherwise it's spamming or canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Who will know what is a part of the topic ban until it is issued? And when it is issued, it will be too late for King's admirers from those articles to come forward and testify to his contributions. But you and Mongo don't seem to look forward to a flood of admirers. You seem to presume all comments from those editors will be negative -- Why is that? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, please strike through your speculations about my and MONGO's motives and attitudes, you are not on the talk page now!Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … ps a topic ban is not 'issued' in the manner you imagine, you cannot go to court for shoplifting and be found guilty of murder.

If Sfarney did something wrong, I'm sure it will come out in the wash from uninvolved editors/admins when this is over. Given that EKJ is active exclusively on a couple pages, it is hard to imagine why Sfarney's posts there would be considered excessive. It also appears it is through those same posts that many of EKJ's supporters those opposing were informed of this discussion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, actually very few have posted here as a result of 'user page' or 'spamming' contact. IF they had, this whole ANI would be thrown out. There are reasons for these policies which I am happy to discuss with you on my/your talk, should you wish. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's of no consequence then there's no reason to argue about it. Sfarney's been warned, he isn't doing it any longer, if you think it is that serious open up a complaint against him. I don't see why this has to go on and on. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ughhhhhhh when did I last mention them except to offer to explain policies to you ? Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment from Earl King Jr.

That is assuming there will be a topic ban which might be assuming too much. There is no actual real body count voting on such things but there is a general consensus which can be gotten at. A general fair consensus is now not possible as an editor has gone out of their way to dig up from multiple pages any number of people that seem to have a grievance or have complained in the past about Earl King (me}. Andy the grump has been adamant about a topic ban. He also has a history of making personal attacks against Earl King that is beyond blatant [252] and [253] and [254] and [255]. Other editors have called for him to be topic banned or blocked from editing for personal attacks. The Devils Advocates recent appearance here is controversial because he has been banned currently from these types of boards. He also has been blocked previously for tendentious editing on the Zeitgeist page though that is in the past. Several editors, Andy, The Devils Advocate, SomeDifferentStuff have filed multiple Ani's none of which were acted on but are quoted that they were filed as evidence of wrong doing by King but filing Ani's is not a guilt by association generator but has been used as such. Other editors recently have called for Andy to be blocked from editing and also Sfarney to be blocked from editing. Grammers Little helper has affected what ever case he had by his alleged spamming or canvassing of anyone who is a peripheral participant in a range of articles who might come here and vote. Lobbying this Mr. Wilson who previously called King a troll editor is probably a perfect example [256]. That kind of behavior on the article is not supposed to be be allowed, calling people trolls. Wilsons talk page indicated that GrammersLittleHelper the filer of this Ani thought it best to call Wilson to the Ani which is spamming or canvassing, see his talk page as others have brought this up [257] I think we have to look at the broader elements of what is going on with people editing the article and that would mean a future of watching the article under the direction given by the Arbitration committee. I suggest this Ani has lost the basis of being valid because its originator Mr. Sfarney has gone too far in lobyying (canvassing). So, lets draw a future line in the sand. Ask the Arbitration committee for a fresh perspective and identify problems without so much drama. I propose we drop the ani now as tainted and start fresh elsewhere namely the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom looks almost certain to reject the case, on the basis that the community is dealing with it here. Accordingly, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., I took the liberty of sectioning this off from 'Canvassing?', please revert me if I was wrong.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never been blocked for my editing of Zeitgeist articles and I have not filed a single ANI request regarding you. Once I proposed a topic ban in a filing someone else made, but that was it. The previous ANI cases were presented mostly for the sake of pointing out how this is a long-standing issue and to show previous evidence of misconduct that was presented in those cases. You have a devoted group of supporters who believe you should be allowed to do whatever you like so long as you keep the Zeitgeist supporters at bay and they have obstructed previous efforts at removing you from the topic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

All three ANI proposals were originated by others who knew the process of writing a proposal. None were written by me. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, please name (or strike through) the 'devoted group of supporters' and the other characterisations of those who do not agree with you. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

MONGO and Tom are the two most notable ones who have commented above. They routinely weighed in to defend you at previous ANI discussions as some necessary soldier in the fight against Zeitgeist supporters and have also supported some of your more extreme POV edits in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, I'm not sure who 'you' or 'your' means, it was me Pincrete who left the message, and I don't even know who 'Tom' is. I left the advice to strike through because I thought you were getting dangerously close to personal attacks and characterisations. I repeat the advice. By all means strike through these two messages of mine at the same time. Even though I disagree with you, your posts above are constructive. These are not.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see it was you and not Earl responding to me. I do not consider it a personal attack to say Earl has a devoted group of supporters. Not everyone who disagrees with me is in that group either. The two editors I mentioned are the main ones. Both of them have repeatedly argued against any sanction for Earl, no matter how extensive the evidence of misconduct, on the grounds that they think he is a necessary bulwark against Zeitgeist supporters. On article talk pages and in edits to the article itself they have often supported his position no matter how extreme as in the case with the capitalization edit war noted in my previous comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As you wish, you've at least clarified who you DIDN'T, mean (inc. me). Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is little that TDA and I agree, so not surprising we would disagree on what should be done about Earl King. I find TDAs mentioning myself and Tom to be furtherance of his usual conspiracy theorizing...it's not relevant to this matter and is a serious breach of AGF. --MONGO 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Handpolk

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

---

Hi,

I want to report User:Handpolk. He keeps harassing me, reverting all of my recent edits, calling all my edits vandalism/spam/etc. He also stalks my every move on Wikipedia, makes personal attacks on my talk page and other talk pages where I try to discuss with other people.

I tried to dicuss disputes with this person, but I couldn't as he keeps writing the same thing all over again and you can't make a proper dicussion with him on anything. He also keeps deleting my every message from his talk page and spams my talk page.

Here are a few examples from BC Pieno žvaigždės article:

• ORIGINAL My 1st revision (I updated the team's official website) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Pieno_%C5%BEvaig%C5%BEd%C4%97s&oldid=669606052
• His 1st revision (revert of my edit) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Pieno_%C5%BEvaig%C5%BEd%C4%97s&oldid=669633918
• My 2nd revision (I updated the team's official website – again) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Pieno_%C5%BEvaig%C5%BEd%C4%97s&oldid=669641376
• CURRENT His 2nd revision (his reason for reverting – that link is spam not relevant) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Pieno_%C5%BEvaig%C5%BEd%C4%97s&oldid=669641486

Here are a few examples from San Antonio Spurs article:

• ORIGINAL My 1st revision (I made this edit, because that person is not related to the team and it's completely trivial) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669508417
• My 2nd revision (I changed International rights to Retained draft rights, because there are US players in that list) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669606663
• His 1st revision (his reason – No original researchWP:NOR) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669633392
• His 2nd revision (his reason – is related to the team, try reading the article before you remove something) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669633784
• My 3rd revision (I reverted all his edits) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669641656
• CURRENT His 3rd revision (his reason – it is related, do not revert the good faith edits of others (mine and the original editor who added this)) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&oldid=669643617

Here is the example from Marlon Hairston article:

• ORIGINAL My revision (I added the age according to birth date template) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlon_Hairston&oldid=669611693
• CURRENT His revision (his reason – no source + not relavant) – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlon_Hairston&oldid=669633161

There are more examples of his similar behaviour related to me, but 3 examples should be enough for now. I call this stalking, harassment, vandalism. This user is doing all that on purpose and is trying to engage me in an edit war which I won't take. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a break down of these users' interactions: Interaction checker. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want to be accusing Handpolk of needlessly calling your edits vandalism? Anyway, near as I can tell, these two are disagreeing over a pair of NBA-related disputes. First, How to describe the current champions in their article, and second, mentioning certain players who have been elected to the NBA Hall of Fame but not yet inducted on team articles. And if this thread is any indication, neither is the other's actions in good faith. However, there does appear to be merit to Sabbatino's arguments. I came somewhat involved in this when noting Sabbatino's removal of an uncited piece of trivia on a hockey article with the summary of "No source + not relevant". Handpolk reverted that 23 minutes later, then immediately reverted another one of Sabbatino's edits with the same "No source + not relevant" summary, despite the fact that the only thing Sabbatino did was convert a plain date into a template format in an infobox. IMO, that was a bad faith revert by Handpolk designed to anger Sabbatino. And I don't get the impression the latter needs much help in that regard. Both are acting in bad faith, but Handpolk does seem to be stalking here. Resolute 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've watched this for a bit, and I agree that both editors are not behaving well. Neither Handpolk, nor Sabbatino have engaged in any article talk page discussion regarding their edits. Handpolk has followed to Sabbatino to other articles, however they all appear to be sports related. He has not changed any edit that Sabbatino has done to non-sports related articles. Also note that Sabbatino has filed at WP: AIV against Handpolk, and a long term harrassment complaint against Handpolk. Neither editor has acted very well, and both editors should be reminded to use the talk page to resolve their dispute instead of constant reverts, and accusations of vandalism. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with anything. He just started editing everything I edit. That's all. He also started harassing me when he became a stalker. Then he called me a troll and said I personally attacked him. And he didn't even asked to go to talk page as he just started his "fun". Normal users always ask me why I did this or why I did that, but not this person as he just started all those wars for no reason (maybe to make me angry, but I was/am/will be calm, because some people just don't know what discussion means). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had the ability to remained calm previously and engaged in normal, collaborative discussion -- we would not be here right now. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Oi, discuss the edits not the editor. Your comment here does nothing but convince admins that maybe there is something to Sabbatino's concerns. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty difficult not to discuss the editor in ANI but ok, I have modified my prior comment slightly. On talk pages etc, I agree 100%. Many of the comments Sabbatino has made focus on me rather than content, which is a very large part of the problem here. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I warned Sabbatino three times about WP:BOOMERANG but he ignored me...

• Our interactions began when he engaged in an edit war, calling it 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant' another editor updated the Golden State Warriors lede to note they had won the 2015 NBA Finals (1, 2), making repeated personal attacks (4, 5).
• Yesterday an editor disputed that Sabbatino had mass reverted a bunch of his edits. I disagreed with this and noted it, in response Sabbatino suggested that I should 'stop living' before deciding to amend that to I have difficulties with reading comprehension before threatening to report me so that I can beg for his mercy.
• Finally, I decided to look at his recent edits to see what kind of editor I was dealing with -- and discovered several other edits I disagreed with. Including on New York Islanders, where another editor added the Islanders had drafted the first Chinese player into the NHL, which he reverted as 'not relevant' and when reverted he called it 'obvious vandalism'.
• I will note that another editor has pointed out two of my reverts were incorrect. I was perhaps too hasty in some of my assessments. Particularly on BC Pieno žvaigždės, where it appears he was just fixing a dead link.

