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

Der Statistiker and Paris-based articles.

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

---

Map of the Greater Paris Metropolis (Métropole du Grand Paris) and its 131 communes.

New Development

This has just taken on an entire new dimension. Outright canvassing forum members to target several Wikipedia contributors specifically.

English link: [1] - Original French: [2] - targeting 3 Wikipedians, posted on the 30/11/2015

English link: [3] - Original French: [4] - mentioning just one (yours truly), posted on the 30/11/2015

I got there by:

1. looking for sources for unsourced numbers that Der Statistiker and Minato ku had insisted were the 'right' ones (without providing sources) [5]
2. that turned up only two Google results:
   1. A post by Minato ku on the aforementioned skyscrapercity.com forum, citing (banned, but member since 2006) forum member "Brisavoine" [6] (fr)
   2. But more importantly, a post (most likely the one cited) by "New Brisavoine", member since 2007, on the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum [7][8] (en)
3. So, in the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum, reading a few pages ahead from the 'numbers' post, it seems that Brisavoine "knows" the London French correspondant for the French newspaper "Le Monde" - funny, the same one that interviewed Der Statistiker and I last year? [9][10]
4. And those maps look really familiar, just like the one Der Statistiker uploaded to Wikipedia (the one to the right), especially the oldest version [11]
5. So a google image search for that [12]...
6. ...turns up yet another forum, pss-archi.eu, where forum member "Brisa" had posted it [13]
7. And a google search for "wikipedia" and "paris" in that website ... [14]
8. ...turns up, right at the top of the list, our targeted-canvassing post; it had been removed (why is in the post itself), but Google still had a cached version. [15]

And, since it's relevent once again, the link to the canvassing from last year's meat-debacle [16](fr) [17] (en - gt): Brisavoine was probably already banned then, which is why it could never be proven that User:Der Statistiker was a member there.

What gets me most was the craftiness of hiding the targeted Wikipedians' names through posting their names in image... and how even those other forum members were lied to and WP:GAMEd to get them to help disrupt Paris articles.

Cheers, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerned and Canvassed Contributors

I'm putting these here because they are related to this case (not part of it, this is only about Der Statistiker) and are still registered wikipedians here. It is up to whoever decides here to decide to decide what they want to decide if they find the evidence acceptable. Apologies for the links, but it seems that skyscrapercity(dot)com has been blacklisted, so I can't post them directly, or the translated version - please use google translate (just paste the corrected url into the 'French' input field)

First off, perhaps it's useful to mention now that Der Statistiker is Hardouin, which sets this canvassing (and other bad behaviour) much farther back, but, in addition to the same trying to publish the same WP:OR and same 'tactical' disruptive behaviour, one tie-in (I can provide more) related to the above evidence:

Minato ku's first 'backup' appearance on the 2007-07-20 when Statistiker (Hardouin) was creating/publishing WP:OR for which he could not provide references (but was trying to preserve by reverting/edit warring all the same) : [18]

then Brisavoine (Statistiker) mentioning me in a skyscrapercity forum conversation with Minato ku on the September 22nd, 2007 : www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=284568&page=8#149.

www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=149#2962
In the link above, the canvassed contributors in the skyscrapercity forum thread (being instructed by Minato ku where to go and how to edit Wikipedia); they were:

Minato ku (who has made a few wikipedia edits between his 2007 first appearance until 2011, but returned in 2013 directly to the vote debacle, and has been 'backing up' Statistiker ever since [19]) - edit-warring & voting [20]

Sesto Elemento (most likely also Sesto92 - [21]) - edit-warring & voting [22]

Clouchicloucha - voter only [23]

Abdel-31 - voter only [24]

AvemanoBZH - voter only [25]

These are the votes they were called to: [26][27][28]

If anyone has any further questions or would like any further evidence, please feel free to ask. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Original ANI

Der Statistiker (and his www.skyscrapercity.com allies [29]) has, in all impunity to date, been disrupting editing to Paris-based articles since years now, and this is I-don't-know-how-many-th'd case opened against him [30][31][32][33][34], and many contributors, including administrator jmabel[35], expressed overwhelming support for a topic ban over a year ago [36].

Der Statistiker is particularly good at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia. Wikipedia's default 'assume good faith' is easy to abuse: for one example, he repeatedly creates false claims that look plausible on the surface so that, if an administrator takes only a quick look, they will seem legitimate. He then directs complaints to precisely those administrators who have taken his claims at face value in the past [37]. Concerning that last diff/complaint: I made my first real edits to the article (and I had announced my intentions on the talk-page well before) in a year on November 11 [38], and Der Statistiker, after a total absence of a year from the article, came a week after [39].

But that in itself was not really a problem at that point, until Der Statistiker replaced recently-edited (by SiefkinDR) article-relevent data with out-of-context data [40], and I edited that back into context (without removing anything)[41]: Der Statistiker reverted this with another false accusation (calling it 'starting a revert war') and, again, threatening admin intervention [42]. Again there was no rationale for this, even after SiefkinDR's protesting questioning [43], only an 'answer-sounding' non-sequitur...

...because the rationale for that, and everything from there on, was pure WP:POINT disruption: one of the skyscraper-forum members (who by now has been around long enough to be considered a real wikipedian), Minato ku[44] first edit on wikipedia in months is to remove a just-edited Paris-events paragraph [45], and the same day, reverts a just-edited entire section to a state last edited by Der Statistiker over a year before (under the edit summary 'reorganising')[46], and Der Statistiker's response to this was only to update Minato ku's outdated revert himself, and, even after voiced opposition, re-insert the removed content under a misleading edit summary [47]. The entire 'what happened' is on the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker and Minato ku have worked as a 'team' since around 2007, as made obvious in the Economy of Paris article (the scene of his 'bigger than thou' battles with other big-city articles) and talk page.

While writing this, yet another skyscrapercity.com-er, Clouchicloucha[48], just showed up to 'vote support' Der Statistiker and Minato ku.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I can provide more data if it is needed. Please do check up on my record, and any questions are welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Promenader. Der Statistiker has a very long history of problematic behaviour surrounding the Paris article. I still remember his trolling comments when I promoted the article to GA, disgusting. He has shown time and time again he canvasses support from offwiki as evidenced by the recent Clouch "support", gaming the system. Based on what Jmabel told him before I strongly suggest we topic ban this editor from Paris articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Here the only person I see contacting people off-wiki is ThePromenader, who, in the admission of Jmabel himself, contacted Jmabel last week (see [49]), despite the fact that there is no trace of any message by ThePromenader in Jmabel's talk page history ([50]). So we have an obvious case of off-wiki contact there, from someone who accuses other editors of "gaming" the system. And I suspect User:Clouchicloucha is an account created by ThePromenader himself to discredit me by writing what looks like awkward messages of support in the talk page right in time for ThePromenader to open his complaint against me here. Like how timely and convenient! Der Statistiker (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did contact Jmabel off-wiki (an admin here, by the way, not an off-wiki forum member), for advice and to intervene, which he did, and he said as much [51]. The only difference is that now he doesn't have his talk-page full of complaints.

The User:Clouchicloucha accusation is just lame. Both Der Statistiker and Minato ku know full well who they are. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a user asking me (or anyone else) off-wiki to take a look at what's going on with an article and my openly indicating that I did so. If you think something about this was inappropriate, please say precisely what it was. If you don't, then stop making insinuations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again!! The problem came from a badly written transportation section full of errors that did not bother anybody until I changed it to put more information (accurate information). I think this bothers ThePromenader because it does not follow the plan he wants. In his few edits of the transportation section prior to my edit he kept the numerous errors that were there. Does he really care about the quality and accuracy of the information in the Paris article?
I don't understand why this change of the transportation section has created such noise. No content was deleted; quite the opposite, information was added.
I don't get the war between Der Statistiker and ThePromenader and I'm tired of being used as a pretext for this war (find another scapegoat). I want a good wikipedia article about Paris at the level of New York City article. Nowadays Paris article is more like a tourist guide focused on history (more like the history of anecdotal events rather than a history of the development of the city) and stereotypes. You just need to compare Paris' article with London's article to see this problem. The quality of the information in the Paris article should be the goal of everybody rather than this stupid war of ego. Minato ku (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For both comments above, I'll let the Paris talk page speak for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

But about the 'scapegoat' issue: the article quality concerns you mention here is what the article talk page is for. If you see a problem, open a discussion, and you may find people even helping you. You and Statistiker have overlapping goals (showing Paris as the most modern, etc., city possible), but his example of "impose X (in total disregard for other contributors); use 'tactics' to make it stick" is an extremely bad one to follow; Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on cooperative reasoning, not 'tag-team tactics' (against (an)other contributor(s)), so if you're going to 'team up' with the latter, it's going to turn around to bite you in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles

As per above, there has been clear evidence that Der Statistiker is gaming the system and causing disruption of a large scale with Paris-related articles. ThePromenader has already supplied the diffs above and previous evidence as well as another proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles last year. The evidence is overwhelming and the disruption caused seems to go at no end. He has also been cautioned about meatpuppetry and despite the warnings, he is clearly doing it again. I propose that Der Statistiker be topic banned indefinitely (provisionally) from Paris-related articles, although it might be more suitable if an admin determines the length. JAGUAR  14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Long time coming, should have been topic banned last time. I'd suggest a permanent ban as he has a habit of returning after a year or two and causing trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There has been too much disruption at the Paris article and several editors have been forced away because of the behaviours exhibited there; this needs to end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The foremost challenge when editing Paris articles should be article quality, not Der Statistiker. This has gone on for too many years already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I reviewed and promoted the article for GA and was dismayed at what happened to it thereafter. Der Statistker's repeated interventions seemed to me to go beyond what was reasonable and collegiate as we understand it in Wikipedia. I hope we can eventually rescue the article and restore it to GA standards. Tim riley talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The is no "clear evidence". There is insinuations from always the same user, ThePromenader, who apparently thinks the more something is repeated the more people will believe it. It reminds me a lot of Saddam and weapons of mass destructions in 2003. None of the diffs above prove anything. This wouldn't stand a chance in a regular court of justice.

As for "disruption", here the one who creates the most troubles in this article is ThePromenader, as is obvious with repeated complaints on this noticeboard despite the fact that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise asked all editors from the Paris article to stop doing so, and with ThePromenader's aggressive behavior in the Paris talk page and the history of the Paris article (for example here accusing another editor of "POV creep", or here rewriting Minato ku's edit from just a few hours before, and in the process introducing various errors such as a dot after "daily" instead of a comma, or repeating "257 stops and 587 km (365 mi) of rails" twice in the same sentence; isn't that the very definition of disruption?). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what Der Statisker has done wrong. He is bringing useful information in the article. I find rather funny to see ThePromenader saying Der Statistiker is disrupting the article because since I am a member here I found ThePromenader much more of a problem in this article concerning the quality of the article's content. Also I find strange that SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld suddenly found this complaint here that is not mentioned anywhere in the talk page of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is clear, and this has been going on far too long. A waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: While there's certainly disruption here that may be in need of admin intervention, I'm not convinced a unilateral ban of Der Statistiker is the right way to go. Last year when I intervened as an admin in this conflict, my impression was clearly that of an it-takes-two-to-tango situation: There are two parties with equally strong POV perspectives, Statistiker and Promenader, who are both backed up by their respective tag teams, are both equally allergic to each other's presence, and both probably suffer from "m:Megalomaniacal point of view" to an equal extent, insofar as they both seem quite unable to realize that their own POV is just that, a point of view like others. The article was quiet for a year as long as both of them were away, it exploded again within a matter of days as soon as the two of them were back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is what it may look like on the surface (according to statistiker's complaints to you), but, if you look further, namely at the diffs I provided above concerning the complaint to you (and everything else, for that matter), that's not the case. I don't see where the POV accusation comes from, nor the 'tag-team' one: just because article contributors find themselves having to deal with statistiker's behaviour doesn't make them a 'team' pushing a POV. And even then, it was article contributors opposing one contributor and others summoned off-wiki... I don't see how it is possible to overlook that. When this happened two years ago, I only became aware of it after it was already in full swing, so I'm hardly any 'ringleader' in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is repetition, but concerning 'just me', statistiker had been gone over a year when I announced [52] that I was available for editing (and would be editing soon) just to be sure, and it was another month before I made my first edit to the article [53]. Statistiker showed up one week later [54], and for everything after that, I refer to you to the Paris talk page. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support:Der Statistiker has consistently been rude, sarcastic and aggressive, attacking and insulting any editor who disagrees with him. He makes it very hard to work on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest disruption on Paris has come from Promenader. If anyone is to be topic banned it is he. It certainly does not help when his friends dr blo and schrocat add to the disruption. Their POV pushing has been going on forever at Paris. Caden ^cool 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, then? JAGUAR  20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors who have had long-time involvement in either of the tag-teams mentioned, as well as their habitual wikifriends and wikifoes, need to lay off this discussion; their !votes here are unhelpful and unwelcome. (Caden, that certainly applies to you just as much as anybody, given your long-standing feuds with Blofield and friends.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The evidence of off-wiki recruiting for meatpuppets to aid in an edit war is clear and damning. No opinion whether ThePromenador is also behaving problematically, since it isn't important to this case: two wrongs don't make a right. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support. I think Der Statistiker has good content to bring to this, but in practice he doesn't seem to have worked out a way to work on the articles cooperatively. I'm sure he will be able to make solid contributions elsewhere, in articles with people with whom he gets on better. At the same time, I'd recommend to the others working on the article that they think long and hard about the general issues he's raised, and how the article might better address these concerns (especially that it shorts Paris as a present-day city). - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins

ThePromenader already asked for my topic-ban from the Paris-related article ([55]) but his request was suspended by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who set the following rule: [56]

" from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time."

After nearly a year without editing the Paris article (in a large measure due precisely to previous witch-hunting by ThePromenader, which doesn't really induce people to spend time to work on this or other articles... I note that the French editors who used to work on that article are all gone now), I finally made my first edit in almost a year in this article on November 19, 2015 ([57]). Almost immediately, and despite the fact that I had had no contact or interaction with ThePromenader in almost a year, ThePromenader:

a- accused me of "POV creep" ([58])

b- then opened this new complaint against me with for the most part with the same old recycled paranoid and unsubstantiated stuff as last year

If words have a meaning, a- and b- both breach the rule set by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article. I find it unfair that I have to defend myself against someone who breaches rules and harasses me within 24 hours of my 1st edit to this article in a year. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If your first edits to an article since a year are confrontational [59][60][61][62][63], there's already a problem, and some sort of (not 'harassment', push back ) reaction is only to be expected, don't you think? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker has been bringing out this one-time 'ruling' every time his behaviour is questioned since... a year now, and seems to think that it's an excuse to act in all impunity (because people aren't 'allowed' to complain about his behaviour). A look at the Paris talk page will show this clearly enough, but I can provide diffs if needed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, distorted presentation of facts... I haven't made a single edit in the Paris (or Paris-related) article between November 30, 2014 ([64]) and November 19, 2015 ([65]), i.e. almost an entire year. Yet you somehow imply that during this one year when I have not been editing the article my "behavior" has been "questioned" and I have brought out this rule "every time"... in a year when I haven't even edited this article. Like... right. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thus the '...' in my reply. Before, after, here, like a day never passed inbetween. Shall I provide examples? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's high time for an interaction ban. It's pretty clear that these two editors will argue forever. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not like before. I actually regret leaving my last comment, there was no need to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Summit, I have no opinion about whether an interaction ban is a good idea or not, as that decision belongs entirely to the admins, but I think if an interaction ban is decided, it should also include User:SiefkinDR as per for example the case that I've detailed here on Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this. An interaction ban limited only to ThePromenader and myself would fail to achieve the goal of pacifying this article I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has no place here - one cannot use admin attention to an inquiry into one's own behaviour to try to 'enforce' a personal vendetta against another contributor - but it is a perfect demonstration of the aforementioned WP:GAMEing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins: ThePromenader is now moving around comments from other editors in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page: [66]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also of note for the admins: in the Paris talk page, SiefkinDR claims that he rewrote the section about the Greater Paris Metropolis that I had written and created only 3 days before because "it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole." ([67]) The diff of my edit from 3 days before shows that this section in fact DID contain the area and population of the Metropolis ([68]), contrary to what SiefkinDR is claiming. This is an example of what I'm confronted with in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New attacks against editors

I hope the administrators are aware of the posts that were made at the end of November on two French urban planning sites, urging members to come into Wikipedia to support Der Statistiker and specifically to attack me, Promenader and Blofeld. The attacks on me, by name, and the other editors are quite personal and insulting. This kind of behavior is unfortunately typical. Der Statistker has to stop using articles on Paris to promote has personal agenda. See the posts below.