Overall the pattern is clear. This editor is disruptive, makes frequent personal attacks, often engages in edit wars, is very difficult to work and collaborate with and relies frequently on original research to arrive at dubious claims of relevance, rather than deferring to RS's. Since he seems to put in a lot of work on sports related articles, it would be a shame to see him indef blocked or topic banned -- however I think a temporary block based on his recent conduct would be in order -- or at the very least an admonishment to remain civil and focus on content and not people. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, what was the deal with this diff? You seem to revert Sabbatino with the edit summary "No source + not relevant", but all you did was remove a template and re-insert the same information. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The first one I saw was removing the first Chinese player drafted into the NHL from the Islanders as 'not relevant' -- which was almost as absurd as when he argued it isn't relevant the Warriors are NBA Champions. It was hard to assume good faith after seeing that and I appear to have made some bad assessments as a result -- that being one of them. Thankfully we have other editors watching these articles who've stepped in to decide which of my reverts were correct and which were not. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop imagining facts. I didn't say that it's not relevant that GSW won NBA title. I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it (4, 5, etc.). And I can discuss, but YOU make personal attacks and then say that I started that. So stop reverting my reverts without no reason and before doing such thing – make sure that you're not reverting a reverted vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it" that was the final iteration of your argument. The first was to remove the entire sentence with the edit summary 'vandalism'. When I reverted you, you started an edit war and made your first talk page comment to me about it: "I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit." diff. (I'd be curious to know what research you did that informed you the Warriors winning the NBA Finals was 'garbage' and 'irrelevant.') Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' After we got a 3rd opinion, you decided the problem was the number of games. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Too bad there was no control over that sentence during NBA Finals as it appeared there before game 6 and kept changing from Cleveland Cavaliers are currently beating GSW in 2015 NBA Finals. to GSW are currently beating... and all that was happening before and during game 6! Of course I wasn't watching game 6, but it's obvious from the logs that during the game there was constant vandalism happening. 2. That sentence was in the middle of the paragraph when it shouldn't been there. 3. I didn't say it's irrelevant that GSW won NBA title. 4. However, it has no relevance in how many games they won or who they defeated. 5. Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' – Sorry, but I changed the wording after 3rd opinion was given and you still reverted my edit and started your edit war and you didn't even try to find how that paragraph would appease both of us. You just went your way. When I saw that you didn't listen, I just left that thing alone so you can have it your way... 6. I'm always willing to find a solution to one thing or another, but when a person doesn't try to listen to what I'm trying to say then I just turn around and leave it be. Yes, I could have wrote that edited part in talk page so that we can discuss and correct it, but I didn't as you just kept writing your stuff. 7. I'm done with with hopeless discussion over nothing. But if you start to stalk my every move and harass me like yesterday, I will again report you. Next time go to talk page and try to be civil and LISTEN, and don't bring old stuff for reason, because you are the one who's hot headed, not me and that edit war yesterday was you idea not mine. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you attempting to respond in a civil manner, with only a few personal attacks and threats. Sadly, you continue to make personal attacks in other venues.Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. That no pun intended is there for a reason. If it wasn't there then I would consider it as personal attack. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So you can just say anything and then add (no pun intended) and it's not a personal attack? Well I guess you have an ID if you feel that way (no pun intended). Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE NOTE He has started to stalk and revert my edits again. He reverted my edit which removed content which was deleted from Wikipedia. Here:

• My revision – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&diff=669672742&oldid=669643617
• His revision – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Antonio_Spurs&diff=669688588&oldid=669672742

– Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted. My mistake, I did not realize the article had been deleted in the last few hours. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Handpolk is a sockpuppet of nine-time and now permanently banned User:DegenFarang. He should again be banned and his IP blocked. 2005 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations like that are not allowed. Provide proof of that in the proper venue or retract this attack immediately. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've filed a report. You couldn't be more obvious. You can't even edit for a month under a new account without bursting into flames. And don't revert my messages on other user's talk pages or AFD pages. You may want to use the time making yet another identity. 2005 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for a year and I have no idea what you are talking about. Cease making these baseless allegations immediately...SPI is the venue that allows that. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sockblock: Hope it's OK to open the thread just a crack, to note that I have indeffed Handpolk as a sock of DegenFarang per Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC).

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

User:Fklatt adding promotional material

User:Fklatt is persistent in adding promotional material, going back t0 2006.[258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267] User has not responded on his talk page.

Related: https://www.google.com/?q=%22Frederick+William+Klatt%22+%22Best+Electric+Machine%22

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone misses the editor's post to the Help desk, in which he admits "I do not have the experience (or even know how) to express my views to the reviewers". To WP:AGF he might just not know that Talk pages are a thing? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

He seemed to understand them in 2006[268][269] and again in 2014.[270][271][272][273] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 16:22, July 3, 2015‎ (UTC)

• User:Fklatt's edits seem to be heavily promotional towards his own device that he is marketing at bestelectricmachine.com. He added[274] and then continually re-adds the material to 3D printing after deletion by other editors[275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286] and Doubly fed electric machine is an article created and heavily edited by him[287] that he sprinkles with links to his website that have been removed several times by other editors (removed by me last go around[288]). I personally don't see the lack of skill or competence claimed by Fklatt. He has been editing for 9 years now and Guy Macon's links above show Fklatt does know how to engage in talk when necessary and, even if it was true, WP:DONTGETIT is not proof against sanction. Fklatt seems to simply be WP:GAMING, namely 'Borderlining' edits after reverts. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and those of us who work on the engineering articles shouldn't have to spend any more time cleaning up after Fklatt's ongoing advertising campaign. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing. It looks like he is making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given his recent replies on his talk page, I think he is playing a "I don't understand the rules" game in order to trigger WP:AGF and thus be allowed continue his advertising campaign. I think a series of escalating blocks will result in a sudden ability to carry on a normal conversation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

...and here is his response to being repeatedly asked to [A] respond here and [B] answer the questions several editors have asked on his talk page:[289] He is a "pioneering contributor" who has "added lots of important (non-commercial but technically 'promotional') info to Wikipedia", and we are "zealots" who need to "get off of our collectivist bandwagon and think 'promotional' innovation for all our sakes". I find it interesting that those who want Wikipedia to prominently feature new, not-yet-notable technologies always seem to be the exact same people who will make a lot of money if those technologies are widely adopted. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Jørgen88 from Adam Kotsko

Jørgen88 has demonstrated that he cannot edit the page Adam Kotsko - a BLP - from a neutral point of view. He began editing there with this addition [290] headed "Racist remarks" which took Kotsko's remarks out of context, sourced from a right-leaning blog, and also identified Kotsko as Jewish (another mistake copied from the source; Kotsko was in fact raised as an evangelical Christian and is now a Catholic). Despite consensus going against him, Jørgen88 proceeded to edit war to add the content (see User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )). To evade sanctions, there is a very strong possibility that Jørgen88 edit warred at the page while logged out using 176.11.33.252. An SPI is open. That another Norwegian editor happened upon the page and began making identical reverts to continue the edit war is, of course, a possibility - but a very slim one. On the article's talk page, Jørgen88 has continued to demonstrate his true colours ("But I guess since he's a liberal, leftist Jew this incident can just be swept under the rug as if it never happened") and suggested that those opposed to his favoured content are students of Kotsko [291] and engaged in some conspiracy to whitewash the article [292]. Today he continued to violate BLP, calling Kotsko "racist scum" whose reputation is "very dirty ndeed" [sic]. This is entirely the wrong attitude to approach any BLP with and so I propose that Jørgen88 be banned from editing at Adam Kotsko and Talk:Adam Kotsko. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Jørgen88 seems to want to use the article as a soapbox, dismissing other editors' points about BLP and sources. [293], [294] Articles aren't written to criticize subjects. [295] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think censoring people from adding sourced content makes any sense. Not adding criticism where it is due, is biased in itself. Mr Kotsko made very racist tweets such as one where he suggested all white people should commit mass suicide. If that doesn't warrant criticism, then nothing will. I don't really care if you ban me from this article or Wikipedia all together, it will only strengthen my view of how biased Wikipedia is, and how a few cliques of users and admins block editing when they don't agree with it, often because of political or religious reasons. That's not how Wikipedia should work, but it looks like that's the way it is heading. The user above, Keri, has been very little diplomatic and obstructive in his/her way of dealing with my edits and my suggestion on the talk page, even deleting my inputs. I don't know why these users are so intent to keep the article clean from criticism, but either agenda, it doesn't matter what sources I bring regarding the racist and radical tweets, as the above user/s seem to insist to keep it away.Jørgen88 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling Kotsko racist for his comments about white privilege, incorrectly calling him a "left-leaning liberal Jew" and calling him "racist scum" demonstrate (i) your bias (ii) your ignorance about the subject of the BLP (iii) the ignorance of your sources about Kotsko and (iv) your unsuitability to be editing a BLP. As for deleting your inputs, I reverted one of your edits per WP:BLPTALK. Keri (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

lol! What? A comment that a whole people should commit mass suicide is "a comment about white privilege"?! You can't be serious. This guy and me and others all edited the article with sources and yet you persist make drama out of something as simple as a criticism section. And you even try to get us blocked from editing. That's very desperate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 July 2015‎

"This guy and me and others..." Specifically, just you and Jørgen88. Both from Norway. And you made your first and only edits (prior to the one above) to support Jørgen88's edit warring... Keri (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'm from Norway and so are five million other people. Unless you've got direct IP proof connecting me to any user (which there aren't) your accusations are groundless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015

• All BLPs are covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I just gave him official notice, so any action after now that warrants action can be done unilaterally by an uninvolved admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for all BLPs - I don't think this particularly BLP is the issue so much as the behavior. Jørgen88's interest in Adam Kotsko is simply because he popped up on right-wing blogs for his facetious Twitter comments. Jørgen88 continually re-inserted false information into the BLP while arguing it is "well-sourced" and "sourced and verified content" (false) and then used an IP to re-insert the information to get his way. Then he went on rants about being censored on the talk page and the SPI. There has been no indication he understands the requirements of WP:BLP and not inserting WP:UNDUE information. He feels any blog that writes anything about anyone is a reliable source. Since his main contributions lie elsewhere [296], a topic ban would not prevent him from contributing to WP in other areas. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Washington Post or the Daily Caller which was posted as sources on the talk page blogs. Also its not false information. Kotsko posted racist comments about how all white people should kill themselves and there's direct proof of his statements even though he tried to delete them after knowing he said something stupid. There are sources that can add this to Kotskos Wikipedia page. It looks like some users here have a political agenda and wants to keep the truth from being posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015‎ 176.11.33.252

We're not here to talk about the content: that has been done at the article talk page. This is about behaviour at a BLP. And obvious sock is obvious. Keri (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Only thing obvious here is your disruptive attitude towards other editors and lack of social norms. Learn some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither the Washington Post nor the Daily Caller (both of which are right-wing anyway) were used as sources, were they? Do you understand what things taken out of context are? Because Peter Schiff said the "mentally retarded" might be perfectly happy to work for $2 an hour because "you're worth what you're worth." It's a fact he said that and that he made certain gold predictions and then bawwwed to his followers[297] that they should go "fix" his WP article to make it more flattering, which you did,[298] though you complain the article labels him unfairly.[299] Funny how the same standards don't apply to everyone - you want to include a joking tweet in Adam Kotsko's bio like he really meant it, but not include his very through explanation of why it was taken out of context and the idea is absurd. Yes, obvious sock is obvious. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure the Post to be "right wing"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I figure he meant to say right leaning; and the Post leans perceptibly to the right. Before the ip can derail the conversation back to content, can we now address how Jorgen88 figures Kotsko is a racist, racist scum, and a left-wing liberal Jew? Keri (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. That's why they endorsed Obama in both 2008 and 2012. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably there is some confusion in this discussion between the Washington Post and the Washington Times.--JBL (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ya think? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you should have checked the discussion on the page to see which it was before getting into a fight about the characterization. As it turns out, the reference in question was the Washington Times. --JBL (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@mandia I don't even know who this Schiff guy is. And yeah "all white people should kill themselves" and "Charlie Hedbo is hate speech" sure sound like really funny jokes to me. Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all BLPs - per Wikimandia, behaviour here demonstrates intention to continue provocative/disruptive behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Jorgen88 and the IP sock for two weeks at SPI. This is separate from the BLP concerns themselves and shouldn't dissuade any investigation or action on that front. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Revenge nomination

I tagged some articles that User:CrazyAces489 recreated for CSD and have !voted to deleted several others of his articles. Out of the blue, he decided to nominate an article I wrote last month, Amin Khoury, for deletion. I don't find it coincidental. The nom reasoning isn't even valid and has all the appearance of being just a WP:POINTy nomination. This isn't an AGF issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. You are the only one who even wrote on the article. I thought it was a vanity page and notability is not inherited. I didn't think the article seemed anything more than a vanity page. Now you saying that I came from the crap factory [300] or I am "butt hurt" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. [301] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote it. It's not even a month old, so no, others haven't yet. Your "notability is not inherited" reasoning is nonsense, since that's not asserted. Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory. I shouldn't have and have struck those comments. That has nothing to do with this issue, but does tend to reinforce my position that you nominated this article out of spite. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is a very long record of deleted articles, including a high proportion of biographies. It seems as if we ought to be introducing a restriction on creating articles other than by WP:AFC for a while, at least until CrazyAces learns to write a properly sourced first draft. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Bishonen had suggested more care in the creation process before. [302] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting User:Tokyogirl79 also told CA to take more care in process, even to go through the drafting process and have it reviewed before creating any article. This is a pattern and someone needs to break it because CA clearly can't do it themselves. Along with several other issues CA chooses to not fix...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you would think that I have done a lot of articles as of late. [303] I am on my own self restriction. One of them just passed an AFD and the other is a martial artist who is a black belt magazine hall of famer. I actually nominated my last article to AFD so that others could bring forth opinions on its notability. [304] I am ok with not writing any articles outside of the ones I am trying to push out of userspace. So it is not like I wasn't trying. In terms of that article Mr Amin? It had 2 weak keeps and one keep from him. He was also the ONLY editor. I didn't see any notability under WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note -You actually created 17 as User:NegroLeagueHistorian, just saying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Of course I was the only editor (I didn't need all caps to say it either). I created the article about 3 weeks ago. He is a low profile, non-controversial figure, so there's not likely to be a big rush to edit it. You act like every article must have a team working it the minute it hits live space. It's never going to be a GA unless he suddenly starts getting more coverage, but there's enough to reach GNG. I almost forgot that you were the one who nominated Crispus Attucks[305], a guy who has over a hundred books written about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Amin simply didn't appear noteworthy to me. [306] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [307] , [308] and more [309]. Niteshift seemed to have found the time to edit and gut many articles that I started. Yes I nominated Attucks because I thought based on wiki policy there was no history that was documented on him. I was incorrect! It happens! Saying I am butt hurt [310]isn't Niteshifts first negative comment he has made about me. He has insulted me many times even on AN/I [311] and other places. This isn't the first time Niteshift has had trouble with insults. [312] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• CrazyAces489, please don't make a virtue out of not creating articles recently, when you've in fact been creating articles with your other account, NegroLeagueHistorian. I hope that doesn't mean you're trying to evade scrutiny of what you did with that account, and I most certainly hope that you will stick to one account in future. (In your unblock request in April you stated "I won't create another account"[313], and yet you did.) Several admins have had a lot of patience in overlooking the fact that you were using (at least) two accounts concurrently, so please keep your nose clean it that regard. Compare User talk:Tokyogirl79. If you don't, and it comes to my attention, I will actually block you, despite the fact that I take systemic bias issues very seriously. It's because of those issues that I and others have been giving you second, third and fourth chances, but they'll run out eventually. Note: I see you've posted a {{retired}} template on your talkpage. You'll be most welcome to change your mind and return, as you've done before, but not, and I'll stress this, to simply jump to another account. Enough with the evasion of scrutiny, please.

As for your pretty obviously retaliatory AfD of Niteshift's article, you may remember I told you in April that I hoped you wouldn't have to be formally limited in your use of AfD because of your combativeness and poor track record there. But when I see this, I wonder. It may come to that. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [314]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [315] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.

In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [316] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [317] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [318] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [319] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[320] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [321] He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [327] [328] [329] [330] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [331] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [332] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [333]

In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[334]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [335] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [336] [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] Feb 24 [342] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [343] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [344] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?

Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [345] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [346] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [347] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [348]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [349] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [350] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [351]

I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [352] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!

The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [353]

To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding [354] [355] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stop being a victim. In all the time you spent digging up diffs of stuff that happened months ago, you could have actually read the policy on reliable sources and started using better ones. Yes, grammar matters. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to write something and be unconcerned with grammar, start a blog on WordPress or something. I note that in your tirade, you leave out the parts where I did admit errors, retracted things and.....oh yeah, actually tried to help you. Instead of accepting help, guidance or just good advice, you rejected it with excuses and continued the same errors with the statement "I create so others can work". That, in and of itself, is a hostile attitude. I hope a passing admin finally closes this since the issue of your revenge nomination has been handled. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Niteshift36 Of course, exactly what I stated! "stop being a victim." You retracted some of them after being told you had to. As per the link. As per above wth [User:Bishonen]] Other people have repeatedly told you to calm down on your tone with me. [356] Sorry, that my Ebonics isn't correct for you. It is still an accepted language of my people in America. I don't think that people who only speak with an African American Vernacular English should be regulated to Wordpress (and find it offensive that you would imply that). You have been so nasty to me that I am left to simply ignore almost anything you say. I had to semi-ban you from my talk page because of your attitude. [357] . You have been taking the same quote of "I create so others can work" is over 2 months old [358] and is taken out of context. With so many of my articles being gutted by you and others. I simply am left to only create stubs. You complain that I am taking personal insults that are old but you are bringing up this quote that is even older! A bit hypocritical don't you think? CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict):*No, it wasn't taken out of context. You actually defended it. It explains so much of what you do here, an issue that a number of experienced editors have tried to get you to correct. You keep claiming that your problem is that you speak "ebonics". I submit that isn't the issue. "Ebonics" doesn't make you use the wrong word, like you did in your response (It's "relegated", not "regulated"), misrepresent sources or fail to even try to comply with RS. You may be speaking perfect "ebonics" (if there is such a thing as perfect "ebonics"), so I would never say your "ebonics" isn't good enough for me. I will, however, call you on editing with "ebonics". I won't apologize for the Word Press comment, because there's nothing offensive about it. In any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Ebonics Wikipedia, the grammar rules of English apply and if you find that to be unfair, you can be the founder of the Ebonics Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

African American Vernacular English is a form of English. With its own set of rules. Shocking how you stopped defending your attacks. They are what they are. Reliable sources from the limited African American publications makes it unfair. We must make considerations when it comes to SOME sources. I don't think that people who speak African American Vernacular English should only use wordpress. If you don't feel your statement has problems. That is a problem in itself. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• You're not quoting sources using AAVE, it's you that is using it. It's not acceptable. Nor did I say that people who speak AAVE should only use Word Press. I said if you want to write in AAVE, consider starting a blog. Thanks for demonstrating again how you misrepresent things. Speak it all you want. Write it all you want. Be proud of it all you want. Just don't edit the English Wikipedia with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is concerned about your ethnicity! Your articles are gutted because you use terrible sources and the topics are unnotable. Maybe Niteshift said some regrettable things because he can't stand how you refuse to learn and think your work is ok. It's not! How many times does someone need to tell you, you need to improve?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This was closed because Bishonen saw how clear CA was acting in revenge...who opened it again??TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Beats me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This one wasn't closed. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to wait for Bishonen (or any admin, please end this!) to close this and hopefully block CA in the process. CA has caused too much damage and his excuses are getting even more bogus. He has been given too many chances because the work he is involved in is important, but CA's editing is not reflecting on that importance. It's hurting the project and the subjects of the article that deserve a better representation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So me speaking African American Vernacular English is bogus? Or creating articles that are about African Americans is hurting? Do you see the problem of not having articles ? In the article "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" by JAY CASSANO it is addressed [359]. "Wikipedia is the go-to place for information, especially for young people who were born in the digital age. It's what they seek out. So even if they do a Google search and there is information about somebody or something online, they look for Wikipedia. The existence of an entry on Wikipedia gives it weight. It's kind of like 'Oh, it's on Wikipedia? Then it's important.' " I would rather an article written in AAVE than no article. Blocking me for addressing a problem is not how things should be done. You have not been working well with others and have been warned for it. [360] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning that was Bishonen politely asking me to not comment on his talkpage. I never said creating article about Aftican Americans was bad, but you clearly shouldn't be the one doing it. You continue to not listen and it's completely astounding.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure it was closed? Anyway, I'm not sure it's time to close the thread, frankly. I'm pretty tired of CrazyAces' monumental timewasting IDHT behaviour lately, not least on my page. In April, I undid his indefinite ban. Because of the systemic bias angle, I gave a lot of extra chances and assumed a lot of good faith, and so have others. It seems to me that by now the only alternative to a renewed site ban is a ban against creating articles other than through WP:AfC. CrazyAces escaped such a ban by the skin of his teeth in April, pleading (reasonably) the backlog at AfC (though with the unreasonable rider "I create so others can work").[361] I told him I would no longer insist he go through AfC, on condition that he started focusing more on quality than quantity and gave his creations more love before posting them in mainspace.[362] Perhaps he did give them more love, and stopped intentionally relying on others to fix all problems; I don't know. But in that case — if he's doing his best with these new articles — then he still needs to go through AfC, where experienced editors can help him and inform him. It's not working as it is, and the use of several accounts concerns me very much also. See also this discussion on User talk:Tokyogirl79. This is my proposal:

Proposed: CrazyAces489 banned from creating new articles

I propose that CrazyAces be only allowed to create new articles through WP:AfC, per argument above. Not a recommendation — I feel we've done enough recommending to this user, with very little effect — but an actual ban from creating new articles other than through AfC. There will also be no more tolerance for attempts to avoid scrutiny by creating articles (or other editing) using another account.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
• Support – this doesn't overly penalize CA and prevent him from content creation, but does force him to "play by the rules". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I have had too many conflicts with CA over his articles. Everyone has tried to help him, but he simply refuses to listen so this is the only alternative other than an indefinite block. Unfortunately, he is still getting into conflicts, right now with User:SubSeven so other things need to be addressed. And I should note this is not limited to his CA account, but also User:NegroLeagueHistorian and the other account CA mentioned he would use when he retired as User:NegroLeagueHistorian.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• support if TheGracefulSlick and Niteshift36 are WP:IBANned from me. If not I will "oppose" it. I have cut down on my article creation so that isn't a big deal to me. The ones who lose out is the people. Wikipedia suffers from Gender Bias on Wikipedia [363] as well as Racial Bias on Wikipedia [364] I use Ebonics / AAVE and as a result others correcting my articles will be helpful. The attacks on me have been ignored even though they are documented in violation of WP:Civil and WP:Hounding. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Funny, you never said anything about Ebonics/AAVE before your last "retirement" when your odd grammar was noted by an admin. Now, after you thought it up started using that excuse, it has been your sole excuse. AAVE doesn't make you use sources that aren't reliable. AAVE doesn't make you insert trivial factoids to increase the number of sources. AAVE doesn't make you misrepresent what a source says. The only thing you can blame on AAVE is grammar. The rest is all just your refusal to properly edit. Agreeing to a creation ban isn't required. Agreeing with multiple conditions? Good luck with that. From my end, I never noticed your edits under the other name because I don't edit those articles. If you stay out of martial arts articles, I probably won't see you. I can't think of a non-martial arts article we've interacted on. But if I do cross paths with you and your sources are shoddy, I will correct the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift, I made mention of it before in April. I made another account and TheGracefulSlick was following me around in that one. [365] After I was outed by Peter Rehse. [366] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

An AFC is essentially a ban as the backlog is over one month. [367] The funny thing is that many I had considerably less articles over the past 2 months. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As User:NegroLeagueHistorian you created 17 articles. You know that so stop ignoring it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Who ignored it? 17 is considerably less than the 36 I created in April or 45 in March or almost 30 in Feb [368] CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift and me were fixing your articles and suggested ways for you to improve so you wouldn't have them deleted. You refused with "I create so others can work". An IBAN doesn't make sense if you truly want your articles to improve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't want your help or want to interact with you. Point blank. You have hounded me on 2 accounts and what appears to follow me around on wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not hounding if I'm fixing your mistakes. No one would have to if you simply did it right the first time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So voting to delete so many articles is helpful? CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

TGS Read up on what hounding is. Understand why I wanted an IBAN. I simply don't want to work with you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. ' --SubSeven (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Editor has a track record of questionable articles, has never taken the help and advice offered to him seriously and....well, I'll just stop with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth noting one of CA's most recent comments: "The sources are the sources. I put something in, and it gets gutted. So I just started to make stubs. Less work and less headaches."[369]. It's probably worth specifying to him in the final wording that creating a stub is the same as creating an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a stub is better than having no article as Black History is very underrepresented on wikipedia. I try putting in good sources but many times they are just removed for a variety of reasons. I don't want to argue with people anymore so I just don't bother. Create a stub with some strong sources and hopefully other wikipedians can grow the articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong sources? In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Hmmm.....create a stub and hopefully others can grow it. That sounds a lot like "I create so others can work". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is wikipedia not a community where we work together? If my edits are deleted, what is left for me to do? CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Work together? Yes. But you have to do your part. Just thinking up ideas isn't doing your part. It's your responsibility to use reliable sources. It's your responsibility to present what is in the sources accurately. Yes, others can assist on phrasing, grammar, structure, adding/deleting, but you have a responsibility to cover the basics. Your history of using sources that aren't even close to passing RS is a major part of the problem that you've refused to fix. Once again I'll make the suggestion that you pick a good strong topic and try to write it to GA standards. Even if it doesn't pass, going through that process will help you understand what makes quality articles and will help you grow as an editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clarify something, User:SubSeven reported User:CrazyAces489 on WP:AN3 while this discussion is still active. Here is the report and the creation: [370]. — JudeccaXIII talk) 23:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SubSeven This isn't news User talk:JudeccaXIII [371] I have made complaints about this before CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Would the ban/restriction apply to the user's alternate accounts and sockpuppets as well? Just want to clarify, since the problem could merely shift if a ban/restriction is put into place. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, Softlavender. It would apply to the individual and to any account they may create. That's what I meant by writing "There will also be no more tolerance for attempts to avoid scrutiny by creating articles (or other editing) using another account." But I'm glad you asked, it needs to be clear, since there has been so much tolerance before. And, CrazyAces489, I strongly advise you to not argue with everybody who supports here, as it merely makes a bad impression. Let people put their opinion without pestering, please. There's no need to repeat yet again the things you've said so many times, and definitely no need for bolding. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