English link: [69] - Original French: [70]

I hope administrators will act to stop this kind of behavior. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this isn't getting any attention at all - it's been six days since this was opened. I have to keep making silly comments just to keep it from being archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Jeppiz:: since you have been concerned in/submitted past same-subject ANI-cases [71][72], your input would be of value here, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That link constitutes pretty shameless stealth canvassing, including naming individual editors to oppose, and asking for the notice to be removed before anyone here sees it. I don't have a stake in nor overview of the Paris issue, but this is not acceptable behaviour.-- Elmidae 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we know the person on those external fora is Statistiker? So far the only thing that seems clear is that it's somebody who's friends with Minato Ku. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you did look it over, please go through it again. There are so many overlaps that it's just not not possible, and that's even without considering the WP:DUCK aspects of it all. And the silence reigning speaks volumes, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin give this some attention, please

The concerned contributor has disappeared [73] since the update was posted (the 4th of December, 2015), but to close the door to future abuse, this case still needs proper attention. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

• BalCoder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since Aug.16 a new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been disrupting the proportional representation (PR) article for politically partisan reasons. He displays all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS except cite-tagging. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve WP but to help the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). I am the only person protecting the PR article, I don't see a way out except to get the user blocked, so I come back to WP:ANI.

Story so far: I have tried talk page discussion, WP:BRD, not reverting to encourage cooperation, a WP:ANI incident to block him which attracted no admin response, a request for help at WP:WikiProject Politics which also brought no response (it appears to be moribund). The article has twice been protected to encourage cooperation. After the ANI failure my only recourse was reverting but we were both blocked once for edit warring. Others encouraged me to try WP:DRN, which I did twice, here and here, both attempts failing because Ontario, although agreeing to both mediations, failed to cooperate.

Political bias: Apart from PR, almost all Ontario's edits have concerned Canadian politics, obviously in connection with the Oct.19th Canadian federal election, and obviously in support of the Conservative Party of Canada (e.g.here, here, here). In the PR article he puffs FPTP and diminishes the various PR systems, particularly MMP. MMP is the official policy of the New Democratic Party, and reform of the electoral system to a more proportional one is a policy of the new Liberal government. The CPC wants to retain FPTP. Ontario has also misleadingly changed a number of other electoral system articles with crude copy/paste from the PR article, as well as a template:

• Mixed-member proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Semi-proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Closed list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Open list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The basic dispute: Ontario insists that mixed member proportional representation (MMP) is not PR but "mixed", and has mutilated the article's structure in consequence. MMP is both mixed and proportional, as its name implies. That it is "usually considered PR", as the lead says, is uncontentious, has unimpeachable sources, and has not been challenged since being introduced on Dec.11, 2014 (diff) (in those eleven months, though the article receives ca.1000 hits/day, the only changes to the MMP section have been some commas and the words "Scotland and Wales".) Although I have referred him seven times to these sources, and they were the subject of both DRN incidents, he has yet to justify his removal of the statement. He allows only that MMP is semi-proportional for which he produces thirteen (!) sources, none of which supports his contention. His only arguments are some specific MMP elections which did not produce proportional results, one of which, Hungary, is already mentioned in the article as an example of gerrymandering.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

Tendentious

Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.

His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.

He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".

Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.

Verifiability

He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!

Does not engage in consensus building

Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.

Ignores community input

There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.

Exhaust the patience of productive editors

This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.

Failure to 'get the point'

One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

Ontario should be permanently blocked from all electoral system articles. --BalCoder (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is a content dispute

I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.

To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.

BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.

Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Dude. 166.176.59.110 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?

I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.

Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.

From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.

I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

There are currently two disputes: a conduct dispute and a content dispute. In terms of conduct, User:BalCoder has repeatedly used uncivil language such as calling me an unscrupulous liar on 27 Sep 2015. Comparatively, I have, in good faith, used 'adaptive edits' in order to build consensus whereas BalCoder has merely mass reverted content based on the author alone. Furthermore, I have contacted other editors who have previously contributed to the article in order to build consensus and have input their suggestions/points of view several times through adaptive edits. Moreover, BalCoder has accused me of being politically motivated, and holding an anti-MMP stance. This accusation is quite shocking as I am personally in favour of MMP, as it is a compromise between the other two voting systems families. In fact, I voted for MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. I do feel, however, WP editors have a responsibility to compare the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems fairly. For this reason, I have attempted to ensure fair and neutral language is used throughout the article, while BalCoder has used severe language ripe with biased tones in his/her edits.

In terms of content, User:BalCoder has renamed the subtitle 'Mixed or Hybrid' from the WP article on 11 Dec 14 to the seldom used term 'Two-tier systems'. I reverted this change. This user has deliberately misrepresented the truth by acting like his/her subtitle is the original version in order to establish a false incumbency. The premise of his/her arguments is that he/she is "protecting what was there before" is blatantly false. In truth, it is the other way around. Additionally, BalCoder removed the entire, and extremely well sourced section, 'PR systems in the broader family of voting systems'. This user has mislead others to believe I created this section- I did not! This section of the article was present prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information into an easy-to-understand table.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

This table primarily comes from the Electoral Reform Society of the UK. However, the classification of electoral systems into these three groups: PR systems, Mixed member systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems is universally used around the world by academic scholars, journalists, and electoral reform advocacy groups alike from a wide variety of political persuasions. For this reason, I provided examples from around the world to demonstrate that this classification is global. So, in addition to the aforementioned British example from an electoral reform advocacy group, I provided an example from a major Canadian magazine(Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine), and from an Italian (Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca) University professor. This quite blatantly disproved BalCoder's wild accusation that I am somehow exclusively using Canadian sources.

In terms of the accusation that I have not worked to reach consensus or that I have not provided sources which list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, consider the following:

As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

"Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

Therefore, I believe User:BalCoder should be banned from the WP article based on both uncivil conduct, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts. The content of the proportional representation article can be resolved by other editors who have demonstrated good faith such as User:Reallavergne and Øln. Thank you for your time.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

---

So, the editors here plus FreeKnowledgeCreator have been edit-warring again over the page, see the article revision history. May I propose several solutions? I am aware that I am at least partially involved, if not fully by this point.

1. Topic-ban Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (per oblique request by filing party, BalCoder')
2. Topic-ban BalCoder (per request by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd)
3. Topic-ban both editors, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder (per WP:BOOMERANG)
4. Indef. fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users: Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk) (new request; this will require the users to either work co-operatively or not have the article corrected by using edit requests to Admins.)

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For starters, calling someone a "new user" in the first sentence is attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad", which makes me sour (and absolutely contrary to what the community and foundation has been doing). Judging on the discussion itself, all I see is a wall of text, lots of policies and their abbreviations thrown around, and lots of diffs being tucked inside the wall of text that blends in with article links and policies pages. Talk page was working fine until BalCoder decides to send it to ANI. I suggest to send this back to the talk page where it is most suitable to this type of discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited: It is remarkable how people jump to unwarrented conclusions. To say I am attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad" is purest fantasy. I called Ontario a "new user" because right from the off her edits were politically partisan. Her very first edit (which I linked to above under "Political bias") is to "Tom Mulcair", a Canadian political leader, and consists of the one word "Abortion". (As a Canadian environmentalist you are particularly well placed to judge how political the second edit linked to there is; vandalism? I don't think so). I am painting the accurate picture that Ontario is here for politically partisan reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. And that you can say "Talk page was working fine..." beggars belief. No-one who has contributed to the TP discussion would subscribe to that. They are saying take it topic by topic, which is what I have been saying since I proposed BRD on Aug.24, but Ontario has yet to start that discussion. And it's my fault?

I am offended by the ad hominem attacks. To be clear, I included the subtitle abortion on the Tom Mulcair's WP page as the section of text (which I neither wrote, nor edited) was on the topic of abortion. The previous subtitle was Women's rights. In order to preserve Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, this subtitle had to be changed. Wikipedia has a clear policy on article titles, and subtitles. This minor edit was not politically motivated.

In terms of the talk page I have consistently been willing to discuss issues one at a time. I have gone as far as to seek other editors to act as mediators, and in particular those who have made previous contributions to the article. Currently, User:Bgwhite, an admin, is acting as a mediator.

MPP is a 'Mixed Electoral System'. According to 'Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences' by Federico Ferrara, "An electoral system is "mixed" if more than one formula is employed to distribute legislative seats." User:Reallavergne has accurately pointed out that Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM), also known as parallel voting does not issue PR seats in a compensatory manor, and is therefore always semi-proportional. However, MMP can also be semi-proportional if insufficient/no compensatory seats are awarded to compensate for the Overhang seats, if the FPTP seats greatly outnumber the List-PR seats, complicated coalition rules distort the seat count, and/or if minimum thresholds deny smaller parties List-PR seats. Although the extremely rare exception of MMP in New Zealand yielded proportional results, MMP in Romania, Hungary, and Italy has been semi-proportional. In the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (a staggering 70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (only 30% of the Legislature). This is another example of semi-proportional MMP. Regardless of the results of specific elections, MMP is considered a 'Mixed System' as it combines both PR and FPTP methods to distribute legislative seats.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is like an earlier comment above from User:Willondon, that some statements of mine raise "red flags", although they are guileless statements of objective fact. If I say I am "the only person protecting the PR article" it is because if I didn't revert Ontario's work the proportional representation article would rejoin the mass of decayed political articles (like the Mixed-member proportional representation article which Ontario changed with a crudely erroneous copy/paste on Sep 7 and which has yet to be corrected/reverted). --BalCoder (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that stops new users from editing political pages. Established editors could also be POV-pushers, which means you absolutely don't need to mention whether someone is new or not (nobody would say you're a 4-year veteran involving in the dispute). To me, that alone is biting a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users

Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk)

User Springee Canvassing

User Springee has taken to canvassing to find support for his point of view on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. He explicitly asked SlimVirgin to contribute to the discussion after discovering s/he held the same position as him in an earlier talk page discussion from 5 years ago. [74] I warned[75] him about canvassing which he dismissed as an attempt to "intimidate"[76] and then continued to recruit SlimVirgin to weigh in on the discussion.[77] His statement wasn't neutrally stated and he didn't contact anyone with an opposing point of view to join the discussion. This is a violation of WP:VOTESTACK and Campaigning as described by WP:CANVASS.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Except for that there isn't a vote, and that this could just as easily be seen as someone asking an expert opinion. Your warning consisted of nothing more than dropping a template on their talk page. No doubt this results from all the animosity on the talk page, where Gamaliel has already asked for the thermostat to be turned down a little bit. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee's Reply This is simply a case of an editor with a wp:battleground mentality trying to game the system rather than assuming good faith in addressing a content dispute. It is similar in nature to an ANI the editor filed against me in September also related to the Southern Strategy article [78]. Admin Ricky81682 was the only admin to reply to (excluding some unrelated IP harassment) noting that "There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is."[79].

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to edit a section of the same article. Scoobydunk has reverted my edits a number of times[80][81][82][83][84] claiming, in part, that WP:RS says that non-peer reviewed sources are less reliable than peer reviewed sources and thus can not be used to challenge a peer reviewed source.[[85]] Likely due to the walls of text this discussion yielded no support for his views. To get outside help in solving the WP:RS question regarding scholarly vs non-scholarly contradicting sources I started a RSN discussion.Reliable Sources Noticeboard Given the contentious exchanges in the topic only editor replied prior to today (only after I started replying to this ANI did I see today's replies to the RSN discussion). Given the lack of replies I went looking for older archive discussions and found the thread Scoobydunk is referring to. It was clear from reading that discussion that the consensus was that peer reviewed sources should not automatically trump non-peer reviewed sources. I asked an editor from that thread to weigh in on the topic. I did not ask the editor to decide if the sources I was using were reliable nor did I ask the editor to decide if the edits I was making to the article were correct. It is quite possible the editor would totally disagree. However, as someone who was involved in the discussion and as one of the editors who helped craft the WP:RS guideline it seemed reasonable to ask for the opinion. I do not feel I asked in a non-neutral way since I was asking for the opinion on a policy, not article edits. Furthermore, asking ONE involved editor hardly seems like canvasing. Springee (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I was starting to be on your side until I saw you responding to DreamGuy with a half a mile of text, and now you're doing the same thing here. Good god you are wordy. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And we see that once again history repeats itself. A "slim", "Virgin" is at the centre of drama. Apparently Springee has abducted the aforementioned virgin to render him favours, which does not suit dunk's view as he wants the Slim Virgin all for himself. One a more Boring and wiki policified note, this does not appear to be a Canvass as the forum being used is not one which relies on voting. This is a basic request for views on source credibility and asking an expert to voice her(yes I presume all virgins that are slim should be "her") views. So, in a nutshell, Mush Drama about nothing. Regards , a slightly high FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry about the long reply. I too often feel the need to include all the details. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Canvassing is not limited to "voting" and clearly applies to debates and noticeboard discussions. Also, if Springee wants to make his own ANI topic to address his concerns, he's more than welcome to. However, this topic is specifically to address WP:VOTESTACK concerns. The policy explicitly says "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." Not to mention the part about Campaigning. Springee didn't just ask for clarification, he repeatedly asked for involvement on the RSN which is directly defined as canvassing. He explicitly explains how he found this discussion, identified a user that had the same opinion as him, and requested that user weigh in on the discussion, while no asking editors with opposing views to weigh in. That's verbatim WP:VOTESTACK which also says nothing about "voting". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is notifying one expert vote stacking? Springee (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." as per WP:VOTESTACK. It's literally right there in the policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What is an undue number? Springee (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More than zero. BMK (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's an uneven number. But let's not forget about this part too "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." here we don't have to worry about defining "undue" because this explicitly explains what you did in encouraging SlimVirgin to participate in the discussion. You knew their position on the matter, only selected that single editors, and encouraged them to join the RSN. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