• Support I've not crossed paths with CA in a while, so was quite surprised to see this here given the previous retirement. I note this where it appears where MKDW saw a consensus for an indefinite block, only avoided by CAs phoney retirement. I would think this alone is not going to stop people losing patience unless CA seriously addresses some of the other issues in his edits, particularly the continual failure to understand WP:RS --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I would greatly prefer that CrazyAces make his articles at AfC. As far as the IBAN goes, I brought that up at my talk page because I didn't think that CrazyAces was going to listen to anything GracefulSlick had to say and the two were just butting heads at that point. (For the record, I do agree with Graceful's concerns about CrazyAce's contributions.) Crazy, you can request an IBAN, however I will warn you that the problems that Graceful brought up will likely be brought up again by another editor - or multiple editors. That's why I heavily recommended AfC creation since that'd give you more time to work on the articles, (hopefully) a chance to have feedback from various editors if they decline your articles, and I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on my talk page that maybe you'd fare better if you worked with someone else. As far as making edits on pre-existing articles goes, I'd greatly recommend that you get a mentor and make frequent use of the WP:TEAHOUSE. I would also recommend that you go through Wikipedia's training modules on editing like The Wikipedia Adventure. If anything, I'd like to make this a requirement for you at this point just to make sure that there's some sort of record of you going through a training module so we can verify that you are aware of the basics. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support – per IJBall, there's a lot of helpful advice here. Editors can help, but they can't spend their lives 'clearing up'.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• comment I have come up with multiple individuals and ideas that haven't come up in the almost 10 years of Wikipedia. It isn't like I haven't used AFC previously. I have with Jorge Gracie if you look at it's history. AFC has such a back log that it is ridiculous. I feel that the vast majority of people who have given an opinion on this should have recused themselves as they already have had considerable negative interactions with me. I feel that I have been mocked and attacked multiple times by most of the people who have written in support. My topics are very often very important in relation to African History. My usage of AAVE has been attacked and mocked. When I requested IBAN's against individuals previously it was simply closed in under a day as possible retaliation. It is quite disheartening to see this within wikipedia. Good luck finding anyone who can cover the range of topics in such a short amount of time in terms of women and african americans that I have. In baseball we don't expect the pitcher to play every position. We don't have the Designated hitter pitch! We let a pitcher pitch! I have created articles that many people haven't even touched in 10 year!! I am not good and have shown that I am not good at finding RS and other things. I start basic articles and wish the community would recognize my talents at that! Speaking about an article of mine that did well. Take a look at Marilyn Mosby . Signing off! CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CrazyAces489 first off, don't take credit for the Mosby article, you hardly did any actual work on it. Secondly, stop using backlog as an excuse for avoiding the proposals outlines. If you simply followed advice this wouldn't have been neccessary. Like I said, what you work in is important, but it is a shame all of the subjects, notable or not, are misrepresented by how you edit. If you truly cared about the subject, you would take more time to write about it. There is no talent in simply finding the subject, anyone can do that. Perhaps you can finally realize that, but it is highly unlikely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible walled garden by new user

• April Fain (talk · contribs)

Editor is creating a series of interrelated articles, biographies of researchers, their publications and organization. The notability of the scholarship and the scholars themselves have not been established, and most of the articles rely on primary sources. May merit observation for conflict of interest, as well. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

To follow up, this is a WP:COI account, with a strong promotional intent. A few of the articles may merit keeping, but the balance of them appear eligible for deletion. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

asked and answered digressions about unregistered editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're obviously not a newbie. What other accounts have you edited under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Many as an IP, and one as a registered, all without controversy. How, Baseball, is that relevant to this report? 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs: Please don't needlessly interrogate editors simply because they're not editing from an account. Sam Walton (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Sam Walton. There are numerous reasons I've mostly forsaken contributing as a registered account. One of the secondary reasons has been cultural, which is to say that as long as IPs are far more likely to get hammered for making constructive edits, I'll choose to edit that way. That any type of explanation is requested is, to be blunt, creepy. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you for pretty much answering my question. I'll take it on faith that your registered account is not a blocked account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure why it's necessary to need to take anything on faith, or to assume the possibility that I've been blocked; the assumption being that no credible editor would opt to contribute anonymously. I've 15 barnstars, appreciate them, yet don't give a whit to acquire more. Nor to be questioned without reason. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Editors who show up from out of nowhere, and obviously know their way around, automatically raise suspicions. I can't tell you how many editors made the same claims as you, and were eventually found out to be evading blocks. Don't act suspicious, and you won't raise suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I looked at several of these articles and they are just as you say. It sure has the earmarks of paid placement. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Without meaning to out the editor, it wasn't difficult to connect the dots and find that this is part of a public relations effort. To their credit, once addressed, the editor was transparent as to their connection. And maybe a few of the bios will stand as notable if the subjects' academic credentials are substantiated. But the lot of articles are problematic; perhaps several can be AfD'd together. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've notified the user of the discussion. KrakatoaKatie 22:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• IP 2601:188:0 had already notified April Fain about this ANI thread (it's earlier on the Talk page...). But I've left April a note that will hopefully help this user with Talk page procedures... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

UK vandal using Greek IPs?

It appears that a persistent UK vandal, the cause of death vandal, has begun using Greek IPs. Compare the following pairs of edits, one made by the UK vandal and the other made by newly active Greek IPs:

• Elaine Stritch, cause of death.[372][373]
• Patrick Macnee, cause of death.[374][375]

These UK and Greek IPs have recently been changing a lot of infoboxes from one sort to another, that is changing Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox person, most likely because the former template does not support parameters for spouse or cause of death.

• A British IP changes the infobox for Ne-Yo.
• A British IP changes the infobox for Pink.
• Mary J. Blige infobox changed by Greek IPs 176.92.64.150 and 78.87.41.113.
• Joe Cocker gets visited by the UK IP 86.8.78.35 changing a header to "Death", and then by the Greek IP 46.103.174.17 changing the infobox, followed by more Greek IPs 87.202.0.191 changing the infobox, and changing the cause of death parameter 176.92.64.150, finally changing the infobox 46.198.23.4.

Here are the most recent IPs involved:

• 78.87.41.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 4 July
• 46.198.23.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 3 July
• 176.92.64.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 2 July
• 178.59.239.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 1 July
• 87.202.0.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 30 June – 2 July
• 46.103.174.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 30 June
• 86.8.78.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 27–28 June (This Leeds-based IP is already listed in the LTA case page)

So it appears that our LTA vandal has shifted his activity to Greece, either physically or by proxy. Any suggestions for stopping this guy? Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps he's on holiday in Greece? It's a very common destination for UK tourists. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yikes! So we're thinking that he's vandalizing Wikipedia while on vacation?!! That's just all kinds of wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• This place lost the ability to surprise me a long time ago. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Vacation to consistent vandals=unsecured shop/hotel wifi and IP's free from blocks and simple collateral damage they don't have to take responsibility from once the trip ends. The children's TV/broadcast vandal community loves when they get away and go to town on their favorite articles while their parents/SO sees the sights, so sadly this is hardly new. Nate • (chatter) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The question remains: what to do about this guy? Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• With them operating from random IP ranges at the moment and hitting random articles, there's nothing really that can be done through blocking or protection. However, if they're making very similar edits over and over, an edit-filter could be useful. I'll post over there. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: the guy is starting to use IPv6 addresses. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• 2A02:582:7440:8000:48A8:5EA6:2D59:66FD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:582:7440:8000:49D8:BF0B:1220:2B76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

LooneyTunerIan

This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.

Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [376], [377]

He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [378], [379].

Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ Rob^Talk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · logs) userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by socks User:Futurewiki, User:Dragonrap2, User:Mega22, and User:Mega256

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

---

• See Mega257 (talk · contribs). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous – is there any chance a rangeblock would work in this case?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

ValleryKing, WP:EW, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIR

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

---

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

Account registered at the beginning of the month. Her activity consists of:

• Starting a slow-motion edit wars at Summer Rae and Total Divas to assert that the former is present in the new season of the latter, as well as at at Real Housewives of Atlanta to remove reliably sourced information:

Summer Rae: 1 Jul, 2 Jul, 3 Jul a, 3 Jul b, 3 Jul c, 3 Jul d, 4 Jul a, 4 Jul b, 4 Jul c, 5 Jul

Total Divas: 1 Jul, 2 Jul, 3 Jul a, 3 Jul b, 3 Jul c, 3 Jul d, 3 Jul e, 4 Jul a, 4 Jul b, 4 Jul c, 5 Jul a, 5 Jul b, 5 Jul c, 5 Jul d

Real Housewives: 2 Jul a, 2 Jul b, 4 Jul

(I will note that they have tried to add something like a source at Total Divas, but it does not mention Season 4 at all. This has been pointed out at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F, but ValleryKing doesn't seem to understand that.)

• Attempting to report the editor who undid their efforts on Real Housewives of Atlanta.
• Removing a message asking for source for new information, twice
• Making unsourced assertions in a BLP

The above diffs are fairly representative of the user's overall behavior.

Multiple users attempted to explain how things work here, but her comprehension appears nonexistent, as can be seen at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F (especially here), on my talk page, on their talk page, and here. Despite insisting that she understands, she regularly goes in the opposite direction of any advice given and acts as though everyone else is at fault for failing to understand her, when she communicates like this:

• "And I already things."
• "This user and I gave warning but they keep reverting ."
• "This is not a issue we just saying and that's all n everyrhing."
• "Thanks and ur welcome yea I'm nice n everything so lol and Summer Rae."
• "Yea thanks for everything n wat MrMS Hurricane said becuz I saw it n stuff n everything else."
• "That is proff on TV n no u don't understand I understand ur perfectly clear u reverting my changes n I'm reverting I had legal proff all u have is the cast like our but IMA go do my change n u to so u need everything"
• "Yes but why u coming wit this wit me n stuff I understand u don't I'm nice but u taking it to a whole nother level that its nots and I am having the right everything n on tired of having to explain my self to u. Becuz it seems like u don't believe me so don't then. Because u keep doing whatever n my refs and sour. it is valid."
• "MSMRHurricane already about the Summer Rae return and she or he telling me I need to provide the right stuff and which I am doing ."

At first, I thought that ValleryKing's might be an ESL user, but certain things lead me to believe we're dealing with a native speaker who just cannot communicate clearly. For example, they use "u" instead of "you" and "ur" instead of "your", as well as using "n" instead of "and," "plz" instead of "please," "wat Eva" instead of "whatever," "wen Eva" instead of "whenever" -- all more consistent with a differently educated native speaker.

For the record, I grew up with a babysitter who spoke Gullah to the exclusion of normative English, I can read Chaucer in the original middle English, I worked for over a year in a rural Walmart located inbetween two housing projects and down the road from a trailer park, and I have a TEFL certification (should be using it to teach as well in a few months). I feel pride when I can help ESL users, and enjoy conversing with the different dialects of English (including unfortunately maligned ones like African American Vernacular English). I have little reason to suspect that my comprehension is the problem here.