She (I assume she) was an editor who helped write the RS policy and thus was well placed to tell us what the indented meaning was. Contrary to how you portrayed things, there was a general consensus in the archived discussion that RS does not automatically place scholarly sources over other reliable sources. The debate was how that should be communicated, not that it was the intent. Springee (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Notice: I got pinged here so whatever. I think that was canvassing but Slimvirgin commented mentioning that and did not actually seem to offer an opinion. I think the Scoobydunk's templating is fine, nothing more is needed as long as Springee stops doing anything more in that vein. Second, there are four outside other opinions at RSN now so I don't think there's nothing more needed as the discussion is properly focused on weight which is the actual issue. Third, god the length and bickering is nuts here. I think it's almost time to consider dual topic bans or something just for the sake of the rest of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Question I have been accused of asking only a single admin in an archive thread. Scoobydunk claims there was not consensus on the particular question I was asking. So whom else in that archived thread should I have asked to avoid the perception of imbalance? Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Scoobydunk previously accused me of canvasing when I asked another editor to lend a voice to the Southern Strategy article. When looking for an 3rd party POV I was deliberate in picking an editor whom I respected but almost always disagreed with.[86] As can be seen in the article talk section and the notice board discussions Fyddlestix has largely not agreed with me and my proposed edits including the ones related to this discussion. For the trouble of going out of my way to pick an editor whom I assumed would not be inclined to agree with me I was accused of canvasing.[87] Springee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that Springee is frustrated. Let's channel that frustration in other ways. The impulse to seek other opinions and break an impasse between two editors is a good one, so instead of complaining about inappropriate canvassing, let's try to channel that into an RFC or a post at Wikipedia:Third opinion or some other means of appropriate dispute resolution. Here, this discussion is just becoming an extention of the initial dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I only listed canvassing concerns for the current RSN, however they've been going on for about a month in various degrees of our discussions. If Springee is going to reference his outreach to Fyddlestix, then the rest of his outreaches should be noted. So, Springee considers Fyddlestix a typically opposing view when it comes to matters of dispute, however Fyddlestix had no previous involvement on the Southern Strategy article before Springee contacted him. Springee left Fyddlestix, the opposing view, a neutrally worded message. At the same time, Springee contacted Rjensen [88] who had been recently engaged on the Southern Strategy, and left him a clearly biased message laying out his argument in full and seeking assistance. I gave Springee a warning for this biased approach in recruiting editors, as Springee notes above. Since then, Springee has also contacted Scott Illni [89][90] who's previously edited the article similarly to Springee, like including information claiming Reagan didn't use the Southern Strategy[91]. Springee has also contacted Guy Macon[92] to seek assistance, and Guy Macon has taken similar stances with Springee regarding multiple political issues in the past. Then, of course, there's SlimVirgin. So Springee attempted to involve 1 editor with an opposing view, while contacting 4 editors with supporting views over the course of the last month. I only focused on SlimVirgin and the current RSN because I don't like raising issue when the content can be subjective, and with SlimVirgin it is an objectively verbatim violation of WP:VOTESTACK. However, if Springee considers his outreach to Fyddlesix to be an example of recruiting an opposing view, then his similar outreaches to 3 supporting views should be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Not these two again! It's User:Scoobydunk and User:Springee continuing to forum shop and quarrel about Southern Strategy. This has been going on for a month at multiple noticeboards. They have both been notified of discretionary sanctions for American politics. Can some uninvolved administrator please topic-ban them from discussion of and reports about Southern strategy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You previously accused me of forum shopping in a NPOVN discussion that was started by Scoobydunk. I do not understand how that would have been forum shopping. Asking a specific RSN question is also not forum shopping (and no one claimed it was). This ANI was started by Scoobydunk so again, please don't accuse me of forum shopping related to this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon this is one thing I agree with Springee, and your accusations of forum shopping do not exhibit good faith. Every issue posted at the relevant noticeboard has been separate and justified. This hasn't been over a single issue, but regarding multiple aspects of individual pieces of information, sources, and behavior that a single noticeboard does not encompass. The issues have ranged from Majority opinion over the Top-Down approach, to NPOV concerns, to reliable source issues, and now behavioral. There is no one noticeboard that can address all of these and they all regarding different edits. I also think it's inappropriate to suggest a dual topic ban when editors follow the dispute resolution guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure based on self enforced break I'm announcing here that I am going to stay off the Southern Strategy article for at least the rest of the year. As I've said before, between multiple undos of my edits by Scoobydunk and the generally heated (as noted by others) discussion pages I think it has become too challenging to work productively on the topic. I hope this will simply put this mess behind us and hopefully other editors can work with some of the sources I've brought to the table. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a self imposed break is a solution. The last time Springee suggested a self-imposed 30-day Iban for wikihounding another editor[93], he immediately went back to following that editor to different articles and reverting his work after the 30 days expired[94][95][96]. Those are just 3 of the article reverts of HughD, but there are over a dozen reverts that all occurred on the same day his iban expired on October 15.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, if your object is to get both of us topic banned I suspect this is a good way to do it. I think we have two admins who would be quite happy to see that happen. If that is your wish so be it but I would rather not be topic banned. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So Springee followed the self-imposed break then. I don't see a problem. If Springee self imposes a break until the end of the year and doesn't edit the article until the end of the year, is that enough for you Scoobydunk? Else what do you want, four weeks? A full ban? You're free to bring this up again if this starts on January 1st but I'm assuming that people will move on to disputing the next item then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Ricky81682 I'm not sure what all an I-ban entails but he maintained contact with HughD either directly or indirectly throughout[97][98][99]. He just didn't directly revert his edits. What is the difference between a self-imposed break and one forced by an admin? I think if I understand this, it will help me answer your questions about what I'm looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A self-imposed ban means nothing but an admin can shut this discussion down as moot and we can move on. An admin one is admin imposed and either requires an admin deciding to do it or enough support here to do it. Again, what would you propose be done? As I stated above, mutual topic bans may be required if it's helpful to the encyclopedia. If you two simply cannot co-exist together, and I can't figure out who's more at fault, I'd prefer not having this page nor AE filled up with bickering by telling you both to find another one of the 4.9 million pages here that aren't this one. If Springee stays away for the next few weeks, then you have free reign there but if you're back here on January 1st complaining that Springee is back, then we've resolved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My complaints are strictly limited to policy violations and have never been because "someone is back". I don't see how a mutual ban is any sort of solution when Springee is the only one who's canvassed. I'll settle for self imposed break, but I hope next time Springee resorts to wikihounding, canvassing, tendentious editing or whatever, an admin actually does something about it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying if there's a limited self-imposed ban, I would be surprised if upon editing there again, the same issues didn't pop up again and thus all we've done is had three weeks of quiet and delayed the inevitable. I'm not offering any opinion as to your complaints, as noted above, you were correct in that it seems somewhat inappropriate so the templating is correct but I don't see it as problematic enough to warrant a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk's comments and demand for punishment come across as WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. Perhaps we should both voluntarily leave the article for the rest of the month. My requests for outside help, improper though they now appear to be, were the result of Scoobydunks efforts to absolutely block all my editing efforts in the 1970-1990 subsection (we were the only editors at the time) and a desire to avoid an edit war. An ANI less than a month back found we were both less than civil [100]. 1RR for me, Scoobydunk got a warning due to a technicality [101]. Taking advantage of my 1RR limitation, all 5 of my edits from Nov 14th to Nov 28th were systematically reverted, [102][103][104][105][106]. The first was new material to the article. The subsequent 5 were good faith effort to address the limited feedback Scoobydunk offered for the undos. These reversals of good faith edits go against WP:DONTREVERT and look like WP:OWN. I'm taking the time off from the article because I'm tired of the above and tired of the implications of bad faith after spending several hours in a research library finding hard copy sources. If Scoobydunk wants sanctions then I suggest we review the above reverts in context of the recent uncivil editing ANI. But, perhaps the better option is we both take some time off from the article (I am) or we just drop it. Springee (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one responsible for your behavior Springee. Springee also misrepresents the events. Following his 1RR sanction, Springee immediately took to reverting information in the article again. [107] Yes, he did add some new material, but he also removed and edited pre-existing material which partially lead to his 1RR sanction in the first place. Slakr was the admin overseeing our previous edit war ANI and he has been kept informed of just about all of the editing since he gave Springee a 1RR sanction. This includes all of the diffs Springee just listed above. Slakr ultimately decided to temporarily lock the article and asked us to use dispute resolution.[108] We have been following Slakr's advice since then, but since the DRN's weren't going in favor of Springee, he decided to start canvassing and that's why we're here today. Since Slakr suggested we use dispute resolution, there hasn't been any edit warring and we've been following his suggestions, however it's hard to achieve a valid consensus when one editors resorts to canvassing to influence the outcome.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of immediately 'started reverting again' makes the presumption that the article was 'correct' before the reverts. The ANI finds (which found against both of us) did not make any ruling on the quality of the material, only the uncivil behavior of the editors. The article lock also didn't claim to support the current state of the article. Slakr told you he saw nothing wrong with the continued edits.[109] Your comment about DRN's is misleading. 3 of your 5 reverts occurred before you filed a COATRACK NPOVN claim. After it was clear that claim got no support I tried to edit 2 more times. You immediately reverted both edits. My RSN filing on the 29th, was made after your 5th reversion of my material. Perhaps your intent is to get us both blocked in order to maintain status quo in the article. Either way, I think Ricky has made it clear that if you think sanctions are appropriate, propose them. Else, let it drop. Springee (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I already said I was fine with your self proposed break, then you started to bring up information that has already been addressed by Slakr. So it's clear that you're the one that needs to "drop it". Also, for every revert of mine that you're complaining about, it followed a revert of your own. That's to say, you resorted to reverting first instead of waiting for a consensus of a dispute resolution. Also, I didn't mislead about anything and I actually started a DRN before Slakr locked the article and suggested using dispute resolution, which is all I spoke to. Yes, I've been using dispute resolution to solve these issues, but you've resorted to reverting the article to suit your narrative and then resorted to canvassing to affect the outcome of the dispute resolution. Again, I'm fine with the self imposed break.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If Springee is canvassing, he is really, really bad at it, based upon the fact that he also asked me for advice (User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing). Springee is familiar with how I do things, and would have known that asking me is pretty much asking to have me impartially examine his own edit history along with the edit history of whoever he is having the dispute with. I declined in this case because I don't think I can be unbiased on this particular topic (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Strategy), but he had no way of knowing that ahead of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest (but not mandate) that no canvassing of anyone in the future be done. It's clear some people will take it as a slight no matter who is contacted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actual canvassing is bad. Asking for help is not. Because I have been involved in WP:DRN for a long time, many people who have been is DRN cases that I mediated ask me for help or advice regarding content disputes. Nothing wrong with that unless they have reason to believe that I will favor their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't really matter whether there has been canvassing. It doesn't really matter whether there has been improper forum shopping. It isn't important to come up with a proper wikilawyered identification of what is wrong. It is clear that these two editors do not like each other and are disrupting multiple Wikipedia forums with their dispute, and it is clear that something needs to be done. Rather than an interaction ban, which wouldn't work well and might result in more arguments, I suggest that an uninvolved administrator topic-ban both editors from Southern strategy, broadly defined. They have both already been alerted to American politics discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the very same sanctions Robert McClenon just referenced: "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions." This is precisely what Springee and I have done. We've followed the principles and have sought dispute resolution instead of edit warring. So to recommend a topic ban when both editors are following the very same principles they've been informed of seems unmerited and counterproductive.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed at Knanaya

For some time, Knanaya has been repeatedly affected by at least two editors trying to enforce their views, both using myriad sockpuppets and IPs. Periodically, an "anti-Knanaya" editor has repeatedly added disparaging material about the group, misusing sources to do so (see discussions here, here, and here). Alternately, a "pro-Knanaya" editor (or connected group of editors) edit-wars over the article to excise material they disapprove, even (or especially) well cited material by academics who studied the community (see discussions here, here, and here). They've edited under the names Stansley, Psthomas, and various IPs:[110][111][112]. In August, the article had to be semi-protected through November,[113] and now that it has expired the edit warring has resumed.
I'm also submitting a WP:RFPP, but it's a shame to have to semi-protect the page for so long considering that the disruption seems to come primarily from two people or groups. Perhaps someone could look into the feasibility of a range-block for this problem?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[114],this revision has kept the excised material intact with previous references. This gives more clarity to the subject. Further more if the collected excised material is checked Admin's can see various Origin stories apart from Neill. The only official version that should be taken is the material mentioned in Knanaya community website(http://kottayamad.org/knanaya-history/). That credibility is more than enough for publication (This is the approved version by bishops, priests, synods and community members). If looked more into the excised material Swiderski himself reports as per Cuchullain version that he is unsure about the Southist-Northist divisional history. All these points to the self-conflicting and invalidation of Swiderski's material. Disregarding this facts and further backing up this fictional elements seems to be more detrimental. These material is published in the 1980's and under a foreign private university, so the standards of this are also questionable. But probably out of respect that Cuchullain is a Master Editor, there are requests to keep the Southist-Northist theory, but under a separate title or a new page. None of these sensible suggestions seems to be tasteful for Cuchullain. I hope the use of these semi-protection requests aren't a means to an end; the edit history shows as such. Let the excised material remain excised or to the other person's request under a different page or title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't address the sockpuppetry and edit warring matter at all. For others, please see this, where 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person.[115]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the edited version is a mere grammatical correction which gives more clarity and the same are on the same page of request and if the both parties seems to be o.k about it, where does your sock-puppetry claim stands. Is it a deflection from the mentioned concerns. If not so you have failed to ascertain how a person from Delhi and Maharashtra can be the same - Then that will be the million dollar answer. Other Admins may look at this: http://www.distancesfrom.com/ (From Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India to Pawti, Maharashtra 431703, India) - 1274 Km; I only just saw the talk page rampant now. But standing within all respects to Cuchullain, I have to say from edit history checks, this is not his/hers first claim on the article. There might be people who say that keep the excess material in it and all. I would say just remove it. This is too much and the issue is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People using proxy servers to disguise themselves happens pretty regularly on Wikipedia, and people from different areas can easily coordinate together as meat puppets. The issue here is that we have multiple IPs pushing the same edits on the same subejects at the same times, and revert warring over it. That's not going to fly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I don't think wikipedia allows edit through proxy servers. I use CyberGhost 5 to overcome certain area-restrictions. You may use it and try an experimental edit - Wikipedia wont allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for 6 months due to the sockpuppetry problem. Short of someone implementing range blocks it's probably the only solution that will work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Large sock cluster

The problem is evident looking at the edit history of Silver nanoparticle. There are multiple accounts named "Nano(something)" (e.g. Nanomsg) making large-scale edits to a number of articles, also including Colloidal gold, Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy) and Photothermal therapy. Some of the edits are okay; other contain dubious health information. Either way having a bunch of what look like computer-generated accounts acting in consort is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanoadm. Twenty accounts so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a college class project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, class project at University of Pittsburgh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest forwarding this on to the WMF. Jusdafax 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just ask Eryk (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed) and see if they know anything about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but I remember back in March there was at least one - and maybe two - unregistered classes editing gold nanoparticle articles. I remember we contacted one prof (not at Pitt), but I do feel like there were other edits that looked like classes whose origins we couldn't track down. Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Rhododendrites was the one who solved the mystery then. He may remember more. I'll keep digging, see if I made any other notes. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): I remember it well, but that was at a school on the west coast, not UPitt (being vague because it seems like referencing a very specific class at a specific university without their prior knowledge is fuzzy WP:OUTING territory). I spoke to the professor on the phone in March and we exchanged several emails. He was very interested to work with us (Wiki Ed) next time around, but as I'm not managing the classroom program now I'd have to check with Helaine (Wiki Ed) regarding whether or not she's been in touch with him this term. I've forwarded the March email thread and a summary to her so she can follow up. That doesn't help in the immediate, of course... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I'm skeptical it's the same class. The website for the previous class has not been updated and there are indeed multiple IPs working on these articles which geolocate to UPitt. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the SPI was declined and closed by Mike V so that's a dead issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a diff which covers most of the changes made by the "Nano*" accounts to Silver nanoparticle: [116] It's not clear what the intent is. (Incidentally, Wikipedia needs a smarter diff engine; less changed there than the volume of changes would indicate.) It does not appear to be a promotion for "colloidal silver", a popular scam-type medication. (The Mayo Clinic says that doesn't work and may be dangerous.[117]). Not seeing any COI issues. The edits look reasonably legitimate, and have cites, but the cites are not easy to check without access to a medical library. Nobody ever put an AN/I notice on User Talk:Nanomsg or User Talk:Nanoadm, so I just did, along with a note asking them to please tell us what's going on and to read WP:ASSIGN. If they engage, this will get straightened out quickly. If we're lucky, we get some new editors with medical and chemistry expertise. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I dropped them all notes. Hopefully one of them will pass the message on to their instructor, and she or he will get in touch with Helaine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the usernames are all the word "nano" followed by the editor's initials. Nothing wrong with a group editing articles, though as usual we should make sure the edits are up to standards. As long as they're not POV-pushers, likely they just need to be pointed to WP:SCICITE and WP:MEDRS rather than accused of sockpuppetry. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by 82.132.213.175

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

---

Notifying the IP's talk page of this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let it go. It's on an experienced administrators' page and "sailing close to" is very different than sailing on to (especially if you're sailing on the downwind side of something.) NE Ent 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent - it's good to run into you again :D -- Yeah, I was questioning if making this ANI thread was the right thing to do or not. If it's skating pretty close to the edge, but isn't falling over, I'll humbly accept my ten lashings for the unnecessary thread and call it good - especially given the fact that it was left on an admin's talk page. I must be a lot more tired than I think I am. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. We don't "let it go" when it comes to legal threats. It is a legal threat even wrapped in words like "sailing very close to". It was clearly meant to intimidate. You were 100% correct to report this here, thank you. HighInBC 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies, and targeting an admin is not the smartest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the legal threat, the editor identifed that they have a COI with some sources on articles relating to aviation. Can anyone identify the possible individual or is this just more smoke? —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

After some digging, the block appeared to happen over a spat of vandalism at Badger and Clan Gunn from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying "I reserve the absolute right to be able to edit where my own research is incorrently inserted on your pages" pretty clearly indicates they don't understand how Wikipedia works, aside from everything else. At first I wondered if he was a certain past banned editor who was an aviation author, as there was a certain gut feeling from his style, but said fellow doesn't seem to have had the Ta 152 amongst his remit, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC - Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated deletion of Copyvio notice

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

---

A week ago, I deleted some copyvios on the Nazi architecture page. Most of them included a source reference at the end, but no indication that it was a direct quotation, nor where it began and ended. It turns out that they were much longer than the "brief quotations" allowed by WP:COPYVIO. Some investigation showed that these passages (and many more) had been added by two users 10 years ago; also that the initial version of the article was a large block of unsourced text. Even today, most of the text of the article seems to come from these three suspicious sources. I documented this in Talk:Nazi architecture and tagged the article with db-copyvio. User:MER-C changed this to Copyviocore and listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 29.

Since then, User:IQ125 has removed the template three times:

• IQ125 removed the Copyviocore template.
• I reverted, with Edit comment:

(a) you have restored some of the known copy vios; b) this is not correct procedure.. you need to discuss; c) it doesn't matter how many editors have contributed if most of the text is derivative of copy vios

• IQ125 again removed the Copyviocore template (and restored copyvio content I had removed).
• I wrote him on his Talk page, explaining in more detail that this was not an appropriate action, and restored the Copyviocore template.
• IQ125 again removed the notice.
• IQ125 appears not to understand our policies, so I wrote him a final explanation on his talk page, but did not revert.

Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd appreciate it if an administrator would clarify to him our policies on Copyvio and on removing Copyvio templates. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the copyvio template and warned the user. I will be watching this as it unfolds. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Reported to me by an IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05 new users

Originally reported to me on my talk page, I thought I'd post this here:

"New users, NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 123.136.111.59 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"

However, they haven't provided any evidence for this in terms of diffs, so it can't yet be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05.

-- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism

Since we now seem to have stopped him from making dubious edits to enwiki using the edit filter, it looks like User:Léogâne Paix has been on a cross-wiki editing spree, editing fr:Léogâne, ht:Leyogàn (komin), it:Léogâne and pl:Léogâne to add a dubious flag and even more dubious information in infoboxes. I don't speak all these languages, or know their internal procedures -- how on earth does one go about dealing with this sort of cross-wiki vandalism? Is there some sort of global edit filter, or global blocklist? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

For global blocks, talk to the stewards. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just done so. See meta:Steward requests/Global. User:Léogâne Paix's mixture of editing via a mixture of IPs and multiple usernames across multiple wikis makes them a difficult case, though. The only thing that's really been really effective has been the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

Please take a look at the behavior of User:Jack DeMattos. He is a professional writer who's been on WP since June 1, 2015. I've tried to make him feel welcome and given him lots of room to match his flowery, editorial, magazine style writing to WP encyclopedic style, but he's not making much progress. Now he's begun to arbitrarily delete from articles all images another user has uploaded added and leave personal attacks in his edit summaries, like this: "Removed obviously bogus photo supposed to be Charles E. Bassett. This is yet another unfortunate example submitted by a serial purveyor of photo photos of Wild West figures. This person is single handedly turning Wipipedia into 'Wackypedia." His comment is really ironic, because his contributions are pretty much in the same category. Instances of comments like this in his edit summaries include this one, another, one more, and another.

He's leaving his flowery footprints and non-sourced content all over the Old West articles. In the past week this has included Pat Garrett; Bill Tilghman; Bat Masterson; and Billy the Kid.

Oon Friday 4 December he made big changes to Bill Tilghman and removed hatnotes about the article quality that he had not fixed, but added to; over the weekend he was hitting Billy the Kid; the latter article is quite a mess now. His references can't be authenticated by anyone because he doesn't leave proper citations. In some instances his refs aren't refs, but footnotes full of ancillary info not pertinent to the article, like references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31 in Bill Tilghman. Everyplace he goes, another editor needs to follow behind and clean up his contributions, if only someone had the time. You can see all his contributions here.

Other editors have taken his behavior to the Admin noticeboard twice before (here and here), and he's promised to do better, but he really doesn't appear to be listening. The help he's been offered, his actions in return, and the warnings given, etc, are summarized in several posts on his Talk page. I don't feel like he's giving any heed to the praise, direction, encouragement OR warnings I've left on his talk page.

I'm running out of patience and his contributions are becoming more of detriment than a help. I think it may be time for a short block to get his attention. Your input is most warmly welcomed. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Billy the Kid is nearly unreadable, and the Tilghman article is almost as bad. Thinking about reverting his changes completely. Not a big fan of MOS blocks, but if he's not getting the message, maybe it's time. This is damaging the encyclopedia. Katie^talk 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack DeMattos has deleted photos that I and others have contributed to wiki without even asking if there is provenance or substantial evidence. He seems to believe that he is the only one that can contribute to the pages about the people he writes about. Some of the comments he made regarding photos from an important Old West collection: "Deleted bogus photo. Once again this has been submitted by a person with a track record with offering phony photos to Wikipedia articles.this is not, nor ever will be, one of them." Being a published historian does not automatically make one experienced at identifying historical people. True West, Jack Demattos and several other top published writers recently made a fool of themselves [at least that is what the majority believes] when they gave their negative opinions on the latest possible Billy the Kid photograph before the program about it aired on National Geographic. The show revealed fantastic evidence that gave the photo a very high percentage of being Billy and his friends. Since then, the owners and the filmmaker have established provenance for the photo and will be airing their findings soon in another program. The producer/owner of the film company has shown excited interest in the photos from this same collection that Jack has declared as bogus. Jack DeMattos should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't correct for the public's number one information resource. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time this same issue has been brought here. This user does not seem to be getting it. They have gotten a lot of advice but don't seem to be taking it. That sort of text is more suited to a cheap western paperback story than an encyclopedia. HighInBC 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to, the OP or the subject of the complaint? BMK (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He means the subject of the complaint. DeMattos has been here several times for the same issues. Anyway, I did some emergency copy edits to Bill Tilghman and added two sources. I guess it's a little better now, though one of the sources I added should probably be replaced by a better one, as it's a primary source written by Tilghman's widow. It'll do for now, though. I don't want to follow this guy around and perform copy edits on all the articles he edits, but it seems like there should be some way to retain his expertise. I don't know. If he won't change, I guess maybe something does need to be done. I'd prefer some kind of mentorship or something, but I hear those often end disastrously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DeMattos is still turning the Billy the Kid page into an expanded outline instead of an encyclopedia article, and he's obviously ignoring this discussion. Katie^talk 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He replied to me about the ANI notice on his talk page. I asked him to bring his comments here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from previously blocked user

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

---

Reporting Bigbaby23. Previously blocked editor keeps inserting grammar errors, punctuation errors, and peacock language into Holly Holm, a BLP (1, 2, 3, 4). Violation of 3RR as well. User continually ignores attempts at communication and ignores the policies cited while resorting to name calling in edit summaries. -- James26 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BoomerangBigbaby23 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not how that works. --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see myself violating the three-revert rule within a 24-hour period on the page's history. You have, though. -- James26 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Bigbaby23, not you James. He clearly needs a time out. --Tarage (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment was directed at him as well. Yes, a time out would do some good. -- James26 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment meant, that I am tired of editors pushing their agenda with bulshit citation of policy aka gaming the system. There is no peacock language, he doesnt care about punctuation etc. He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss. The lead in the article is well cited and creates interest for the reader to read on.By Boomerang I meant not only should James 6 not be rewarded with this editorial behaviour, but punished for it. Really, this whole game puts me on the verge of wanting to stop contributing to wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And 'what' a loss that would be... --Tarage (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigbaby23 - You may want to retract the personal attack in your statement there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

i'll drop my two cents, as someone who encountered this problem editor long ago, doing exactly the same things and following up nastily and harassingly. Thank you so much for blocking them, and please make it permanent. This user is aptly and trollfully named. WP:NOTHERE — Smuckola(talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss."

An incorrect assumption, and irrelevant. -- James26 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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

---

User 2005 has an implied legal threat posted on their talk page. Under the heading 'No Drama/Stalker Free Zone' it says:

"Please do not add soap opera or other personal drama content to this page as it will only be removed."

And then:

"The Wikimedia Foundation is located in California. California Penal Code § 653 makes it a crime with a penalty of up to one year in jail for any person to use electronic communication with intent to annoy or harass."

It's clear this is an implied legal threat intended for anybody who violates the first sentence. As such it is against Wikipedia policy.

Popcorntastesgood (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A weak threat at best Popcorntastesgood - @User 2005: would you consider removing this text? -- samtar ^whisper 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd also recommend removing it. I'm unaware of the background of either user or how they relate to one another, but offhand I can say that putting this on your talk page does not make you seem like an easy person to approach and will immediately put other users on the defensive because they don't know how you will interpret what they say. It might be a weak threat, but it can still be seen as a threat by other users that you may pursue legal action. You might not actually do anything, but it can still make it difficult to really work with other people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Popcorntastesgood is a sockpuppet of the many times blocked stalker Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DegenFarang. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about but it appears you've just admitted to threatening an editor. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And regardless that is not something that should be on your talk page, or on anyone else's, ever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it reaches the threshold of violating the letter of WP:NLT; but it clearly violates the spirit and purpose of that policy. The intent is clearly to have a chilling effect on posts by anyone posting to the talk page. If @2005: wants some sort of notice to behave appropriately on the talk page - instead of the state codes, better references to use would be towards WP policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:USERPAGE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment doesn't have anything to do with a chilling effect on "anyone" making user page comments. It's a statement of fact. And, it wouldn't be an issue with anybody if not for the stalker (who has previously been permanently banned) creating another identity to report it and waste people's time here. 2005 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't be intellectually dishonest. There are zillions of facts that could conceivably go on your talk page, so unless your choice of this particular fact was completely random, you put it there for a reason, to stop people from posting annoying or harassing messages. I can understand and sympathize with that, but not with your denying its clear and obvious purpose. Own up to why its there and make your arguments for why it should stay, but don't try to tell us that it's not there to do what it's obvious it's there to do. BMK (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I will sue you" is also a statement of fact, at least if one follows through to it, but that doesn't make it allowable under WP:NLT. LjL (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's not intended to chill comments, then it doesn't need to be on your page. If it needs to be on your page, then it is intended to chill comments. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption

User:@DreamGuy: with this -edit and this edit with the summary maybe someone with a clear head can say if what you say is true are clearly intended to inflame a situation previously listed here at AN/I after probably but not yet rejected from arbcom and goad me into an edit war. I ask someone intervenes. Gnangarra 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can say with great confidence -- as anyone who follows ArbCom should be able to -- that the case will be rejected, as it's clearly not arbitration worthy at this point. I don't see an NPA in Dream Guy's comment, but I do see in your edit a failure to get the message aimed at you from the previous discussion here, which is that your judgment in this controversy has not been the best. As an WP:INVOLVED admin, you really shouldn't be editing these post cards out of articles -- leave it to others who are not entangled to decide. (Which is also, I believe, Dream Guy's point.) That you, an admin, see this as a "Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption" is a bit disconcerting. BMK (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

For two weeks I have been harassed daily by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed. I've had enough: the allegations are all false but they come tumbling out: 1) Nov 24: "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion". Nov 24: Snowded alleged WP:OR and WP:OWN. Nov 24: Snowded wrote: "The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire." Nov 25: Wiki-Ed writes: "Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources." etc etc, they never stop. I have repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false. They seem to believe I have a secret POV agenda, Which I deny. I've written a lot of books and articles and scholarly venues, but I've not published anything about the British Empire and have no secret agenda. I repeatedly demand proof or evidence, or even which section is at fault. They repeatedly refuse to answer--Dec 8: Rjensen: "Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV?" Snowded: "Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs." This is sustained harassment by two editors who have never edited Historiography of the British Empire, which has been active since Oct 2008, and which overlaps very little with the article they try to protect British Empire. Other editors on the page have largely supported me, not these two. I request User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed by kept away from Talk:Historiography of the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concern that Riensen is building an alternative article to the British Empire one under the guise of historiography. Hence the issue of the need to deal first with the whole structure not paragraph by paragraph within his structure. The comments he has made about the inadequacies of the British Empire article support the view that this may be a coatrack. When this started I asked Riensen for his authority for the structure and he quoted two sources, one of which is suitable. However he would not share the detailed contents so I have bought the book and said clearly on the talk page that I will check that against the structure and come back with a proposal for change later this week. That has resulted in a torrent of personal abuse and a refusal to simply wait and see. No one is harassing Rjensen, no changes have yet been made to the article. He daily (well hourly and more stridently as the day does on) launches at attacks on the talk page to which I have tried to respond politely. I for one am trying to engage him on the talk page but that is very difficult given his clearly expressed contempt for editors who do not share his academic qualifications. In respect of the quote where he says that he has " repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false" I invite third party review. He states that the claims areas false and asserts that he has included multiple views but he has yet to address the main objection namely that an article on historiography should be about that, not a collection of statements from historians organised into (his words) an eclectic structure. When there are concrete proposals for change on the talk page then he can respond and I expect we will have an RFC and possibly dispute resolution before this is over. For the moment the only possible community action is to ask Rjensen to stop his multiple personal attacks. This is not even a content dispute yet and the fact he has brought it here illustrates the problem :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowded has never made a substantive edit on this article (and very few on British Empire article). I believe he has not been familiar with the historiography of the British Empire or even the word itself. Instead he tags the article and says that as soon as he reads a book he will propose sweeping changes. In my opinion he is primarily motivated to protect the other article British Empire. It is not under threat, for there is little overlap and it reaches a very different audience. The historiography article was created in October 2008 & has caused no serious controversy until 2 weeks ago, when Snowded tagged it as POV WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. He says the problem is "structure" but has been unable to explain what he means. He says he will explain himself later but keeps the tags to delegitimize the article. On 12:53, 5 December 2015‎ Qexigator tried to remove them with the edit summary: "the tags have been sufficiently discussed to show that they are not correct, please do not needlessly or casually encourage disruption." Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oexigator's removal of the tags was reverted twice by another experienced user namely User:Wee Curry Monster with the comment "discussions are ongoing and valid concerns remain - edit warring over tags you should know better)" The reason for the tags has been clearly explained, what will come later this week is a assessment of Rjensen's source and a proposal for a way forward. Not sure why he can't wait ----Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear case of harassment. In view of the discussion complained of by Rjensen, I repeat here: "Let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the discussion, or who has forgotten, an earlier comment (of mine) there that the discussion has been more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen (in the discusion) an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment (by the harassing party): You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how anything you said above shows that this is a case of WP:HARASSMENT. LjL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree I see no case for harassment. It sounds like criticism. Snowded also provided no diffs showing Riensen made any personal attacks. This should be worked out on the talk page. I agree this article is seriously problematic: This article should not be concerning history itself but historiography; see Historiography of the United States. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen has made personal attacks, but it's more about the tone. However, since you asked, here are some examples: Snowded is 'ignorant' [118]; Snowded has 'pretty slim' writing experience [119]; Snowded's view is 'nonsense' [120]; Snowded is making 'false and incoherent statements' (plus some disparaging comments on expertise and motive) [121]. Snowded has received the majority of the attacks over the last week, but I've also been branded 'ignorant' [122] (different article but same topic) and lack a 'deep knowledge' [123]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. Thank you for the link to the article on US historiography - that's a nice example of the approach we should be aiming for with the article in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It needs to be strictly on the historiography or it's likely to be deleted as POV fork. Rjensen should probably be warned over the comments - calling people "ignorant" etc is neither helpful nor allowed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is yet a case of harassment, but User:Snowded could focus more on the specific issues with the page and less on User:Rjensen's motivations - Snowded starting the talk page debate with claims that this is a coatrack, asserting that the whole page should be deleted, and quoting OR and OWN were not the most constructive approach. The page is, from a quick skim, about what it says it is (historians' takes on the British Empire), and changes to the content will require consulting sources and discussing how to best use them (do ask WikiProject History for help). Rjensen should avoid using words like "ignorant", but he has also faced personal comments. Fences&Windows 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is too much about history and historical criticism of the British Empire; neither of that is historiography. See other historiography articles like Historiography of the United States, Historiography of the French Revolution and Historiography of the Cold War. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to agree that the discussion may not have started off in the best way and to take my share of responsibility for that. But I have been trying since to move it forward - you will see a section talking about the need for some changes to the main article. But overall yes I think it is a coatrack article in the main I spent about three hours yesterday (as promised last week) going through Winks' Historiography of the British Empire to work through a possible structure and will post on that later in the week (although the other articles referenced may short circuit that a bit). Remember I didn't bring the matter here, Rjensen has done his best in the last week to tell me that I am "ignorant" etc. and I have made it clear that if that continues then it might be necessary to bring an ANI case. That seems to have been the trigger to a pre-emptive strike in trying to remove myself and Wiki-Ed from the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have Historiography of the British Empire on my watchlist and have become increasingly concerned that is being turned into a WP:COATRACK article reflecting the views of its principle author. The article is sourced but its an example of WP:SYN where the principle author selects principle sources that reflect their own POV, rather than trying to give a balanced view of the range of opinion in published literature. If I may observe that the principle authors seems to be approaching this as an academic paper rather than an article for an online encyclopedia. As such its becoming a candidate for deletion as a POV fork. In addition, RJensen is alternating between arguing from authority and personal abuse (diffs above). The intervention from Qexigator has also been unhelpful, first of all [124] accusing editors of picking a quarrel, removing tags when there was clearly an ongoing discussion [125],[126] and backing up a false claim here of harassment. I fear that unless the uncivil behaviours are nipped in the bud this will likely end at arbcom. WCM_email 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I too, having it on my watchlist, have read the course of the discussion differently, and see the above comment, and others like it, as one-sided veering to travesty. The incivility, as I see it, is largely aimed against the complaining party. Let us see some balance in responses. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen responds: On the structure of the article I have said this repeatedly: the topics selected are those chosen by the RS, especially the three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell. As for the comparison with the article on the historiography of the United States. I wrote most of that article. There are multiple schools of thought on American history, and that article is structured by those schools. We do not have multiple schools of thought on the British Empire so it is impossible to use a schools structure and no RS has attempted to do so. Instead historians tackle separate topics, arranged by chronology, by regions, and by such themes as religion, gender, slavery, etc. The Historiography of the British Empire is therefore organized by chronology, geography, and themes. To quote from the preface to Winks Historiography vol 5 P xiv: "The organization of this volume is chronological, thematic, and regional. The opening chapters survey the historiography of the Empire from its origins through the period of the American revolution.... Thematic chapters in this part of the volume include those dealing with exploration and empire, science and medicine, gender, slavery and the slave trade, and missions and empire....The regional chapters include separate accounts of the historiography of the West Indies, (etc)." For context please see Winks at Winks (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V: Historiography. p. 14. The "Historiography of the British Empire" article therefore is based on a standard structure used by the RS. As for my rhetoric, I never called anyone "ignorant". I stated: "Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography." As for "false": I made that allegation in rejecting his specific claims about my intentions. As for the coat rack allegation: this article is entirely about the historians of the British Empire and their ideas and debates. That is what historiography is all about. The events and dates and historic developments of the British Empire are "history": and are in the article on the British Empire. That history material is not duplicated here. There's very little overlap in text or in the footnotes. In my opinion, Snowded has repeatedly challenged my good faith by asserting that I have a secret POV. When challenged he is unable to identify that POV or find any POV statements anywhere in the article. Snowded has announced that his intention is to radically reduce or eliminate this article. see Nov 30 He has announced his strong POV ahead of time and has locked himself into a position where he cannot edit in good faith. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to admit I had not read Winks before this encounter (although I am enjoying it so thanks). I do however know the difference between historiography and history. I asked Rjensen for his primary source for the structure of the article and having been told, went out and bought it. Per multiple comments on the talk page and here I then promised to come back this week having done that with specific proposals. I did think that would be well received but it wasn't. Otherwise I'm also happy to confirm that everything I have read says that a lot of this material does not belong in an article on historiography; but if you check the talk page I have suggested (and will be more concrete in that suggestion later) that a lot of the material may belong in other articles that can be referenced. All of that seems to have been misinterpreted and I do think there is a ownership problem here. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Troll at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Identified a new editor who's stated purpose and only edits are summed up as "Without a criticism section, elaborating on the opinion that the event (Paris terrorist attacks) was a hoax".[127] See their user page where they clearly state their intention User:Justitia_Nai and their generally trollish edits all to the talk page Special:Contributions/Justitia_Nai. I don't think they are here to build the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They want a criticism section added. That's not trolling. I take it you don't want a criticism section? Branding a new user you disagree with a troll is not very constructive. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There's many eyes already on that article. It is subject to active community sanctions as noted on the talk page. Any impropriety will be efficiently dealt with. -- œ^™ 10:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism is not the same as introducing WP:FRINGE theories that the event was a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with them, discuss it on talk pages. Disagreement doesn't mean they are trolling nor is it a reason to block them. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the recent Paris Terrorist Attacks are not a HOAX - hence this user is trolling with a Single Purpose Acct. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And considering they wanted to use this and this as sources...well that says a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah these are everywhere. Whenever a mass shooting/terrorist attack happens, there are immediately people posting videos and articles with fake photos and witnesses to claim it's all a government hoax. Trutherism seems to be a cottage industry guaranteed to make money off YouTube hits and Google hits because of the sheep who believe everything they read. Excuse me now, I'm going to go make an outraged video about how the World Series didn't happen and it's all a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one about how that wasn't really Kyle Busch winning the Sprint Cup when he came back from his injury might do even better! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I knew the Giants were robbed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was just going to block indef, but since a DS notice was placed on their page, and they haven't posted anywhere since, I'll limit myself to archiving the idiocy on the talk page and making sure they understand the trolling/fringe pushing is over. Please post here or tell an admin if one more incidence of trolling occurs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. We're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant trolling. I agree with the above. GAB^Hello! 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈^(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.