ValleryKing displays serious (if not terminal) issues with WP:EW, WP:IDHT, and especially WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh the administrative. They not helping me or understanding me. I need help to do the article and it is true that Summer returning and she announced it on June 30, 2015 but they understanding me and I understand them so idk . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.5.201 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you weren't using textspeak (which frankly has little to no place on an encyclopedia project). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that I need to start speaking better English so I ne'er people to understand me and where I'm coming from on this and idk need help for the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You also need to demonstrate that you understand other people by really citing sources that actually support claims you make, and by not edit warring. We understand that you claim to have seen the information on TV, you haven't shown us that you really understand that we need sources that we can verify. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No you don't understand I understand y'all claims but I'm doing the right thing but u are telling me I'm not and other stuff that I know already and I did warn u but that didn't work socwe reported it like we said that we were gonna do but Ian come on now! I'm providing stuff you not so don't we were doing it together but we were fussing and idk. Summer Rae is returning for the first half of season four as a series regular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC) You are doubting me for no eason and its not fair to me or our other fellow wikipedia users.

Thank y'all for everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No one has made any claims but you. WP:CITE is not a "claim," it is a site guideline. WP:3RR is not a "claim," it is a site policy. If you want to do the right thing, read those pages and follow what they say -- in other words, quit adding claims to the Total Divas article, and go to the talk page and present a source that says that Summer Rae is returning for season 4 of Total Divas. What part of that do you not understand? Don't just say you understand and then act like you don't.

You are giving us no reason to believe you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian stop right there? I did read the links that u gave me but u still not understanding so idk what to say because I'm not the only person to claim that Summer Rae is returning for season Summer did to so please don't say I'm the only one but I'm not she did to and u don't believe so why I gotter prove my self to you And u no we both said something so stop reverting and everything U act like u don't understand where I'm coming from and you. But thank you. I told u that I'm gone say when I will do a change but idk and everything else. But u still doubting me and you know about This talking gotten out of line and its been so idk anymore for uK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs)

That is the whole problem though, you say this information is true but you can't prove it. That's what we are saying to you, that you must provide the right references to back up your edits where needed. Clearly you do not understand at all, we are understanding everything you are saying yet we are giving you the reasons why they are invalid. It doesn't matter if you tell us before making a change, that doesn't help at all, the only thing that will help you is if you can provide legit references to make your changes justifiable. Until then, editors of the Total Divas page (including myself) will not be able to keep your changes or anyone else's changes that don't have references. I have explained this to you over and over again on both of our talk pages, but it's not sinking in. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

MSMRHurricane u don't understand I gave u the proof and stuff and I told u to n it do make a difference when I'm telling u that IMA make a change I understand but u r not undastsndin nothing I say and I really could careless n u don't beleve me do idk n I told u that we were going to it again but not understanding.

Point Blank Period Dats Da Bottom Line

Stop doubting me n stuff becuz u I'm right n everything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying you're wrong. No one is saying you're information is wrong. It just can't be a permanent change on the article since you don't have legit references. And again, you have provided us with invalid references. The link you submit every time doesn't relate to your statements about Summer Rae's return, and your word isn't considered a reference at all, no matter who believes you or not, it doesn't count. You must proved a legit, readable and reliable reference for any changes you or anyone else does. If I (or anyone else) were to make a change such as yours with only our word to prove it, it wouldn't can't. Regardless of the person, legitimate references are required. I don't know how many times we have to explain it to you, it's as simple as that. It's nothing to do with you personally or doubt or not believing one another, it's a simple rule that must be followed while editing on Wikipedia. Like I said, we're not saying you're wrong, the way your're going about all of this is wrong. Your actions are wrong and you are just not showing capability to comply with those rules. Point, blank, period. MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I am showing I'm complying wit those rules and I am providing the right stuff n links sources n etc I'm right n I'm not wrong becux u dont understand MSMRHurricane and u know u don't all IMA saying I. Doin the right providing it but u keep telling Me I'm wrong n did n DAT we were going to do it together but idk noe n everything n I'm following that rule n u telling me I'm not brcyz udk y u sayin DAT n days niy fair to me n u not understanding gfor the Summer Rae claim for her return so stop doubting me and sayn dat. It is simple that I'm coin hut u dont care or wanna understand and I don't have no understanding PROBLEM. But it not doing it the way allvu worrying about me n my edits n u are sayn I'm wrong u wouldn't be sayn that n u don't believe me. Stop copying the words I say OK n dats not fair to my word is so stop acting on da INTERNET and stop I love did site but ever so since I joined this website its NEGATIVE for me to tell to constanly telling u n stop it. Doubting me n this how u treat me like I'm a child n its not fair n u keep doubting me and some other stuff to me GROW Up_ and stay in your LANE this is aggravating u are though telling me I'm not doing stuff wrong and no one believe me BUT I AM doing stuff RIte.

I FOLLOW THE RULES and I don't do wat I WannA Do on here. Stop fooling ur self on here I'm takingp up for u so stop fussing wit me o. HERE n idk if I'm done but I'm telling u DAT IMA make changes for a reason but u don't understand me or me it my stuff. Da only reason wen I say DAT IMA make a change do for u to know in stet of doing it be her ind ur vac so understand. Stop da MADness. U got me looking like I'm not I'm not doing da rite ding on here but I AM with All OF MY HOLY HEART.

God is a awesome GOD.

I was being nice to u n I'm still being nice but this is childish that we are doing and stuff.

Thats DA botToM LinE and Point, Blank, Period.

God Blessed

Valleryking (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The only childish behavior is coming from you. I'm not going to cross the line to where you are standing as that is immature and won't get anything solve. So until something is done with your statements or with your privileges to edit articles, I'm done trying to explain anything to you. Your edits will be reverted unless the appropriate references are provided, thank you. MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, can you really not see when you're being trolled? Mr Potto (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple IP Content Reverts/Re-addtions to Meat

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

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

Breanna4567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Into_The_Fray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filer of this report)

I am not sure whether this constitutes vandalism, sockpuppetry, a WP:RFPP matter or an edit war at this point, so I am asking an admin to take a look. Along with another editor (and ClueBOT), I reverted some persistent editing to the article as vandalism. This initially resulted in the IP user being blocked. A glance at the history page for the article tells a pretty clear story of what is going on. The user initially began making significant, disruptive changes to the article (WP:POV issues, removing sources, some edits that look like pure vandalism) and has continued to do so. You can see the initial discussion between myself, another editor and the individual as 96.228.52.184 on that IP's talk page, as well as the block notification. There is some further discussion on my talk page. The same individual has returned as the 72.84.207.76 IP and continued to make persistent changes to the article. Here are diffs for some of the edits I am talking about: [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387] and so on. To me, it borders on pure vandalism, but in the interest of WP:AGF and understanding that this individual feels passionately about it, I thought I would bring it here. Thanks for your time. I'll put a note on the 72.84.207.76 IP's talk page immediately after this. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See also User:Breanna4567 - clearly the same person. Note this post at Talk:Main Page [388] "What happened to the article "meat"??" AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And now Breanna4567 has blanked this thread.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: So Breanna4567 has been indef blocked. IP 96.228.52.184 was recently blocked by by Kudpung, but that block has already expired. IP 72.84.207.76 was temporarily blocked back in April 26, but not since then... I'm wondering if maybe an WP:SPI report might be the way to go here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly do that if needed. It was my initial inclination but as far as sock puppetry goes, it's not the most egregious of cases and perhaps I am being trolled, but at least as far as some of the more recent edits to Meat went, it did appear that there might have been some . . . however misguided . . . intent to add sourced content to the article. Hence bringing it here. If WP:SPI is the way to go, I'll put it there. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan

• GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've tried to resolve this in every other way I can, and this is out of control.

GaryColemanFan is completely ignoring the rules of WP:BLP even after being advised thereof by Darkwind that the onus is on him to reliably and independently source information. Despite this, he persistently adds contentious sources for a claim as to who trained current WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy. The latest of which is a podcast which I am having checked for reliability over on the RS Noticeboard. Despite this good faith checking, Gary has now regarded my removal of what stands as an unreliable source per BLP (until RS confirms otherwise) as vandalism and in the process is using bullying tactics against WP:CIVIL to get his way - including indirect personal attacks based on comments I have made about my back up reasons (not core reasons) for my own editing simply being OR and should for that reason be ignored. It is not and never has been my core reason and anyway if there is controversy about a source, BLP places the onus on the claimer (in this case Gary) to back it up. He has not done so with proven reliable sources yet.

His last reversion can't be reverted by me because I'll be in violation of WP:3RR which is very frustrating because now we have an unproven source on the page identifying Carlo Cannon as having trained Buddy Murphy. I make this report because of Gary's conduct throughout this issue and his insistence in effect that WP:IAR be applied over and above WP:BLP and WP:V. Right throughout this I have been acting in good faith, and I believe that Gary is not and is behaving in such a manner that a block should be considered or at the very least a warning. The RS Noticeboard will hopefully carry the solution and Gary should have waited for the ruling there. As it stands, his edit is against WP:BLP as stated. If his source is verified by an admin on the RS Noticeboard that will change matters, but until then my edit should be maintained. Either way, Gary is out of line at present and I ask that action be taken. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't recall ever having seen such a protracted and inflamed argument over something of so little objective importance: this stands out even in the context of lame edit wars over wrestling topics generally. The whole lot of you need slapping with the WP:TROUT. The content should be removed pending consensus on Talk, and the best way to fix that is an RfC. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well we've been through the BLPN already, and I took the issue to the RSN as well. So I doubt under the current conditions a consensus is even possible until Gary and the IP's treat the BLP rules with more respect. Having said that, if an RS admin can provide a definitive answer to my latest query there that may be the closure that's needed without RfC being needed. I agree in the meantime that the Carlo Cannon reference should be removed. I can't - as mentioned above. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's hard to be civil to the standard you're talking about when people have their blinkers on over the rules of BLP - which was a problem from the very beginning. I've tried, believe me, but it has been extremely difficult - especially when I know I'm being bullied and my automatic reaction is to strike back strongly just to show I won't be intimidated. It's very hard to go in another direction (LOL at below). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wot yo' talkin' 'bout, Willis? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh. (How long have you been waiting to use that one?!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well now. I left a polite warning on GaryColemanFan's talk page about his characterisation of edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" and he removed it with the edit summary stay off my talk page forever. This is now looking like a user who is actively rejecting any attempt to influence him. I do not think this behaviour is at all appropriate. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, looking quickly at GaryColemanFan's talk page, I couldn't see any notification of this ANI. Shouldn't that be first step? (apologies if it was under my nose).Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, IJBall. It is ripe for problematic editing, and all I was doing was trying to uphold the rules of BLP in perfectly good faith. All Gary wanted to do was fill the seven year gap in Buddy Murphy's training and in effect put WP:IAR ahead of BLP to that end - ie refusing to be influenced as JzG said, even by admins like him and Darkwind. It's stubborn and it doesn't help provide encyclopaedic content, particularly truly reliable sourcing. One of the reasons why I left WP for a long time was the lack of respect for the Australian wrestling scene. This is an example of it although it's a little different to the previous batch in that the definition of "industry professional" is being applied way too freely. As noted below I have bailed on the core dispute simply because I'm tired of arguing with another editor who refused to listen, but it doesn't alter the fact that Gary has been uncivil in his dealings here and he has been a bully in the process. In fact if I remember from my last stint here he was doing it even then, so it would appear a leopard doesn't change their spots. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the edit from JzG because he has a history of incivility toward me, calling me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit" on my talk page. Regardless of the situation, any communication from him on my talk page will be removed on sight. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, though. I'm not rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy non-issue. I just don't like JzG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is between me and 94, and has nothing to do with this ANI. Deflecting like that is typical behaviour of a bully. Way to provide further proof against you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

InedibleHulk

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

---

During our discussion about the 2012 Aurora shooting categorization in his talk page, he has been consistently challenging the opinions of me and VQuakr, giving smart-aleck retorts, and insulting us. In particular, he called me "stupid" and it has offended me a lot. Can someone please take care of this? DisuseKid (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You weren't a part of that conversation till you showed up to call me butt-hurt. After that, you made a stupid comment, so I asked if you were stupid. Maybe you aren't. I didn't even come close to insulting the other guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

You DESPERATELY need to rethink your choice of words. DisuseKid (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Now this is someone calling someone stupid. See the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

And telling me to "fuck off" is any better? Please. So immature. DisuseKid (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this is what I was talking about. DisuseKid (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably biased, but I think mine was better. Harsher swear word, but useful advice on how to avoid troubling situations. There's nothing helpful about "stupid bitch". Even if you say it to an actual stupid bitch as some sort of "wakeup call", it's not going to inspire them. Just attacking for attacking's sake.

Luckily for both of us, I recently (re?)declared my talk page immune from personal attacks. So no boomerang for you, and no crying for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to your first visit to this page after all of 15 days editing. There are no rules against consistently challenging others' opinions or giving smart-aleck retorts. Second, if you want to report violations of WP:NPA, you have to provide diffs of same; no one here wishes to go hunting down the remarks you're complaining about, and sorry but they're not going to take your word for it. From what I've observed of your situation I doubt you have much of a case here, but at least present your case correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be rules against those, then. It's not professional. DisuseKid (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC

The Should Be Rules Department is that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You might give WP:BOOMERANG a look as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad behavior by another editor does not justify or excuse bad behavior in response. When you behave badly, complaining about another editor behaving equally badly makes you look silly. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Arguing that the other editor's bad behavior is slightly different from your bad behavior makes you look even sillier than you did before. Finally, I advise both of you to knock it off before an admin steps in and makes you. Your behavior is hurting Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose short time period ban on both editors (48 hrs - a week). I've seen InedibleHulk make constructive contributions but we can't just let incivility like this slip. However if InedibleHulk has added more incivil comments then his penalty should be greater. GregKaye 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if I'm affected as well, I approve. Seems fitting enough. DisuseKid (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd support WP:BOOMERANG. Contributions indicate DisusedKid is on a mission to be disruptive. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

InedibleHulk is just as guilty for making unwarranted changes despite a consensus regarding the subject matter not being reached as of yet. DisuseKid (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding BLP issues are of a higher priority. Removing murder/murderer references until BLP noticeboard has a look is a reasonable thing to do. I suppose I should change my stance to a weak support for WP:BOOMERANG, DisuseKid may just have been too cocky while not recognizing the significance of a potential BLP issue. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I was tricked, all right? DisuseKid (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you tricked yourself. Your confidence level greatly exceeded your experience level. Don't feel bad, it happens all the time, but you might consider a softer stance against editors who have 50 times your experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Either way, Hulk was incivil towards me and I expect some sort of adequate response to it. DisuseKid (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We good? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've "known" the Hulk for close to two years and have grown to like and respect him more than I did at first. And he's made substantial contributions to the project. But I'm a member of the minority who believe in one behavior standard for everyone, regardless of who they are, how much I or anyone else likes them, or how much they've contributed. I think "fuck off" are words that never serve any constructive purpose, and a zero tolerance on such words would do a lot more good than harm. I think you can reasonably plead ignorance at only 15 days, and I'd be inclined to cut you some slack - one time - provided you indicate that you've learned something here. The Hulk doesn't have inexperience for an excuse. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm standing by my "harsh word, useful advice" excuse. "Fuck off" isn't "fuck you". It just means go away, but "colourful". But yes, it was uncivil. I'll not say it again, unless I'm sure I'm talking to someone who doesn't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Ummmmm... You could've easily just said "Go away" then, and we wouldn't be having this conversation... DisuseKid (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello? I wish to hear your response. DisuseKid (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mine? I said I was sorry above. Not sure what else you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

It was uncivil (i.e., a violation of WP:CIVIL), you won't do it again, but it just means go away and you're standing by it. Um-kay. I'll leave it to others to decipher that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The message is fine, the way I worded it was uncivil. I could have said "go away", but since I was responding to a lack of tolerance for my language, I figured "fuck off" worked better, rhetorically. Sometimes I give my words greater consideration than my audience. It's a flaw in dealing with people, no doubt. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Responding to a lack of tolerance with a lack of tolerance is not the most tactical method in dealing with people like me... DisuseKid (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What would you prefer? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some patience and respect. DisuseKid (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

• Hulk and I have disagreed in the past. I don't recall why, but IIRC correctly, we didn't see eye to eye and clashed a bit. In the end, I respect him and value his contributions. I admittedly haven't read through the history to find out what led to the f**k off response, but I know my ability to tick people off and I didn't get him to that point.....no allegation, just finding it hard to believe that it's as one-sided as the initial complain makes it sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comment wasn't made from anger. I wasn't exactly happy, either, but not "driven" to it. Just where the conversation went, I think. Part of my inedibility comes from my foul mouth. I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure you got some of that from me at Fox News Channel (and Rupert Murdoch probably has grounds to sue me). But yeah, you're fine with me now. I'm not the grudge sort. Not against people, anyway. I hate serial commas, and have a burning disdain for "however". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Crap. I was favoring a no-action close here, but forget it. I like serial commas. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Give me naturally flowing lists, or give me death! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I admit I am just as guilty of being aggressive in this ordeal, but I did expect some sort of response to be taken from all this. DisuseKid (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you've gotten a response. Seven editors have written over 1,300 words, you have received an apology, and there's a good chance you'll be forgiven this time for your side of it. The only other available responses are: 1. A warning issued by an admin, which is basically a slap-on-wrist and doesn't mean much in the long run, and 2. a block. A block of even a couple of days is a fairly serious matter for anyone who gives a shit about their record, and I believe the Hulk to be such a person (I could be wrong). Considering that you didn't come here with clean hands, and you soiled them further after you got here, I'd suggest dropping this at this point. If an admin feels a Hulk block is warranted, fine, but it's a good time for you to step away. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was blocked for 24 hours once. Forget the details, but it was a bit annoying. Now that my record's already tainted, a second wouldn't be so bad. That's not to say I'd like a block, just wouldn't be as bad as the first. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Or no, it was actually 50 minutes. Initially for 24 hours. I blame List of WWE personnel. That article is bigger than Jesus, in a controversy way. Basically poison. Only George W. Bush gets more action today. Still, a taint's a taint. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Proposal #2 short period ban on both editors (24 hrs - 3 days) unless they indicate that they understand that saying things like "fuck off" and stupid bitch" are not allowed here and that they will make a good-faith effort to not act that way in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand completely and I will do my best to avoid using such language again. DisuseKid (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your move, Hulkster. Will it be the "Hulk Smash!!" of the early comics or the new, more cooperative Hulk who beat up Loki in the Avengers movie? I am really hoping that we can all agree to play nice and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I stopped watching Marvel movies after the first Iron Man, so I don't know about that. But I'm down for playing nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

Both parties have agreed to be civil, so I move to close this as "no action required". Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Support that. This thread has already accomplished more than most I've seen on this page. I stand by my general comments above, but the Hulk has shown an unusual degree of contrition here, and there's the boomerang issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomeranging doesn't make much sense, at least on civility. Like I said above, I'm fine with personal attacks (against me) on my Talk Page. As long as they don't get personal personal, like revealing my secret identity (I am not Lou Ferrigno, if anyone was wondering.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, DK's behavior should have no bearing on the response to yours. I guess I was looking too hard for reasons to close, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to a block if you want it. As to your unusual and somewhat odd personal policy, PA is really an offense against the community as well as the target individual. Even on your talk page, other people would see it and it would affect their perception of what is acceptable speech around here. That wouldn't be good. They often wouldn't know about your policy, even if you stated it in big letters at the top. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and both parties have agreed to stop insulting each other. BTW, if anyone really feels that they need a good insult, I have a page at http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html that they can use. But not on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a block. I don't want the Kid blocked. Don't want to set a bad example for others, either, so maybe some sort of censure? Big scarlet letters at the top? Not my choice, of course, just my two cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never really gotten my head around that preventative not punitive thing. It's effectively a license to do whatever you want, provided you stop before you get blocked. Wait a week, reset, repeat. Nice utopian concept, not very useful in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Support close, no action, everybody 'kiss and make up'. Personalising/abusing isn't clever or effective and justifications are almost guaranteed to look silly.Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Gg3577

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

---

The user created an autobiography at Gregory Britische which I tagged G7. He logged off and started alleging misbehaviour on my part, [389][390][391][392][393]. After logging in again he started on User:Acroterion, [394]. He's now recreated his autboigraphy at Gregory britt which has been tagged by Qwertyus, and nominated himself for the mop [395].

Clearly someone with "issues" (as declared in his autobiography) who needs some time-out, if not some real help off-wiki. Bazj (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article as an obvious A7 - completely unsourced biography of a totally non notable person with no evidence of unreliable sources (let alone reliable) whatsoever. If the creator objects (and I suspect they will), we can take it from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And, as predicted, [396][397]. Then blocked as a sock. Can't help but feel he needs some care, and he has linked to the hospital who are his caregivers (and edited their article), but I'm totally clueless as to the proper form in cases like this. Bazj (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

POV/Peacock pushing at Faisalabad

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

---

At the article Faisalabad, in June @Edward321: did some copy editing with the edit summary "tightened wording, reduced pov", and it looked good with a lot of bad material excised. But we now have two accounts reverting it and putting back all the POV/peacock material - "prestigious", "renowned", "influential", "famous", "international stardom", "worked tirelessly", etc. Edward321 also removed some material that was not actually about Faisalabad, sourced from a caste-based publication, and they've put that back too. The original account that reinstated all the puffery and irrelevant material that Edward321 removed was @PK7999:, whose account was created at 12:02 today, and they unfairly labeled Edward321's copy editing work as vandalism - and I got no response whatsoever when I approached them on their talk page. After I reverted a couple of times and warned them about WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV and told them they need to start a talk page discussion, the @Qalandarjjj: account was created at 15:25 today and reverted me again. There's a content dispute certainly, but I bring it here because there are clear policy violations too - edit-warring in defiance of WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV, refusal to follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, refusal to discuss, and probably sockpuppetry (but at least some meaty collusion). I think some kind of force is needed to get them to the talk page. (Note that I have reverted 3 times, after the PK799 account avoided exceeding 3RR with the arrival of the Qalandarjjj account, and as this does not count as a 3RR exception I will revert no further without admin action or consensus). Mr Potto (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Faisalabad#Peacock/POV where one person already seems to be in agreement with me, so I'd appreciate admin help to halt the wholesale reverts while it's under discussion, if they continue. Mr Potto (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are any more reverts I'll semiprotect it for a while, and I'll keep an eye on the discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Primo-Vascular system

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system started 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC) so is over the 7 days, could some kind soul please put the AfD out of all our misery? One user has expended around 400 edits defending it. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I had actually been following that for some unknown reason and read the article. Interesting stuff if true. Regardless, I closed it and tried to explain as best I could, but I'm not going to be shocked if it goes to DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis. Yes, one day it might make an interesting article. When we have reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User's inability to refrain from test editing, following multiple warnings and reverts of information

The Sheikh001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned, on several occasions, about their continued addition of unverifiable information, original research and non-existent links to Days of Our Lives cast members. Their continued testing of edits has also seemed to prove highly disruptive, and they are clearly not here to edit in a cohesive and collaborative experience. Looking at their recent edit history], it proves they are continuing to make disruptive, test edits despite being warned multiple times in the past few weeks time. I am requesting that someone in TPTB take action against this edit, who clearly is not here to be a resourceful editor. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, it is hard to see where the edits are in bad faith. The only one to actually warn him is you. Twice you called his edits vandalism, but to those of us that don't watch the show, it's not readily obvious how these edits were vandalism. Specific diffs and explanations would be helpful, and I would be interested in letting others opine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff 1 (Link does not exist)

Diff 2 (Links do not exist)

Diff 3 (Link does not exist)

Diff 4 (Link does not exist)

Diff 5 (Link does not exist)

Diff 6 (Link does not exist)

Diff 7 (Timeframe not confirmed in any source given) livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• His edits show a history of only being here to annoy other editors. He constantly puts in the same, unsourced info over and over again, only to delete it and leave us all wondering, "What the ****?" Case(s) in point:
  • Adding Aiden Jennings & Clyde Weston as departing and then deleting it
  • Again adding Clyde Weston and then deleting it
  • Adding a date of September 2015 and then deleting it
  • Adding Lauren Boles as departing and then deleting it
  • Again adding Lauren Boles as departing and then deleting it
• If they were always different, I could assume good faith that he's new at editing, making mistakes and cleaning up after himself but... when it's just the same things over and over again (there are others but, to keep going is time consuming), he's clearly just here to play around. As for Livelikemusic being the only one to warn him, that's only because I leave it for Livelikemusic to do because I know he will. If LLM weren't around, I would have issued warnings myself as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jack DeMattos and WP:MOS