The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

• September 2015: misleading edit summary
• August 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: STSC makes major changes to the Hong Kong article with the edit summary "ce". The edits censor the reason behind the 2014 Hong Kong protests (i.e. universal suffrage), delete information on police abuses, delete reference to the largely peaceful nature of the protest. I reverted these edits once and STSC places a warning template on my talk page to intimidate me. I give up.
• May 2015: Misleading edit summary - removes reference to Hong Kong as having a "high degree of autonomy", again deleting reference to Hong Kong's autonomy, egregiously misleading edit summary
• March 2015: rm reference to police abuses despite being referenced to Time magazine
• February 2015: misleading edit summary
• January 2015: misleading edit summary
• November 2014: Censorship of well-sourced and widely reported material about the credibility of a pro-government group's survey, reverts again with edit summary referring to WP:CRYSTALBALL (does not apply), places personal attack warning template on my talk page while I have never made any personal attacks, again, I beefed up the sources, more censorship, I open a lengthy talk page discussion, he blanks 3000 bytes of referenced material, I gave up.
• December 2014: misleading edit summary, incomplete edit summary - placing badge of People's Liberation Army in place of the Cenotaph, low-key agenda editing, misleading edit summary, rm photo of protesters, rm reference to large numbers of protesters citing the CBC, a reliable source; totally rm reference to protests in Central and Wan Chai that shut down highways and roads and were publicised in numerous reliable sources
• November 2014: censor photo of protests, ditto, more photo censorship, ridiculous photo censorship with no distinction between impartial coverage of the protests, and actual NPOV behavior, more attempted censorship of this particular banner
• October 2014: spamming articles with fringe theories about how the U.S. government supposedly instigated the 2014 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests (1, 2, 3), censorship - Beijing's nomination committee IS what the protests were about, misleading edit summary, censorship of information cited to reliable source, misleading edit summary/censorship, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, unexplained deletion of protest sites, he repeatedly changed "water cannons" to "water sprays", misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary/unexplained deletions
• September 2014: delete reference to Hong Kong as a former British colony
• September 2014: changing the Hong Kong infobox to show Putonghua (Mandarin) as the "national language" of Hong Kong, with Cantonese as a "regional language". For those unfamiliar with China/Hong Kong, Putonghua is the language promoted by the national government in Beijing. Cantonese is the language spoken by 95% of Hong Kong people
• September 2014: "fixing style/layout errors" - but in fact making major changes to the infobox, i.e. changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation"
• June 2014: misleading edit summary

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([128][129][130][131][132]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈^(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jhona43

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

---

Resolved

I am a newcomer here so am sorry if this is not the right place to request help. I am creating articles about past Australian cricketers. Today I created an article Allan Young (cricketer). Just in the first minute when I wrote the first line of the article, the user Jhona43 put a tag on the article that the article was unreferenced. I was taken aback but after completing the article I went to Jhona43's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhona43 and requested him to not put such tags in the first minute. I noticed on the talk page of the user that many other editors have complained about the same thing to Jhona43. I checked further and found that Jhona43 never replies to any such request made to him to stop reviewing articles like this.

I request Wikipedia managers to ask Jhona43 to stop reviewing new articles. Gracias. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We're all volunteers. There are no managers here as such. Now, step one - I notice that you posted on Jhona43's talk page one minute after posting here. Usually, we ask that you discuss problems with other editors before coming here. Was there discussion on a talk page somewhere that we missed? I also notified Jhona of this post, so that he can come here and participate in this discussion.

As for the issue of an incomplete article being tagged? It happens. People don't always see how new the article is, or know that you are actively editing it. You can always start it in your userspace at User:Xender Lourdes/Draft or some such. Or create the article in the Draft userspace. Then you can take your sweet time and finish it at your pace, adding information and references and whatnot. Once that's done, you can have it moved to the main article title - and then you're done. It's really not a huge issue, in the scheme of things. But there's no violation of policy here, as far as I can see. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Missed your notification of Jhona, sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow that. I am new here so do not understand the way some of the things work here. That is why I was a bit taken aback at getting an unreferenced tag. And then a bit more when I saw some other editors telling Johna43 to not bite new editors by tagging immediately. I also didn't know there are no managers here. I thought administrators are managers. Thank you for replying with the advice. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think new editors would be better off starting drafts either in draftspace or their own userspace as the new page patrolling can be a little quick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The "creating a new article" page mentions creating the article in one's userspace at the bottom of a 5-bullet-point list, and Wikipedia:Your first article mentions it as item 7 of 7 after a longish introduction. New editors may actually be better off starting articles in draftspace (which isn't mentioned in either of those two locations) or their own userspace, but the guidance to do so is really thoroughly inadequate. Suggesting that a new user do so after encountering problems from an over-reaching user is really kind of WP:BITEY. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong. I'll mention this to Jhona. Was waiting for a comment here from them, but they appear to have apologized on their talk page for not allowing the editor 10 minutes to complete the article before tagging it. So, some concerns there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona43 is also not discussing other issues when they are queried, e.g tagging a new article as unreferenced when it had six references and then removing the query from the article creator. Their own page creations are very limited and two were speedily deleted under other titles (and I have just nominated one for deletion). I would advise Jhona43 to hold back from reviewing brand new pages as they were already advised on their talk page, and to engage more themselves in quality content creation - so they know how to assess - and improve - pages when acting as a new page patroller. Fences&Windows 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona has replied very considerately on the User talk:Jhona talk page. May I request that this post of mine be withdrawn or closed as I am very satisfied with the guidance provided by helpful editors here and also by the response of User:Jhona. I have also joined the Guild of Copy Editors who have a notice that can be put up on top of an article when I am working on it. This notice informs any review editor that they may wait for some time before reviewing. May I also comment that I do not feel bitten, specially because of all the responses guiding me. (I did not know what the word meant till I read the Wikipedia page on it) Thank you all Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:NetworkBooster

So I just wanted to bring attention to User:NetworkBooster. I think their account may be a WP:VOA and WP:NOTHERE may apply. Their two edits consist of vandalism in relation to Jim McMahon (politician) - McMahon's page and my user page. Their edit summary at McMahon's page was also false stating "Background information gathered from Oldham City Council." I warned them their first edit was not constructive. Not the most serious case, but may be useful to deal with early on. AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Fences&Windows 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Threats made by user Baseballbugs

Th-th-th-that's all folks! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=694183865&oldid=694179234 He's intentionally threatened to do harm to another wikipedian. This is totally against policy here and I would like to ask an admin investigate and take appropriate action to prevent this from happening in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.238.124 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) At most he's suggesting harm to rubber duckies belonging to a racist disruptive troll, if I understand who he is talking about. This is hardly a credible threat and certainly not a threat to any Wikipedian. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 94.195.18.40 modifying talk page contributions made by other editors.

IP re-factoring other editors talk page contributions @ Talk:National_Front_(France) Welcomed [133], then requested not to modify [134] and explained reason, reverted the original contribution [135], IP then accused me edit warning [136]. I would revert, but I believe the IP is trying to force a blockable offence. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They self-reverted and apologised. Hopefully 94.195.18.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) will avoid changing others' talk page comments in that manner in future. Fences&Windows 21:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AIV help please

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

---

Sorry to bother the busy admins here, but could someone help out with the backlog of reports at AIV please. There is at least one IP who has continued vandalizing for nearly an hour since he was reported there. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleared by many admins helping out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Hollister Co. being hit by IP vandals

Hollister Co. is being hit every few days by IP vandals. The IP addresses change, so there's no point in blocking them.

• [137] (Petty vandalism)
• [138] (Petty vandalism)
• [139] (May not be vandalism, but no cite for big change in store count.)

Request some semi-protection. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism is too sporadic for semi-protection. Plus, this really belongs at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by editor already under WP:TBAN

A partisan POV user Hugh (talk) is unable to accept consensus, insisting that his sources are impeccable (while his paraphrase is not) and has started four duplicative talk page segments on identical topic:

1. Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent assessments of partisanship
2. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship
3. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology
4. Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

The fourth being an RfC to to overturn a 3 to 1 consensus in an article where the editor is already under topic block.Diff In yet another wall of text, the editor has created an extensive overview from his point of view. After I added my "Additional by opposing editor:",Diff to his interpretation of "Opposing views" the editor summarily moved this, relevant RfC logic, to a less conspicuous position WP:TPO (a location beneath my Oppose vote),Diff retaining only my signature, making it appear to evaluators that this was the original location -- this is WP:SIGFORGE IMHO. Disregarding the topic ban, the editor continues edit in the article space.Diff Diff Per the very broadWP:TBAN,Diff (appeal was denied) the Koch, Franklin Center, Donors Trust connections have been stated in the article, sourced and unchallenged at Watchdog.org.Diff Apparently, the editor has also taken to stalking User:Safehaven86's talk page, Diff and has been rummaging around in my contributions, now scrutinizing the latest article that I've donated.Diff It has been suggested in Arbitration that the editor should be blocked from American politics entirely.[140] In closing, I believe there is a hopeless bias and an inability for this editor to function neutrally in the entire topic of American politics. This editor's COI (perhaps undeclared paid?) editing is disruptive and perhaps unhealthy. My disclosure: I do take on paid editing (mostly biography cleanups) all of the works mentioned here are voluntary where I have no paid association. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It does look like he is violating his TBAN on Tea Party topics, since Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which he was blocked for editing, and when he appealed ARB determined that editing this topic indeed violated his ban.[141] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hugh

No disruptive edits. An RfC is often preceded by related talk page discussion. An RfC is often initiated by an editor in a minority in a local consensus. An RfC is how the we broaden community discussion to address an apparent local consensus which possibly contravenes policy. This is a straightforward content disagreement improperly escalated to ANI. Involved editors are respectfully requested to return to article talk to make their best policy- and guideline-based case to exclude relevant, neutral, well-sourced content.

No violation of topic ban as per recent failed, harassing AE request for enforcement; our project's article Watchdog.org is out of scope "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN", except for, until very recently, part, as per WP:TBAN 4th bullet: the funding section where a dubious "blocking" mention of a banned topic was inserted by the AE complainant in a sad failed attempt to advance an ugly harassing AE filing.

Respectfully request decline action and quick close. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing topics related to your TBAN is itself disruptive. Why are you on this talk page at all? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to recent Arb request. It does appear you are able to edit Watchdog.org so long as nothing is related to the Tea Party or the Koch brothers, although I can't see the logic in this since the Koch brothers are major investors in Watchdog. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Respectfully may I request a strike-thru of your comment one subsection above as well? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've struck through. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Response by 009o9

I see that the editor has the respect enough here to ask you to strike your comments, rather than moving them out of context.Diff The topic ban for Donors Trust, Koch topics and Franklin Center related aside (all three apply), this opinion so far does not address the disruptive editing WP:REHASH, retribution via user page stalking[142], [143] and now the RfC (user talk) modification and signature forgery (by omission).Diff As a paid editor, I'm walking on eggshells around here, do you think I would have brought this to ANI for a minor issue? Everything I have seen the editor propose is WP:CHERRY nothing is WP:BALANCE, I can't go anywhere near this kind of WP:ADVOCACY for my subjects. He is quite expert at presenting different persona to different audiences; for example, changing a section heading name, that includes a personal endorsement of his sources, removing them just minutes before requesting outside input from WP:30. Diff, Diff Forgive me, but I was thinking that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX might apply. Respectfully requesting a closer look be taken here. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 00:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have notified the original TBAN and blocking admin (User:Ricky81682) about this discussion. Clear and direct violations of the exact terms of his TBAN were violated between October 29, 2015 (the block) and December 7th, 2015 AE closure.

1. October 22, 2015 Watchdog.org clearly contains, "It is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." in the lede paragraph. Diff
2. October 29, 2015 User:Ricky81682 informs HughD that he is blocked in addition to the TBAN for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban and states: "As I shouldn't have to remind you, your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general." Diff

HughD has numerous edits in the article space on Watchdog.org since the Oct. 29 block.

Disclosure I am not connected to the topic at hand in any manner, paid or otherwise, my paid edit statement in my signature is there out of an abundance of caution. -- -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Evidence (partial list of Diffs) of HughD, editing in article space, in a Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity related website (Watchdog.org) after direct clarification and BLOCK on Oct 29 and prior to Dec 7, 2015.