Jack DeMattos (talk · contribs) is apparently an author of several populist history books about the Old West. Presumably, he is quite knowledgeable about this subject area and has much to offer to Wikipedia. The problem arises from the fact that he insists on using the same populist style of writing here at Wikipedia, despite several warnings from three different users (myself, btphelps, and bonadea) at both his own talk page and at Talk:Mysterious Dave Mather. DeMattos' writing on Mysterious Dave Mather required an almost complete rewrite (here) after several attempts to have DeMattos address the issue on his own. He has gone on to similarly rewrite articles on Luke Short, Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett, Buckskin Frank Leslie and Billy the Kid. There may well be more problematic articles, but these provide ample evidence of the problem. DeMattos has made minimal comments in the user talk space, and none in the article talk space (except for page moves) to address the comments made regarding his editing style. His problematic editing has kept at least two editors busy trying to clean up after him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just spent the past two hours cleaning up only a portion of his edits of Buckskin Frank Leslie. I left a notice on his talk page asking once again that he take some time to familiarize himself with WP standards, including proper references. Given that he is new to WP, I've tried to be conciliatory and full of praise for his knowledgeable contributions. He has not acknowledged any of my repeated requests to follow WP style. It's becoming problematic. I don't wish to offend DeMattos. I assume as a published writer he is used to following style guides. I'm puzzled that he cannot thus far bother to strive to follow WP's guidelines. I think he may be used to having a professional editor clean up after him and just expects the same here. The lack of communication on his part is frustrating. If he continues to make edits in the same pattern, I'd be concerned that he'll be leaving a wide wake of non-encyclopedic content for other editors to wade through, some of which may not be touched for months, or longer. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a calm, detailed and informative post on his page. When dealing with editors who excel in their own world of writing, I think you have to be more understanding and point them towards concrete examples instead of policy pages. You have to be careful to not talk down, but instead walk beside them for a moment and just explain. I pointed him the WP:FA page, which has our finest articles. I think just looking at these articles will give him a solid primer to move forward if he chooses to. Ready all the policies won't be as helpful. Let's see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The response I received is very promising. This kind of demonstrates why we need to use templates less often, and just strike up an actual discussion with these types of editors. Hopefully, the future will be paved with improvement, but I think we at least have a good start here. This is kind of what WP:WER is about, we WANT skilled people here, we just sometimes have to invest a little time helping them adapt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Fourteen Eighty-eight

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

---

User:Fourteen Eighty-eight has made it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Edits consist solely of Holocaust denial and inflammatory comments about Jews. A calm attempt to ask the user to stop resulted in this response: [398]. Agtx (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely to put a stop to this, but I'm sure that won't be the end of it. Feel free to revoke talk page access if needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Further info

• The 88 part probably refers to Hitler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Concur with Bugs: eighth letter of the alphabet x 2 = "Heil Hitler". "Fourteen" would refer to Fourteen Words. Usernames to look out for.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• 1488 is now connected with Dylann Roof, see here. Yes it's per Shirt58 and Bugs' interpretation. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the behavior of User:HughD

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [399]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [400]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:

• "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [401]

• "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [402]

• "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [403]

• "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [404]

• "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [405]

• "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [406]

• "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [407]

• "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [408]

• "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [409]

• "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [410]

• "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [411]

• "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [412]

• "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [413]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other user involved on the page

I am in agreement with Champaign Supernova. Not only has Hugh become increasingly hostile and dragged other users into it with him, but more importantly it has been for the sake of POV-pushing and COATRACKING the page. I had previously wanted to make a post here on this user's conduct but held off hoping he had made the effort to improve. However, he has not.

User:HughD has in effect taken sole authority of the page and disallowed any editors from significantly altering the page. This user repeatedly uses arguments such as “restoring community consensus” to justify their reversion of edits. However, reviewing the article's talk page, it is apparent that the community consensus is far from HughD's version. He is undoubtedly acting as a rogue editor without heeding any questions concerns or criticisms from other editors involved on the page.

I cannot standby and allow these actions to be unnoticed by the greater Wikipedia community. Almost every other user involved on the page disagrees with HughD's version and yet he has assumed complete authority over the page to block any revisions that are not his. There's a major difference between gaining a community consensus over a content dispute, and the actions of HughD (which some consider COATRACKING or POV-PUSHING).

POV content

This editor consistently adds information in a manner to make the article an attack page. Almost every instance I am referencing adds undue weight to some aspect of the article. Am I suggesting there should be ZERO mention of Koch-funding, or opposition to environmental regulation, or organized labor reform? No. But trust me, what is present on the page is undue, and very likely Coatracking. Now since the page has come under more scrutiny this user has avoided 3RR, but still they have a POV push.

This user wanted to turn the page into an attack page against conservative organizations by making it appear as though the Kochs are behind every single action of this organization with nefarious goals. This user also tried to add blatantly POV statements to the article such as:

* “In September, The Washington Post editorialized that voters should know who is funding AFP's citizen education efforts.”

• and “According to The Washington Post, NBC News, and others, AFP's policy agenda is aligned with the Koch brothers' business interests, for example, in opposing environmental regulation.” *and “Journalist Lee Fang, who has written about AFP for The Nation magazine, wrote in his 2013 book The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right that the Obama re-election campaign erred in challenging AFP rather than confronting the Kochs directly.”

Time and time again this user pushed their POV without any community consensus, and then reverts any other editors' activity citing “no consensus”. I can not reiterate enough that no one else involved is pushing a POV of ZERO Koch mention, or policy stances, etc... But we have attempted dozens of times now to address our NPOV concerns on the page with Hugh directly to no avail.

Now I could probably list hundreds of diffs here that illustrate this users edits that create a NPOV or COATRACKING issue. But for the sake of simplicity I will only add a select few. I am sure other editors will note several POV and COATRACKING pushes in this user's edits:

Community consensus

If any admins were to read through the talk page they would notice that the community consensus is generally in opposition to Hugh's edits. Again, it would be rather tedious to list all these diffs as well and only jumble this so I will only add a select few.

In only the most recent days has Hugh begun consulting the talk page at all to ask for a consensus of his edits. Still, for the most part they ignore the talk page consensus.

Wikiproject ratings & Canvassing

This user has continually rated the very same pages they have worked on as “B-Class” on the talk pages despite their very major stake on the pages and their POV-push. This user then justified many of their reversions on articles by saying something like “your edits diminish the already quality article”. Several editors have opposed Hugh's actions here since AFP is only tangentially a part of environmentalism or organized labor.

Hugh has presently succeeded in rating the page as B-class despite its many issues. In my personal opinion, as an editor who has rated pages often, I would give this a C-Class at best. With so many NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues I would not consider it nearly a B-Class article. This B-Class rating allows Hugh to revert any edits opposed to his views again and again, reinforcing my claims he has taken sole authority of the page.

Also, here is an example of this user's hypocrisy to push their POV. When I first opposed Hugh's edits, I had sought other opinions on Wikiproject conservatism. I was wrong in doing so as per WP:CANVASSING. Hugh took the opportunity to jump on me and demand I be more drastically punished and blocked despite my voluntary removal of the canvass. He then violated WP:CANVASSING himself and when caught simply removed any mention of it from his talk page.

Yet more diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#User:DaltonCastle_canvas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force&diff=prev&oldid=667222688 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=prev&oldid=667231758 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=prev&oldid=667232349

You can ask all the other editors involved on this page as well. Hugh is routinely accusatory of anyone who opposes his edits and then makes himself appear to be the victim, when in fact it is he who has attempted to push us all off “his” page. In typical WP:BOOMERANG fashion it has been detrimental to him as well. But, in typical Hugh fashion, he removes any mention from his talk page.

(Also, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969_misuse_of_rollback, this user has illustrated their determination to pursue WP:WIKILAWYERING,WP:BULLYING, & WP:HARASS to discourage users from challenging him).

Blocks

As an ancillary incident, I would like to call attention to the events found here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DaltonCastle#May_2015_edit_war_warning

HughD accused me of edit-warring since we had differing opinions on a select piece of content on the page. While I justify my edits here with WP:BRD I understood the logic behind calling my edits and edit-war. However, since it was HughD who began the reverting cycle initially, I place the same edit-warring warning on his talk page that he had placed on mine. No big deal then, we had a content dispute. But then he reported me to the edit-warring noticeboard the exact same time he removed any mention of these warning from his talk page. I believe this was done to deliberately mask any mention of his wrongdoing while he accused me of the same thing he had done in an attempt to have me blocked and not him.

I reverted his removals on his talk page, believing him acting in a manner nonconstructive to the Wikipedia community. Although I now admit I was wrong in violating the 3RR rule, I do believe my intentions were good as I had hoped to provide full disclosure to any and all admins or users passing by. The checking administrator had only noticed my violation of 3RR and that was it. He did not dig any further into HughD's edit-warring, or his masking of the warnings he too had received despite his actions.

Some days later I removed more contentious material from the page as per WP:BOLD. Again, HughD accused me of edit-warring after his reversions of my edits, then reported me, then removed any mention of the same warning I had placed on his talk page. The Admin who first took notice blocked both of us for a period of 48 hours. I believe this was made in error, as HughD was, and has remained through much of the page's history, the aggressor in any edit-warring. If you review his talk page history, you'll notice he has a habit of removing any warnings or notices placed there by other editors, not just me.

Here are warnings and mentions of misconduct removed by Hugh from his own page:

Hugh has himself been warned about edit-warring several times in the past:

Diffs from Admin boards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD_reported_by_--Demiurge1000_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Final_warning_issued.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive210#User:HughD_reported_by_--Demiurge1000_.28talk.29_.28Result:_No_action.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_Blocked.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD_reported_by_User:Champaign_Supernova_.28Result:_No_action.29

I know that as per WP:OWNTALK he is allowed to remove anything he wishes from his page, but he is not left looking good when he did so. Its difficult for other users to assume good faith when he so blatantly attempts to mask other editors' disapproval of his edits or any mention of his violation.

In this regard I am humbly requesting that my previous blocks be removed from my record or at least have it noted that my actions were not disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Although I recognize violating 3RR was wrong, I stand by my belief that I attempted to shed light on another user's wrongdoing.

In recent edits this editor has again engaged in edit-wars to revert changes made by other editors. No one has taken notice of this. It is not constructive to the WP Community to let him get away with accusing others of a violation he frequently commits. I cannot reiterate enough that the consensus on the talk page leaves Hugh in the minority opinion.

Conclusion

This user has been severely disrupting the articles for at least two months. Every community consensus opposes their edits yet they continue their behavior. These same edits push a POV and coatrack the page. When other users attempt to challenge this, this user makes it nearly impossible to make any progress. I am confident I am not the only editor who holds this opinion.

In conclusion, I believe Hugh has violated WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:WIKILAWYERING,WP:BULLYING, and WP:HARASS. This user has exhibited a continued abuse of Wikipedia policy that does not improve the encyclopedia. As such I believe an administrator should take appropriate actions.