Dec 3

Dec 3

Dec 2

Dec 2

Dec 2

Dec 2

Nov 30

Nov 30

The above are diffs, even with the OCT 29 clarification (with accompanying block) and TBAN in effect, he just found another Franklin related site and kept right on editing. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Safehaven86

It's clear that HughD is violating his Koch/tea party topic topic ban by continuing to edit at Watchdog.org, in an article that states it is "the primary media investment of the Koch brothers...." As this is a topic ban violation, however, it should be brought up at arbitration enforcement. Other related issues with HughD's editing may need to be addressed here, but the immediate issue seems to be that he's aggressively editing a Koch-related article while banned from editing Koch-related articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. However, AE just yesterday determined he is allowed to edit at Watchdog.org despite his TBAN on Tea Party and Koch Brothers. It's totally illogical. Callanecc stated that "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN." I think it's clear there is an issue here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw the AE close and when I noticed HughD was continuing to edit the Watchdog article full speed ahead, I posted on Callanecc's talk page to ask for clarification. Hopefully we'll get some. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody actually looked at the original block and ban? The one year TBAN and "anything at all related to" appears to be pretty concise.

• ===Tea Party movement=== "HughD (talk · contribs) topic-banned from any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)"[144] Pinging @User:Ricky81682 on this one.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• In User_talk:Ricky81682#HughD.27s_ban Admin Ricky81682 directly informed (admin?) Callanecc (AE closing editor) of the all inclusive terms on 18 October 2015, so it looks like Ricky81682 has been stabbed in the the back. The scope of the one week block and one year ban is also clarified to HughD here: User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 04:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I can't understand this. That was a bad call. Watchdog.org is clearly within the scope of the TBAN. They allowed him to edit here and within 48 hours he's already at ANI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone wants to chime in here: User talk:Callanecc#Question on arbitration enforcement. Safehaven86 (talk)

• I commented at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement in detail but my view is that this is another line-drawing gameplay that isn't helpful here. Problems are being created at the article talk page because people can't discuss the Columbia Journalism Review in full without HughD violating his own topic ban so he's avoiding responding about that. People that are topic banned shouldn't get to fracture and make everyone else juggle the discussions around so that there isn't a violation of a ban they got. I suggest expanding the topic ban to all conservative US politics post-2009 (when the Tea party movement began) which is a subset of the post-1942 US politics total ban area. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky, and sorry you keep getting dragged into this. It appeared to me that you and Callanecc agreed to extend the ban to all of conservative US politics post-2009, but then it seemed that Callanecc changed course and told Hugh that he could continue editing at Watchdog.org, where IMO it is clear that his edits about the sites partisanship are related to the sites funders, the Kochs. I have requested further clarification from Callanecc, because this same situation keeps happening over and over again. We all need more clarity on where this topic ban applies and doesn't apply. IMO, if it doesn't apply on the page of an entity that is the Koch's largest media investment, it doesn't apply anywhere, because what could be more related to the Kochs than their own funding/organizations....Safehaven86 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial thread at User_talk:Callanecc

Are we to presume that the user Callanecc talk-page conversation of (paraphrased) ... go ahead and keep editing Watchdog.org but stop threatening discretionary sanctions (four instances) in your talk page comments ... is somehow in congruency with Ricky81682's recommendation of elevating the TBAN to all post 2009 conservative political topics? (I also note that WP:TBAN also expressly includes contributing to topic ban related talk pages in the first bullet.) IMHO the ban should not be partisan; a non-neutral editor bias is just as damaging as advocacy in a a pro-liberal article as it is when focused in an anti-conservative bias (the reverse condition would also apply).

I request that @User:Callanecc goes on record here, regarding what appears to be some sort of alternate decision at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement. As indicated in that, and other threads, Ricky81682 is already exasperated from his long history of sanctioning HughD and has asked Callanecc to handle the TBAN elevation. Regardless, the outcome, the result should be on record here so we don't have to also reference talk page discussions should future issues arise. Thank you. 009o9 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tanbircdq and Israeli politician articles

I would like to bring to wider attention of other admins the edits of Tanbircdq (talk · contribs), whose actions I have come across at Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955). Tanbircdq has a quite clear agenda, adding quotes to articles on Israeli politicians in which they say bad things about the Palestinians. On many of these articles he has added the information several times after being reverted by a number of users; these include:

• Eli Yishai (x4)
• Avi Dichter (x4)
• Michael Ben-Ari (x4)
• Yisrael Katz (x3)
• Omri Sharon (x3)
• Meir Sheetrit (x2)
• Ayelet Shaked (x2)
• Ya'akov Yosef (x1)
• Naftali Bennett (x1)

Also of slight concern is the behaviour of Makeandtoss (talk · contribs), who has magically appeared at several of these articles to restore the content after Tanbircdq's edits have been removed (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). I don't know this has happened, but it doesn't look good. I have pointed them towards WP:BALASPS, but this does not seem to have stopped the behaviour. Unfortunately what is happening does not fall under the current Arbcom sanctions for this topic area, but I think it needs some intervention. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember how I came across these articles, all I know that I reverted the removal of sourced content. I didn't see WP:BALASPS valid enough to remove the quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have given a very clear and detailed explanation on the talk page which I will not repeat again here. Number 57 has reverted the edit without adequately responding to the points raised on the talk page and taken the matter to ANI in order to get administrative action taken against me in what would appear to be an underhand way of censorship. In addition, Number 57 himself violated 1RR on the page with his edits here and here without initiating discussion of the matter on the talk page.

What Number 57 has conveniently omitted to mention is that most of the "number of users" who have removed the content from those articles included sock puppet accounts, throwaway IP hoppers who are now prohibited from editing those articles because of ARBPIA3 decision after the high level of disruptive editing that was present.

I would also like to point out Number 57's uncivilised personal attack of "Go away with your agenda please. Get consensus on talk if you insist on this nonsense." in the summary of his revert here.

Nevertheless, I am interested to know what Wikipedia policy I am supposed to have actually violated here. Is the accusation of "editing articles with an agenda" an ad hominem term for someone adding sourced content when another thinks WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would seem that Number 57 himself has an WP:OWN agenda to remove content that shows someone he favours in a "bad light" which (by using his words from the talk page) I believe "has no place on Wikipedia". Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you think I favour these politicians? As a Meretz supporter, I think most of them are repugnant; the difference is that I understand the concept of NPOV and that Wikipedia is not a place to badmouth your political opponents.

Is anyone going to intervene here? Number 57 19:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring to all these politicians, just Yisrael Katz, and this was based on your comments on the talk page.

Yes, I agree (not that I have any political opponents) which is why I object to your uncivilised personal attack.

Yes, can someone please intervene about this WP:WIKIHOUNDING? This editor has clearly been stalking me for the past two months which I find very unpleasant and I would like it to stop. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the claim that this is hounding or that I have been stalking you for two months a barefaced lie. The first I saw of you was on the Katz article (and that is the only place I have reverted you). I got those diffs by going back through your editing history (it wasn't hard to find them). Number 57 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Since i consider myself involved with this user, would some kind soul review talk page section with a view to determining if this is a legal threat or other violation of policy? I have not raised the matter with them directly as there has been recent friction and I don't think any query from me would be well received Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this some sort of punitive fishing expedition for nominating your closure for a DRV? I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but no need to lash out at me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You accused another editor of libel in a section header and I'm asking for an independant opinion on that. I don't see any harm in that myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused another editor of libel, I documented their libel. Using a correct legal definition is not the same as making a legal threat. The only thing they have in commons is the word legal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused [sic] another editor of libel, I documented their libel.

Ah, welcome to the latest episode of Question Begging Time. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no clear or inferred legal threat -- samtar ^whisper 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the question here is because of the use of the word "libel" in a section header. However, I read it as a characterization of something, rather than as an implied threat to engage in legal action regarding the so-called "libel". If that's what we are talking about, then that is not an NLT violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I'd second that reasoning -- samtar ^whisper 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the correct term for a lie in print form. If he said it to me in person, it would have been slander. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. The correct NON-LEGAL term for a lie in print is "lie". You're invoking a legal term, with its implications of legal consequences due to damage. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're trying to sail as close to the wind as you can. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the target of the comment, and I did not take it as a legal threat in the sense meant by WP:NLT. BMK (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Beyond My Ken had made was that this "is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." The fact is that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) had edited every one of those articles before BMK did, per the revision statistics for G. W. Pabst (which RAN edited more than four years before BMK), Louis Comfort Tiffany (four-plus years before BMK) and List of mayors of New York City (a year-plus before BMK). I think it's clear that what RAN means is that BMK had been making a false statement in writing that was damaging to RAN's reputation, not that RAN had intended to take BMK to court and file a tort claim of libel. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG! You mean I was wrong!! How nice of you to come to AN/I (and RAN's talk page) and let me know.

Of course, you did neglect to mention that RAN's last edit to Louis Comfort Tiffany before he reverted me was in April 2008 [145], two years before my first edit in July 2010 [146], so I wouldn't really have noticed him editing the article because he didn't while I was active on it. But, of course, he apparently decided he just had to come back and revert my edit after a 7 year absence; I guess there was nothing that happened on the article in 7 years that stirred his attention.

And what about List of mayors of New York City? Yes, indeed, RAN has all of 4 edits on that article, 3 in 2008, and the revert of my edit that, again, brought him out of hibernation after 7 years. [147]. Since I made the first of my edits to that article in March 2010 [148] -- again, two years after his last edit -- there was no reason that I would know that he had edited it before me because he didn't edit it when I was.

Alansohn, are you seeing a pattern here? Yes, you are correct that RAN had edited those articles before me, and I was incorrect in saying he hadn't, but the essence of what I said is true: RAN decided to revert my edits after 7 years of inactivity on those articles, so I was quite justified in describing his behavior as verging on harassment. I don't say that it is harassment yet, but it will be if he keeps on appearing to specifically revert edits of mine on articles which he may have edited in the distant past, but which he has been totally inactive on during the time I have been working on them. BMK (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if BMK didn't see it as a legal threat, RAN should not be throwing the word "libel" around. "Untrue" should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As BMK made multiple false statements, the characterization is entirely accurate. BMK's story now is that he was indeed making false statements alleging that RAN had never edited the articles previously, but that he was justified in making these baseless accusations because there is some imaginary "essence of what I said is true" according to him. Thanks to Wikipedia's editing history feature, it's clear that RAN edited the articles because they were on his watchlist, he had edited them years before BMK and now the problem is that the edits were too long ago so that BMK now feels that he WP:OWNs these articles so naturally anyone else editing them is guilty of harassment. Bugs, when other editors make repeated false accusations about you and your edits, feel free to limit yourself to "untrue". Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't use legalistic terms like "libel" if someone states an untruth about me. And to take libel to court and win, one would have to prove harm. He alleges he was falsely accused of making edits at some point in time. How much would the jury award in a case like that? A shiny new 25 cent piece? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Use whatever term you want. "Lie". "Misrepresentation". "Prevarication". "Fib". Pick whatever term best matches the circumstances of BMK's out-and-out falsehood. Whatever works best for you. Just don't use "truth". Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

CLAIM of falsehood. See begging the question.

Of course, a better thing for RAN to do would be to simply grow the hell up instead of throwing around pseudo-legal terms he doesn't understand. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How about "honest mistake"? That at least has the benefit of being accurate. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have bought the "honest mistake" bit if it wasn't User:Beyond My Ken who was the one making the blatantly false claims. BMK is a regular here at ANI, and is fully aware of how to review edit histories for each article he claimed RAN had never edited; He's no noob. BMK's consistent inability to work with others and to edit war over the most trivial of issues -- size of a college seal, inclusion of a full name in an article lead, personal attacks like fuck "pleonasm", it's a perfectly underestandable sentence, etc. -- demonstrates the source of the problem. If only BMK had bothered to research his threats or to back off and apologize when his claims were proven false, we wouldn't be here. It's this pattern of belligerent and abusive behavior by BMK that brings us here. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that Alansohn doesn't like me, since he shows up any time my name comes up on the noticeboards to lay out his latest litany of my liabilities to the project, and to insist that the harshest possible sanctions be placed on me. It's probably just a coincidence that this started soon after I expressed the opinion here that Alansohn was the primary problem in the dispute between himself and Magnolia677. I'd be the last person to claim that I'm the perfect Wikipedian, but I'm not sure what his obsession about me has to do with whether what RAN said was a legal threat or not. BMK (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer Alansohn's specific and relevant allegation, I did not look up the history of those pages when I posted this comment on my talk page, I was going only on my experience of editing those articles without having run into RAN - as I outlined above. I did the detailed research only when I posted my comment above, following Alansohn's statement that I was lying, since I wanted to know how we could have two completely different takes on what had occurred. As seen above, the answer is that -- at least on two of the three articles -- we never overlapped, which is why I thought he had never edited them. That was, as I said, my error. As others have said, it was not a deliberate choice on my part to post something that was not accurate. BMK (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm sure that you acknowledge that there is a big difference between 1) someone following you and undoing your edits from article to article that they have never edited before and 2) someone who is editing articles that they have edited before that are on their watchlist which they edited well before you ever touched the articles. What you stated as fact -- "Today is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." -- makes a rather specific allegation that is factually false and has been proven so. You don't own any of these articles and your recollections are no substitute for backing up your assumptions with facts. Furthermore, you acknowledge that you did recall an editing overlap with RAN on at least one of these articles. No one expects you to be a "perfect Wikipedian" -- I'm certainly not and your history makes my opinion clear regarding your track record -- but at a minimum you need to exercise far greater care in making these kinds of inherently inflammatory personal attacks. I'm glad that I was able to identify the relevant policy and address the edit war at G. W. Pabst, as I had done not long ago at Triborough Bridge, but I hope that no outside intervention will be needed to resolve any of your edit wars in the future. A clear commitment on your part to avoid such edit warring and attacks will help alleviate community concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Alansohn, there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), and someone who has never found any reason to edit an article in 7 years, but nevertheless reappears to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), none at all. It's a distinction without a difference. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK, do you really believe that "there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user"? Are you arguing that you WP:OWN every article you edit, and that any editor who edits any of your articles that's on their watchlist because they have edited in the past is necessarily harassing you? How recent do the other editor's edits have to be in order for them to be allowed to edit your articles? You've been involved with dozens upon dozens of edit wars and every one of those editors now has to avoid your edits of your articles? Please explain how your policy works. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Alansohn, I cannot hold it in any longer, you have pierced my deepest and darkest Wikipedia secret. I must confess here and now, in front of the assembled multitudes of AN/I, that in my heart of hearts, I do believe that I am the sole owner of all the 30K+ articles that I have edited in my 10 1/2 years here, and that no one should be allowed to edit any of them except with my expressed approval ... in advance. Obviously, I am a very, very naughty person indeed, and should be sent to bed without my dessert. BMK (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Alansohn, please do not ping me again, I'm following this thread and do not need you to call me to read it. I can come and read your tiresome comments all on my own, just like a big boy. BMK (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It is incredible that Alansohn would accuse anyone else of OWNership for doing exactly he does. Talk about hypocrisy, coming from the number 1 owner on Wikipedia! Jacona (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

JaconaFrere, following an editor around maliciously from article to article, as you have consistently done with articles I edit across Wikipedia, is an example of WP:HOUNDING; I've provided you with a list on multiple occasions, as you've requested. If that were the case here, I might well agree with Beyond My Ken. What bothers BMK here is that other editors are editing articles on their watchlist, ones that he claims ownership over. There's the difference. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the very basis of your ownership. You claim I follow you from article to article because I occasionally edit New Jersey articles, not because there is any factual basis. Many of these have been on my watchlist, just as you say these other editors articles are. You are exactly the malefactor you claim BMK to be. Jacona (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, why stop at 30K? I've decided to claim ownership over all of the 5,027,940 articles on Wikipedia. Alansohn, you pinged me again. I believe I asked you not to do that. BMK (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Kind hypocritical for the Emperor of New Jersey to accuse others of having ownership issues... Reyk _YO! 07:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat as there is no threat to take legal action. It hardly passes the 'intended to chill discussion' line either. However it *is* a personal attack to accuse another editor of libelling you. Libel has a strict definition which is not covered by BMK's actions. (Merely writing something that later turns out to be not 100% accurate is not libel as RAN knows perfectly well.) Given that BMK's above post quite clearly demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by RAN that is hardly good-faith editing and bordering on harrassment, I suggest an interaction ban with BMK. (I would suggest a 1-way ban, but they rarely work, and BMK has previously said he wants to not interact with RAN so this shouldnt be an issue for him) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat. Just as if an editor were to say "That admin is assaulting users with his mop", does not mean the editor is threatening to have the admin charged with assault. The section header "BMK libel" says to me that the content will focus on supposed lies posted by BMK about the editor. Not a threat. - ^theWOLFchild 18:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed: Interaction ban between RAN and BMK