I am available to provide additional details and evidence, or answer any questions that any administrators of involved users have. I did not want to resort to this, but as can be seen by Hugh's extensive efforts, there was no other option. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [414] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [415] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[416] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

Top Organization Contributors
RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%
2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%
4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%
5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%
6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%
7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%
8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%
11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%
12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%
13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%
14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%
15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%
Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page move against consensus/naming conventions

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

---

Hi. Please can Mohammad Imran Khan be moved back to Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1987), per the naming conventions for multiple sportspeople with the same name, the disambig page and the cricketer's bio at Cricinfo. The user has moved several pages against consensus, which I've noted on their talkpage (I'll point them to this, too). I'd move this myself, but the target page has now been edited more than once. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad Imran Khan

Mohammad Imran Khan page can be moved to Imran Khan, Jr. because Imran Khan is known by his name Imran Khan, Jr. in his home country Pakistan. His is notable Pakistani Test cricketer so plse move it to Imran Khan, Jr. which looks more reasonable GreenCricket (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

IP 190.178.197.152 has admitted to being Mike Bingham, who as IP 190.178.230.223 was blocked for legal threats on 5 July. They are pushing their unsourced version of the article again, and claimed to be Mike Bingham here. Not only is their editing disruptive (they're calling sourced information incorrect, and replacing it with unsourced information), but it's clear block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked with a note saying they cannot edit until they explicitly withdraw the legal threat they made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears the IP did attempt to withdraw the legal threat (stating so both in this post and subject line here) prior to being blocked. There's still a WP:COI issue; but it appears the WP:NLT issue is resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that but I've unblocked and apologized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted images

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

---

User:Antonis521 is repetedly uploading non-free images of footballers, the current total is about 25- they claim to own all the images, which seems highly unlikely, and they haven't licenced them properly in any case. They've received warnings [417], [418] and final warning [419], but continue to upload copyrighted images, see [420]. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked as a sock. Nthep (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Bill Cosby

Administrative attention seems to be needed on Bill Cosby. There appears to be a single editor, Georgeivs vid, editing against consensus to remove information regarding the sexual assault allegations.

Judging from this recent talk page conversation with NeilN, the RfC regarding the allegations (which so far overwhelmingly supports maintaining mention of the allegations in the lead) was needed because User:Georgeivs vid desired to change established version to remove any mention of the sexual assault allegations.

Meanwhile, multiple editors have worked on talk page to create an improved, neutral and brief mention of the allegations for lede summary, including: Cwobeel, Gaijin42, LavaBaron, AtHomeIn神戸, BlueSalix, Anythingyouwant, and Louieoddie but Georgeivs vid keeps reverting. It seems a warning regarding consensus and also that unfavorable does not equal BLP violation might be helpful. If disruption continues a topic ban should perhaps be considered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, Qualudes are Schedule I in the USA, so there is no way to get them legally in the US unless you are a research facility with permission from the DEA, so his removal of "illegal" to describe them is factually wrong. As to the allegations, WP:WELLKNOWN plus the consensus in Archive 2, plus the ongoing RFC seem to make it clear that there is a strong consensus to include this in the lede of the article. I've skimmed BLP and BLPCRIME again, I don't see any policy justification for excluding it and the allegations are difficult to ignore if we truly follow the sources. Care must be taken, but it would seemingly be irresponsible to have nothing about this string of events. Reading though the archives, it appears he is using obstructionist tactics and hollow wikilawyering to get his preferred version, thus whitewashing the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quaaludes appear to have been widely prescribed in the US until about 1984 as a legal drug. AFAICT, the drug is still available in other countries. Again, AFAICT, Cosby's statements indicate he obtained the drugs by prescription in the 1970s - when the drug was quite legal as such. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim was made that it was per se an "illegal drug" - that a person can illegally dispense a legally acquired drug is true of every single prescription drug in the US - the edit did not refer to Cosby's act as being illegal, but to the drug itself at the time. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The timetable matters, other countries do not since that is the country where this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And at the time he appears to have acquired the drug - the statement is that he did o with a prescription for a legal drug. And every scrip drug can be illegally redispensed <g> (including such drugs as Atenolol, Metoprolol, and barf bags [421] ("I once obtained, just for asking, a large plastic measuring cup (of the sort I think you're supposed to pee in). The purpose was because I was driving a friend home who wasn't feeling well, so I asked if we could get a barf bag and that's what they gave me. Even this innocuous-looking plastic item was so labeled.") - the edit alas called it per se an illegal drug. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• That discussion with NeilN was in May, and this user's conduct does not seem to have improved since. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• One of the editor's first edits gives an indication about how he feels about the subject. [422] It seems he is equating mentioning the controversy in the lead to Wikipedia saying Cosby is guilty. [423] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor in question has been duly alerted as to this fact, but remember that all of BLP is under DS, so AE or individual admin action are valid paths to resolution here. (PErhaps an alert, followed by a very stern warning that a topic ban or worse is likely to follow if things continue is in order?) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad more people are paying attention to the article. I content still that if there is a mention in the lead or intro of his biography that it HAS to be neutral and abide by BLP policies. Others keep adding material that seems to be in violation of that.

There is a discussion if ANYTHING should be in the lead at all, and another discussion of what that might be. So far I've come the closest with a proposal that is neutral and non-sensationalistic. If Wikipedia wants to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia just say so and I'll clear out of here, until then I think Wikipedia should be cautious about asserting how rape-y Cosby is, as there is still no criminal charges or evidence he committed any crime. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgeivs vid Per WP:WELLKNOWN the standard is a notable allegation, not "conviction" or "charged". These clearly are notable allegations. And as of yesterday, there is evidence, his own words. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't whitewash things in the article by changing "sexual assault" to "misconduct". [424] Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the talk page. It wasn't my idea. Let's just throw out all the rules and call him a rapist, that seems to be the goal here without any evidence. Gaijin42, check your facts. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Georgeivs vid, being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone. If the sources are mainly saying it was sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and it is highly substantiated, then it is neutral to use those terms. Your attempts to whitewash the lede in particular are sanctionable because they are causing disruption. You have already been formally warned that BLP topics like this fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning any single admin, at their discretion, may sanction you by a topic ban, block or other sanction if you violate the principles here. You need to let that sink in while you argue here, all alone, while everyone disagrees with you. Simply put, if you don't stop and change your methods now, you will be prevented from editing the article using one of many methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Apropos of nothing, but this discussion may have interesting implications for the couple of RfC's currently going for whether the specific abuse allegations should be mentioned in the lede at Dennis Hastert (RfC here) and whether it's appropriate or not to include press coverage of whether Ariana Grande is a diva (RfC here). The interesting thing about BLPs is that you'll get plenty of editors strongly on both sides of these questions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Close for Ayurveda

I have reverted an RFC close on Ayurveda. I saw several problems with it, including

1. It's more than a little controversial for a non-admin to close an RFC in a fashion that contradicts a fairly lopsided headcount
2. The closing arguments seemed to take the previous RFC as having precedent, although that RFC was voided due to sockpuppeting.

I'm obviously not going to close this one myself, but I do request a neutral admin to do so.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Without regard to the merits of that discussion: Pseudoscience is under Arb restrictions. It is probably not a good idea for the vast majority of non-admin (particularly one with less than 4k edits) to close RFCs or other major discussions on Arb restricted areas, nor in any discussion where the vote is split this much. As such, I support the idea of the revert, in case that comes up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with the revert of the close. I disagree with any argument that this close originally required an administrator, and a close should not be reverted only because the closer was not an administrator. My own opinion is that the close should have been reverted because it was an unwarranted supervote, and the closer did not provide adequate rationale for casting a supervote that contravened consensus. At this point I do agree with the two admins that an uninvolved admin should close, not because the original close required an admin, but because this RFC is contentious and the close may unfortunately require the block button. As noted, the previous RFC and its close are no precedent at all. I closed the original RFC, and I voided my own close because it became clear that there had been sock-puppetry. I support the revert of the close, and the call for an admin close that either reflects consensus or provides a real strength-of-arguments reason for a non-consensus close. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  All RFCs that cover topics under Arb sanctions are automatically contentious by virtue, that was the point. I'm the first to say non-admin can close most discussions, but not when dealing with Arb restricted areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Putting aside the issue of whether an admin is needed, there is also a concern about involvement. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure says "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins", with emphasis in the original. The closer of the RfC has made substantial contributions to articles about yoga, yogis, India, and Hinduism.[425] (Contributions to Intuition, the second-most edited article by this user, are also Hindu-related, e.g. [426].) Would this constitute involvement? As a general question, if someone edits heavily in a given topic, is it appropriate for that person to be closing RfCs related to that topic? I don't mean to invoke the genetic fallacy, but there is a non-admin meaning of "involved" that may need elucidation. Manul ~ talk 18:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a Catch 22. You need someone familiar with the material to do the close, so you would expect they have edited around that general subject matter. My personal rule of thumb is that if the person closing actually cares even a small amount about how the RFC comes out, they are too involved in the outcome of THAT discussion to close. ie: if you have a strong opinion, you don't close. Technically, closing IS an admin function (many closes require the tools, particularly at AFD, but even at RFC). Non-admin are encouraged to do uncontroversial closes where no tools are needed. That is the other point, if there is ever a chance of contention, then an admin should close due to WP:ADMINACCT. Non admin aren't held to the same accountability standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This is covered by at least two areas, Arb restrictions on India pages should also apply here. —SpacemanSpiff 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree that closing a content discussion is an admin function, whether speaking "technically" or otherwise. The sole mention of admins at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs says that NACs and admins are equal, and the community widely and strongly agrees that admins get zero special privileges when it comes to content disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Involvement criteria

It occurs to me that the guidelines on who should and should not close Requests for Comments are not sufficient, in two respects. This needs to be discussed further at Closing Discussions. First, the instructions state that any uninvolved editor may close most discussions. However, there is no definition, at present, of an uninvolved editor, only of an uninvolved admin. (An administrator may be an uninvolved admin, but should not close a discussion in which he or she is an involved editor, for instance.) Second, while Dennis Brown has a good point about the ineed for admin closure of some contentious RFCs, the guideline doesn't explicitly refer to ArbCom sanctions as a reason for contentiousness. Both the concept of an involved or uninvolved editor, and the rules for when an admin close is preferred, should be clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please take a close look at the contributions by the editor who closed the RfC. Things will become clearer after you review the contributions to similar topics by the editor who closed the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that there are two or three issues. The first is that, although the criteria for an uninvolved editor are not defined, we agree that they were involved, and should not have closed. Second, the close ignored consensus, and did not give a solid policy reason for casting a supervote. Third, the close cited a previous RFC, but that RFC was corrupted by sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The rules about involvement are the same for admins and non-admins. "Involved" does not mean "biased", unless your bias rises all the way to an actual (off-wiki-based) conflict of interest. This is a double-edged sword.

I'd have been happier if the editor reverting the close were someone who (a) didn't have a history of objecting to closes on that page, and (b) could not be very plausibly accused of reverting it because the close didn't support his personal POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Those last issues are precisely why I immediately brought my revert here for review. While I've been accused of not understanding what it means to be involved with a subject, I am clearly in an involved state in regard to most pseudomedicine articles.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Agent of the nine

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

---

Agent of the nine (talk · contribs) has been blocked recently for disruption. In the most recent case, the user altered another user's comments on a ref desk page.[427] Someone with some authority needs to 'splain things to that user, who won't listen to us peons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, either the user did it another time, earlier today,[428] or else they've openly outed themself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive at the Reference Desks, and has the habit, permitted but discouraged, of blanking their talk page. The real question is whether they will listen to a warning from an admin or whether they need another block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They can delete from their talk page. The problem is their wider disruption, consisting of deleting stuff from article pages with no explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Life is too short to deal with people like this; they were blocked for this same behavior a week ago. Blocked indef until they agree to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

AnonCoders

Not sure if the recent edits to AnonCoders are spam, soapbox or vandalism, or all three. Pleaase see history of last 3 days
Repeated re-addition of vast, totally unreferenced series of sop-box claims and accusations e.g.

Stop Blaming Islam For All Those False Flags Done By The Zionists , The British Empire And The Empires Around The World

Islam Was Never The Reason For The First World War , Never The Reason For The Second World War , It Will Not Be The Reason For The The Third World War... Islam Was Also Not Responsible For 9-11 Or In London , Moscow , Munich Or Now In France

Also repeated re-addition of vast list of External links, and removal of Maintenance templates
Primarily by SPA User:DonKovalski (who is now autoconfirmed so semi-protection won't help on its own) also by an IP 74.120.223.154
Identical style (Every Word Beginning In A Capital) to originator of article User:AnonCoders who was indeffed in March - assume sockpuppets.
Suggest User:DonKovalski is indeffed and article semi-protected, please. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As User:DonKovalski has now been indeffed by User:Ohnoitsjamie - can I still ask for semi-protection here, or do I need to start again at WP:RPP ? - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Activity has stopped cold, so protection is likely no longer needed. Please post at RFPP if the situation changes. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I protected anyway. The chances of him not coming back are slim to none. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)