Support. As proposer. No comments on each other, no reverting each other on articles (with the usual BLP/vandalism exceptions) and so on. Given the diffs provided by BMK, RAN is clearly not editing with the best motives. Not to mention the blatant symantic wikilawyering which is a habit with RAN (anyone familiar with his history regarding pushing the boundaries of his existing sanctions should be aware this is a common road for him.) As 1-way bans dont work and BMK has indicated previously he does not want to interact further with RAN, this is the quickest and most efficient solution to the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support- RAN needs to leave BMK the hell alone. More generally, he needs to altogether stop pursuing people he's disagreed with. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support- shame it needs to come to this, but I think this would allow both editors to cool down, and focus on building an encyclopedia -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as 2-way, and with no opinion on my part as to who is more or less at fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editors seem to have overlapping interests in the same sort of articles but seem to have some difficulty knowing whether the other party shares this interest. They are therefore likely to keep bumping into each and so must just learn to get along. Neither of them brought this matter here and it seems clear that talk of legal threats is an over-reaction . Further escalation would tend to make matters worse rather than better. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - BMK needs to leave RAN the hell alone. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - As one of the two subjects of the proposed interaction ban, I've been thinking about it since I first saw the proposal this morning. My first thought was that it was a good idea, that it would get RAN out of my life, which I really want. My second thought was that it really should be a one-way ban, but I changed my mind on that: a two-way ban would be an effective tool to help myself from commenting on RAN, so I accept that if there is to be an I-Ban, it should be mutual. I do, however, have some concerns.
  Almost anyone who is familiar with RAN's history, or especially with the ArbCom cast brought against him [149] and the various AE discussions it spawned, knows that RAN is a classic boundary-pusher. If RAN is told, for instance, not to create articles, he turns a redirect into an article and claims that this is not creating an article, so he has to be told again, specifically, not to do that. This kind of thing has happened over and over again with him, and his just keeps probing. So, how do you stop a boundary-pusher from pushing the boundaries of an I-Ban?
  As it stands now, the general way one deals with an I-Ban infraction, or multiple I-Ban infractions, is to bring the case to AN/I. AN/I is, as we all know, often not the best place to get a straight-forward evaluation of a problem, what with the dramah-mongering, the cliques, the long-held grudges, and the Alansohns of the world popping up to muddy the waters. Therefore, I suggest that someone, an individual, preferably an admin, be appointed to be sort of the "special master" for the I-Ban. This would be someone either RAN or I could go to with a complaint, who would investigate, and then come back with "Yes, you're right, I've done X about it" or "No, you're being oversensitive, that's not a violation of the ban." It would be nice if the special master's decision was final, so problems could be solved and not fester.
  So, those are my concerns. I'm generally in favor of the idea of a mutual interaction ban, but I would appreciate it if some thought could go into the problem I've outlined. BMK (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support One Way I-Ban - RAN should leave BMK alone. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy/Frank Gaffney

LavaBaron has been vandalizing the Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney pages for months and appears to be a new sockpuppet of long banned user W. Frank. He's repeatedly been warned about removing content from these pages and has shown no interest in altering his editing behavior. There's no substantive dispute about the articles. He is excising content at random (for months). There are secondary edit warring, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL issues here but the sockpuppetry and vandalism are the central problem. Baramop (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a retribution ANI in response to a sockpuppet investigation recently filed against Baramop here and is the latest ANI filing against me in the last several months by the voluminous accounts associated with the Gaffney Sock Circus, whose ire I attracted, apparently, with this RfC. While I'd love to address the specific charges leveled here they, as usual, contain no diffs that would allow me to do so. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. LavaBaron (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I started looking into this, but I have to leave. Baseless accusations against LavaBaron. I suggest an admin review Baramop's edit history, the overlap with Zeke1999 (see link to the SPI above) and timing of their edits relative to Zeke's block. I imagine a block of the OP and reblock of Zeke will be warranted, but confidence is not high enough to do so without further review, and I'm out of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron's comment is an obvious falsehood. He requested (on the article talkpage) that I post here. None of his edits can be construed as constructive or legitimate. A 48-hour block would give him time to cool his heels. Baramop (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The scary thing is I'll probably get it, too. LavaBaron (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that Baramop's edits have generally been an attempt to whitewash the articles. I have seen nothing untoward in LavaBaron's edits. If there are sanctions due here, they're BOOMERANGS. BMK (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You've been goal-tending LAVABARON's edits of these pages for months. You're not an objective party. Zeke1999 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back up your claim, Baramop? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. He removed legitimate, sourced criticism here [150] because it was sourced. If you look at Talk:Frank Gaffney you will find LavaBaron has been re-adding his personal conspiracy theory that Gaffney is Jewish for at least eight years. He previously used the sockpuppet Alice.S or Alice (it's no longer clear which one though maybe both) which CheckUser confirmed are sockpuppets of the banned user W. Frank. LavaBaron is just another sockpuppet of a banned user. Every single edit the account has made to these two pages has been to remove large amounts of content with no explanation, replacing the page with POV-pushing conspiracy theories of 'nefarious Jewishness'. Baramop (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a diff where I said "Jewish nefariousness"? What does this article even have to do with Judaism? This is the first time it's even been brought up. Can we please get an admin in here? There is no reason I should be subjected to this shit. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LAVABARON, I had not noticed the "Jewish nefariousness" issue. I plan to look into this. I have noticed that your Wikipedia account is suspicious. You're obviously a very experienced editor yet your first recorded edit was in January 2015. Who's really running socks here? Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've informed Baramop that he either needs to provide evidence of this alleged anti-Semitism, or he will be blocked indefinitely. @Zeke1999:, if you make such an accusation with this account without proof, it will be blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Floquenbeam. I looked over some of LAVABARON's edits from last summer and did not find evidence of anti-Semitism. He did add language in July that CSP was "a pro-Israel activist group." diff This was biased language but did not amount to anti-Semitism. My willingness to entertain Baramop's claim was due to this sentence. After I objected to this in September, LAVABARON dropped this language. Zeke1999 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One more comment on this. LAVABARON, who is posting comments about this ANI complaint on several talk pages and seems to be lobbying for an admin to block me again, posted this comment on jamesbwatson 's talk page:

"Normally I'd let an ANI against me run its course. but Zeke and his new sock have now gotten particularly vile, accusing me of a variety of anti-Semitic slurs (no diffs, off). I'm confident I'm one post away from being called a pedophile and I'd rather not be. Can you please make a quick ruling and either block me or close the thread?.LavaBaron (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"

You can see above this claim is untrue. This kind of comment is beyond the pale. I'll leave it to the admins to decide how to address this. Zeke1999 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As you were told by myself and user:Cwobeel, you were reverted because your edits undid wording that had literally just been decided in a RFC consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dxrd - aka LavaBaron aka banned user W. Frank - adds in the lie, again, that Gaffney is Jewish.[151] Under the LB account over the last several months he has massively removed actual, cited content (including actual criticism of the organization)[152][153][154][155], deleting the fact that he was Assistant Secretary of Defense and replacing the introduction with 'he is a conspiracy theorist who won an award from a Zionist organization'. Also note that the FG article no longer has him listed under Cat:Scottish Americans[156]. None of his edits to either the CSP or Frank Gaffney articles can be construed as legitimate. In the words of another user who was not involved in editing these pages: "Baramop's version is superior in completeness, BLP, NPOV, and due weight. Revert warring against it will need something much better than alluding to an alleged prior consensus"[157]. There is no content dispute here. Baramop (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia critics on Reddit provided before/after diffs. Rather than copy and paste, I will link to the post. [158] 50.196.177.155 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked Baramop indefinitely; this is not evidence LB has posted anything of the sort. I'm strongly inclined to block Zeke1999 for sockpuppetry, but will wait to see what a Checkuser decides at the SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I cant believe I'm on the verge of being blocked again on false sockpuppet charges by LAVABARON. Please don't do this. Zeke1999 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you persist in writing "LAVABARON" when the editor's name is "LavaBaron"? BMK (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to sanction LAVABARON for bullying other editors in the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy Pages

There is no Gaffney sock circus. There is an editor, LAVABARON, who has been making false charges like this to bully other editors to prevent any changes to his NPOV language on the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy (CSP) pages.

LAVABARON made major changes to these pages over the summer. I tried to add balance to his edits in September. My changes, which were explained on the talk pages, left the negative material and added text on other issues that I thought were significant such as the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal and a rally against this deal it sponsored in front of the Capitol that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz spoke to. See these diffs diff1 diff2 I think the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal is significant but it seems LAVABARON wont allow any material to be added to the Center or Gaffney pages that distracts from the single emphasis he is pushing that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist.

I also disagree that a consensus was reached on the Gaffney page since LAVABARON engineered a biased RfC.

99.170.117.163 and I reverted LAVABARON's mass reverts of my edits in September. LAVABARON reverted our changes and began to make a series of false charges, including that this IP editor and I were sock or meat puppets. We were both blocked due to these charges by LAVABARON and his associates.

The unfair block against me was lifted a few weeks ago. The editor who lifted it recommended I stay away from the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages. I did not agree to this but have stayed away anyway until writing this complaint. I was stunned today that LAVABARON has filed another false sock puppet charge against me even though I have not made any edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages since October 3. See this link

Let me repeat this: I have not made ANY edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages or their talk pages since October 3, 2015 but was just hit with another false sockpuppet charge concerning these pages by LAVABARON.

Among the false complaints lodged by LAVABARON in this case was this one to the Fringe Theories noticeboard DIFF3 (See discussion #90) The admins on this page, location jps and ad_orientem mostly rejected LAVABARON's complain but raised a lot of questions about his behavior. I think this page gives a fairly objective account of this dispute.

I lodged a complaint against LAVABARON to the ANI notice board in Sepember. See this diff (number 72) BeyondMyKen, who has been defending LAVABARON's edits, closed my complaint with a non-admin closure.

LAVABARON appears to be an editor who is personally invested in the Gaffney and CSP pages. Based on his behavior and some of his comments, I suspect he is a professional or personal rival. If LAVABARON's behavior to block editors who disagree with him on the Gaffney and CSP pages is not a clear example of unethical bullying, I don't know what is. Zeke1999 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ho boy. I think there are issues here that were well-beyond my ability to help. To be clear, I am not an admin, and while I clashed a bit with LavaBaron (over style rather than substance), I think that we should acknowledge that there are potential conspiracy theories being inappropriately advocated here (which is one of the main concerns of LavaBaron). There are also WP:BLP issues we need to balance, and political articles like this are always a mess. Additionally, when things get heated it sometimes becomes hard to see the forest for the trees, and good editors can sometimes fall into traps that are hard to get out of, which is what I suspect may be going on here at least in part. There could also be some WP:CPUSHing happening, but I haven't looked into it that closely. This conflict, sadly, looks like one of the ones that tends to end up at arbcom sooner or later. jps (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Time to end your bullying. Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, POV-pushing editors frequently see any action taken to mitigate their attempts at skewing our articles as "bullying". BMK (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely and Zeke1999 abruptly announced he is "INACTIVE INDEFINITELY AS OF 12/10/2015" [159] following endorsement of a CheckUser in the SPI investigation of him. I would suggest this would be an appropriate time to close this nonsense. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As Lavabaron and Floquenbeam's false accusations have run off a competent editor who has not violated policy, I would suggest that a strong sanction against both is appropriate. I also recommend that BMK be sanctioned for battleground conduct [160][161][162] and I support the block of Baramop who failed to provide evidence of his allegations of sockpuppetry and racism. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User and possible IP sockpuppet insisting on placement of image with copyright issues

In Matt Bevin, User:Sohsowski2015 and a possible sock at 72.201.235.143 are evading copyright requirements with placement of the image File:GovBevin2015.jpg (missing evidence of permission). I won't prescribe what should be done, but I want to make sure admins know about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sohsowski2015 has also just restored the image to Governor of Kentucky. Note that this user's edits seem to be centered around this subject, but the bottom line is that we currently don't know we're allowed to use this pic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that we are allowed to use it, but we don't know that we're not. Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments doesn't include Kentucky in its list of states which default to public domain for government works, and it's not clear that the photo is an official government portrait, or a work by a private individual who has authorized the Commonwealth of Kentucky to use the photo. The webpage on which it appears does say © 2015 Commonwealth of Kentucky. All rights reserved., so I'd guess that it's not public domain. The permission tag is bad - it says it has been released by "The People of the Commonwealth of Kentucky", which is not the usage that the state government uses on its website. However, the photo is tagged for deletion if proper evidence of permission is not produced; you should leave it at that. You shouldn't edit war over it - either the uploader supplies evidence of permission, or the photo goes away automatically. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right about not edit-warring over it, which is why I haven't edit-warred about it (I stopped after 2 reverts), and brought it here. I just thought there might be some consternation about a user insisting that such an image stay on display before they have acted to supply evidence of permission. At any rate, thank you for covering the legal questions involved. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert the AfD process

Legacypac (talk · contribs) has been, in my opinion, gaming the system by subverting the AfD process by adding redirects to articles after his AfD's were unsuccessful.

I tried to discuss this on his talk page, but I did not feel his responses were adequate. I also asked if--in good faith--he would revert all the redirects he had added, and he will not.

It started when Legacypac attempted to bulk-delete the articles of a number of beauty pageant contestants here. The result, closed by User:DGG, was "keep all for the time being; renominate separately".

Following that, Legacypac followed a similar pattern to have several of the articles removed.

For example, he nominated Ashleigh Lollie for deletion here. The result was "no consensus". So, he instead redirected the article here.

He nominated Claira Hollingsworth for speedy deletion here. It was declined, so he instead added a redirect here.

At Courtney Byrd, Legacypac added a speedy delete here, and it was declined. He then nominated this article for deletion here, but then, according to his edit summary, "no nomination page created for more than two hours", so he removed his AfD, and instead added a redirect here.

This pattern continued for most of the other articles which were included in original bulk-delete AfD. Again, I have tried to discuss what appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the AfD process, but Legacypac felt his actions were in compliance with policy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no insight into the issue raised by Magnolia677 specifically, however, in a related matter - after Legacypac nominated Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition for deletion, and the AfD failed, he immediately executed a BOLD merge of the entire article to a different article, sans discussion [163]. As the topic was under Discretionary Sanctions few people wanted to unmerge it, appeals to Legacypac to unmerge it himself were rebuffed [164], an attempt to unmerge it by Mhhossein was immediately reverted by Legacypac [165], and an admin ultimately had to be brought in to execute the unmerge [166]. As the article was in the DYK queue at the time, this created a tremendous amount of hassle. LavaBaron (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong argument that these college co-eds fail WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:15MOF and there is lots of precedent for deletion. There is a strong argument that the User:DGG close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie covering 42 titles was against consensus. I count 16 editors seeking Delete or Redirect for all (or nearly all) the articles on the list vs 2 or maybe 3 who wanted to keep (generally without a policy based reason). Subsequently some of the 42 were sent individually to AfD as test cases. So far 6 were completely deleted Natasha_Martinez, Lizzy_Olsen, Brooke_Fletcher, Brittany_McGowan Elizabeth_Cardillo, Haley_Denise_Laundrie. Others like Ylianna Guerra have be turned into redirects to the appropriate contest page. We still have quite a few like Taylor Even which reads in its entirety "Taylor Even was crowned Miss Iowa USA 2015. She represented Iowa at Miss USA 2015 but Unplaced." that have not been sent to AfD or redirected. Obviously stuff like this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE addresses.

To bad the editor who started this thread as not addressed the issue of WP:NOPAGE, raised in the redirections and on my talk page, but I suppose they have no answer. Instead that editor reversed my redirects without a policy based rational, so I've sent the articles to AfD where I expect they will be deleted like their sister articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As for LavaBaron's completely off topic complaint about something that happened months ago, Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition is an awful misleading POV title covering a hard to understand segment of a larger topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for the reminder to work on cleaning up that mess. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) I closed the first AfD because the nomination was against the meaning of WP:Deletion policy. Had I not done so, any close at all would probably have been overturned at Deletion Review, with the instruction to list separately. I advised renominating individually a few at a time; Instead, the individual nominations were nonetheless placed all together in one batch at a single time. I commented at that time "renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources."

(2)I commented at the separate nominations that "personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career" . I personally do not like these articles., which I thing generally contrary to the spirit of an encycopedia. I think we should have a guideline not to have them. But we don't, and the way to decide is therefore to decide individual cases by AfD. As LegacyPak correctly notes, there were various results from these discussions.

(3)A non-consensus close could reasonably be followed by a discussion about redirection or merging. Doing it without consensus is trying to substitute a different close. We can have a different close--but it requires some sort of discussion, either DRV or another AfD or a discussion on merging or redirecting. Doing so without discussion in a case like this seems to be effectually replacing the community opinion by one's own. (that I happen to share that opinion is irrelevant here.). I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be to revert,the redirection, and then discuss it. This does not require coming here, or any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

TThanks DGG. It turns out we do have a policy WP:NOPAGE that was never considered before and avoids the question of notability. It's being used successfully to redirect super old people articles now. If someone disagrees with redirect they (as the OP has done) revert and discuss how NOPAGE does not apply. Coming here is not the answer. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who originally introduced the NOPAGE concept to the cleanup of the longevity walled garden, let me say this. I considered that, in principle, merges based on NOPAGE can be done boldly. But where there's a reasonable chance of controversy, such a merge should only follow a talk-page discussion. (And in the case of longevity, I felt, with the concurrence of others, that the additional transparency of AfD would be even better -- healthier for the community -- given the high emotions associated for so long with that topic.) Either way, a bold merge soon after an AfD that ended Keep is like a "bold" merge soon after a merge discussion that ended No merge -- it's not bold, it contrary to recent consensus. A new discussion -- wherever -- is needed. EEng (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You expressed your opinion that it was an "awful POV misleading title" in the AfD you made and the community decided that was not the case. Your singular opinion does not override the community consensus, particularly for an article under Discretionary Sanctions. And immediately slapping a third and fourth Merge proposal on that article in response to this observation in ANI, as you have just done, along with the intervention "thanks for the reminder," comes across as a little bit of a middle-finger in response to this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If an AfD is closed as keep (or even no consensus), it must not be redirected or merged. Either of those actions would be in violation of the close. If those actions have been done, the actions should be immediately reverted now. And Legacypac needs to agree he understands he cannot do that in the future. The only cause post-AfD to redirect an article is if the close was redirect. The only cause post-AfD to merge an article is if the close was merge. Alternatively, after a failed AfD the article in question can undergo the specific detailed process (all of the very precise steps) of WP:MERGEPROP. If Legacypac does not understand and agree to these policies, he needs to undergo a topic ban on creating AfDs (and possibly also on redirecting or merging). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't think that that's entirely true. Just because there is a decision to keep the content of an article doesn't mean that the content has to be kept in that article. Also, if something is closed as no consensus, that usually doesn't preclude further discussion about the article's merits. pbp 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. And if a discussion took place after the No Consensus result at AFD, and the consensus there was to redirect or merge? No one would blink. The concern here, I think, is that Legacypac didn't start such a discussion, but relied on BOLD in a situation where it was inappropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, to repeat, for an article to be merged after a keep or no consensus AfD close, one would have to follow all of the very precise steps at WP:MERGEPROP. There couldn't be merely a very informal quick ad-hoc discussion and agreement to merge; any such informally discussed (or undiscussed) merge would have to be immediately reverted as violating the AfD close. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I just want to say Legacypac is a valuable contributor at AfD and has done a tremendous job cleaning up the Neverending Neelix Nightmare® – He's probably spent 100 hours on this in the last month going through all the ridiculous redirects and walled garden articles. I cannot rain enough barnstars on his wall. I hope this is taken into account and a topic ban is not pursued. I'm sure he just needs more clarity on what to do with no-consensus outcomes since there seems to be some gray area per DGG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting a title citing NOPAGE that has never been to AfD is fine (I've done that a few times). Since this complaint started on my talk page I've been sending similar articles to AfD instead and I fully expect an ANi thread complaining that I'm clogging up AfDs with articles that should have been BOLDly redirected citing NOPAGE. Now, if anyone has an issue with a SPECIFIC page I've redirected, please reverse the redirect so I can AfD it next. That already happened on the two listed above that were part of a group AfD. The third article mentioned was just a technical decline Prod, which should not shelter the article from being turned into a redirect months later. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with material where there is a possibly unreasonable concentration of interest is difficult--WP is very susceptible to people doing this, and I doubt we will ever find a good balance between disposing of problems quickly & definitively and doing so with full fair consideration of each possibility/ When I deal with such analogous groups of material, I usually do not get everything right--it can be very hard to predict what consensus is going to be. Legacypac is doing at least as well as I do in similar situations. All that can be asked of someone is that they reconsider what they are doing if it is questioned, and I try to be objective enough to do so, and I think he is also. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'm not weighing in on the substance of this thread at this time. However, flagging for future reference that the term "co-eds" referring to female college students is outmoded and may be perceived as demeaning and therefore should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick look at all of these articles is concerning to me. There is excessive personal detail including educational information, dates of birth, parents names etc. These are not well known people, and even if the information can be found, we shouldn't be further disseminating it as per WP:NPF. Without a lot of this filler information the articles would be very bare indeed (which to me indicates the lack of notability). All of these articles need reviewing, both for notability and content. Polequant (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Subverting AfD by using AfD

• I heartily endorse a topic ban for Legacypac (talk · contribs) on all beauty pageant-related material, he clearly either does not understand the subject matter, or has an open hostility and bias on this issue; either way he is not able to contribute effectively in this area, and is creating a lot of unnecessary work for others. Please see here for more on this, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Anderson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Cook (Miss Oregon), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline McGowan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL I added an appropriate subsection heading for Ejgreen77 who has NEVER voted against deleting or redirecting a pageant winner page, including voting keep on many pages that were deleted, which strongly suggests bias. I, on the other hand can tell the difference between a BIO about someone that has done something other then win one contest and a bio about a school teacher, future stay at home mom, or univ. student that got in a looks contest to win some scholarships. See Caroline McGowan for example where they just voted to keep an article that links http://dorkychickinlipstick.com/ and calls the subject an actress that has no acting credits to speak of. And to keep Allison Cook (Miss Oregon) "Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education."Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education.[2] She sought alternatives after concussion injuries forced her to leave the Oregon Tech basketball and volleyball teams. On April 28, 2012, Cook won the Miss City of Sunshine 2012 title and more than $6,500 in scholarship prizes" and she studies radiology. And to keep Ali Wallace which is a formula cut and paste of the others replacing name, school, major, parent, hair and eye color. Pretty girl who enjoyed 15 minutes of fame and went back to obscurity. Heck recently people were seriously trying to delete a bio I started Candy Carson and she has actually done some notable things and was portrayed next to Cuba Gooding, Jr. in a movie, plus married to Ben Carson. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness there are a few editors who mass nominate beauty pageant/pageant winners for deletion. It's not just Legacypac. There needs to be a notability guideline established by experts in this area. Personally I feel anyone who wins the mainstream national title of any country, whether it's Miss USA, Miss Canada or Miss Armenia, should be notable. State winners aka Miss Oregon are not so clear and we need some kind of guideline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, check out this link that Legacypac included in his AfD nomination. Let me put it this way, If I were to include such a link in an AfD nomination, I would fully expect to get a topic ban, if not an out-and-out block. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: The problem is that it's very difficult to establish any kind of notability guideline, simply because third-party media coverage of pageants varies wildly from country-to-country (with the US having, by far, the most). Miss South Carolina undoubtedly gets 100 times as much media coverage as Miss Swaziland does, yet there will be some that will say keep one and not the other, because one is a national pageant and one is a sub-national pageant. Other people will argue the other way, saying that one meets WP:GNG and the other doesn't. In general, I think that GNG probably needs to be the objective standard that everything on Wikipedia is held up to. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that link. John Oliver has a hugely popular show and there's nothing inappropriate in the video - there is valid criticism of pageants and their objectification of women's appearances. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But, it's the kind of editorial content that is totally inappropriate and off-topic in an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't use AfD - get dragged to ANi. Use AfD get dragged to ANi. Can't beat the fans of a dying, widely criticized industry.

My criteria is if they win beyond winning a state title or go on to any sort of notable career the article can stay. If the only info beyond trival stuff is that they won a contest, redirect to the contest page. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Heaven forbid, somebody who actually wants to get rid of poorly-sourced, non-notable articles. pbp 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • But he's nominating articles like Nichole Mead and Rebecca Anderson with dozens of reliable sources, ones that clearly cross the verifiability and notability thresholds, and ignoring WP:NTEMP in his rationales. - Dravecky (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• A topic ban on "beauty pageant-related material" would completely miss the point: the problem is not specifically to do with "beauty pageant-related material": it is to do with trying to undermine the outcomes of discussions and consultations whenever those outcomes are contrary to what Legacypac would like. Legacypac needs to realise that if he or she starts a deletion discussion, he or she must then accept the outcome of that discussion: it is not OK to say, in effect, "Let's have a discussion on whether this should be deleted, so that if the answer is 'yes' then I will accept that decision, and it will be deleted, while if the answer is 'no' then I can ignore that decision, and find another way of effectively deleting it."
• Legacypac, if you continue to do what you have been doing, you are likely to be blocked. I also suggest you may find it helpful to read WP:FORUMSHOP, which is not exactly about what you have been doing, but it is essentially the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - ridiculous. AfD is a group process and it can be worked out. Further clarification is needed in some gray areas. Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed. IMO AfD is probably the least rewarding yet one of the most vital areas on Wikipedia, and the editors who nevertheless spend time there trying to weed out non-notable articles need support, not constant criticism. A topic ban for Legacypac would harm the project - and I say that as someone who recommended keep on the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: "Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed." I'm curious what exactly you see that lead you to state this. Personally, I see nothing to suggest this (in fact, very much the opposite). FYI, this is not Legacypac's first go-round at this, there was a similar mass-AfD dust-up in February 2015, so Legacypac knows perfectly well that at least 50% of these AfD's he's opened are going to close as "keep." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And, as far as his motivations go, please see his comment immediately above about a "dying, widely criticized industry." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why there is so little RS coverage today. As a child I remember most Queens getting local and regional press. Now they have do/say something extraordinary [167] to get even a name check. It is usually a big struggle to find sources outside official pageant sites (and that is kept up only for a year), local person wins award, Facebook and blogs. It is different if they get on a big TV show or something, then we treat them like any other actor. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's true in Canada, but in the US, state-level pageants are a big deal, and get plenty of RS coverage in third-party news sources here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then a Google search like this for the state closest to me right now [168] should find more then 253 results (all news results for all time for both the annual event and all girls that ever went to the "Miss Washington USA" pageant, not just winners). It is barely noise level. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these state winners, IMHO, don't meet GNG. I've fought to keep articles on pageants and national pageant winners from around the world (which is why I know Legacypac is not the only who noms them for AfD). But I really don't think most state winners make the cut. Just being Miss New Hampshire is not really enough IMO unless there is significant coverage in some other area. Nominating state winners is good cleanup IMHO. And again, there needs to be a guideline. Pageants are competitions after all and equivalent sport guidelines exist on notability, so why not make one for pageants? —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Please see my comment immediately above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support and Expand On review of the individual cases, and not just the method of editing but the tone used by Legacypac in interacting with other editors who come to him expressing concern or question, there seems to be a dangerous sense of ownership and unwillingness to work in a collaborative spirit. Really, had I chosen to make it an issue at the time, he could have been blocked under discretionary sanctions for the stunt he pulled above vis a vis the Syria article; I only didn't because I try to avoid the mess that is those topics and only came across it via DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

After I proposed AfD [169] (which closed with advise to discuss merge at talk and good support for a merge in the AfD) I propose merge to talk on Oct 28. Only LavaBaron responded Oppose with no clear policy reason. I completed a merge on Nov 1 (based on insufficient opposition at talk and recent support in AfD, but was reverted. Then on Nov 5 another editor proposed Delete at AfD [170] but that closed no consensus with people suggesting merge again. Now I started a more formal merge discussion and you take offense? That is not forum shopping its following process. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban but suggest the editor avoid making personal comments about others - such comments are uniformly disregarded by closers at AfD, and tend to make some feel that the poster is more invested in deleting stuff he/she does not like than in finding out what the consensus of the general community evinced on the AfD page is. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - No topic ban. He does need to watch how he interacts with others and remember to discuss content, not users. If he demonstrates incivility or personal attacks, he can definitely be blocked on those grounds. However, he is following the proper process and using AFD for what it's designed to discuss. The lack of understanding of a subject matter is a learning opportunity, and certainly not a reason in itself to propose a ban. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: But, over the past year he has sent literally dozens of pageant-related bio articles to AfD, and only a small handful of them have either ended up as "delete" or "merge/redirect" closes, with the vast majority of them closing as either "keep" or "no consensus." And yet, he continues to send more. At what point is the process simply being abused? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ejgreen77 - I completely acknowledge your response; I agree that the AFD process can be prone to abuse by anyone who wants to push an agenda or disrupt the process with excessive nominations of articles (especially if the articles clearly do not meet the criterion for nominating it for deletion). I'm trying to find some edits, any edits, that demonstrate that this person has an unambiguous viewpoint or agenda against this topic subject. So far, I'm not finding any. I want to assume good faith here - I think that the user should be warned about his nominations of articles, and that continued nomination of articles that clearly should not be deleted can result in blocking, as doing so is disruptive. After blocks have proven ineffective, I'd be much more open to a conversation about banning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My reason for bringing this to ANI was not because this editor was nominating these articles for deletion. It was because--after being unsuccessful at getting these articles deleted through AfD--he then added a redirect. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

i recall there is a way to check the % of deletes on nominations and %of time that an editor's vote meets consensus. I think I saw it in RFA. It would be bad to have a 100% delete on noms - that would suggest you are only sending snow deletes to AfD/RfD and not using the appropriate alternitives. I work hard at cleanup and I've sent literally Thousands of articles and redirects into successful deletion or redirection. I'm sure that stats will bear that out. I went through all the Oregon pagent template and only nomed the ones with no claim to fame outside one event, You can see even in the last 36 hours I made changes, maintenance tagged, proposed merges etc to many pageant articles I did not AfD. On the flip side I bet Ejgreen77 has Never voted to delete or redirect Any pageant article, and I've seen them comment on plenty. Therefore the editor pushing for a topic ban on me should be Boomeranged for they are the one with the demonstratable bias. This editor should serious show a single past delete vote in this topic or face a topic ban themselves for making false statements against me here.

Given that I have a long-standing personal policy against voting "delete" in any AfD debates, pageant related or otherwise, it's not terribly surprising. Not that I haven't seen plenty of articles that I thought should have been deleted, but in those cases, I simply abstain from voting. But, if you're looking for examples, I already gave one further down the page of a pageant article that I think is questionable. And, right off the top of my head, here's a pageant-related article that's right up your alley. It was sent to AfD and somehow closed as "keep," I thought it probably should have been deleted. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the XFD classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem. If a bunch of similar items have similar problems and you nominate just one, the community yells about why are you targeting that one; you nominate them all and the community demands each be nominated and judged individually. So here, an editor does the latter and the discussion basically invites individual nominations, which the editor does, and now someone wants to ban the editor. Really??? Moreover, we have editors who seem to want a litmus test as suggested above on how close ones RFA !votes match consensus, as if whether an editor's view matching consensus in one place has bearing on the value of that editor's view anywhere. That sort of marginalization is particularly distasteful given the current political discourse in the US and ought to be rejected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are pageant winners notable?

Thinking of what other annual contests exist, I searched the biggest Rodeo in Canada List_of_Calgary_Stampede_Rodeo_Champions. There is just one article on one winner - a two sentence stub J.B. Mauney. No dozens of articles on each event with succession boxes and who their parents are, what they studied, where they went to school blah blah blah. I can't think of any contests, outside politics) that we give SO much coverage too, and we avoid most of the trivia in the politician articles. The trivia goes into the pageant articles because, without it, you have nothing that does not fit on a list. If we applied the same standards to pageant winners as we apply to other topic areas, this debate would not even be happening. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1.) WP:OTHERSTUFF 2.) Lack of editor interest in one particular area should not preclude other editors from developing articles in a completely unrelated field. 3.) At the end of the day, it's all about WP:GNG; if you think that individual rodeo cowboys have sufficient third-party coverage to warrant articles, by all means, go ahead and create them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Largely not, no. In most cases there is no coverage of them outside the context of the pageant. Pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• All pageant winners? No, of course not, but the state-level winners for the two major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA)? Based on the extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources, clearly yes. (Other contests that receive as much or more attention on Wikipedia include reality television competitions, sports at all levels, literary prizes, academic prizes, literary prizes, the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, and so on.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Like the 111 Google News hits for "Miss Oregon USA" or the 58 hits in books (covering all winners over the years and the contest itself and not all RS of course)? Is that "extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources"? All that coverage barely justifies the Miss Oregon USA article. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to try to trivialize this too much, but from what I've seen of pageant winners, WP:BLP1E readily applies, in that the only event they are connected to is winning the pageant, meaning that most winners are not notable (although we can certainly use lists and tables to document then) Obviously, if they have done more before and/or after that is of note, then normal notability rules apply (as such with Caitlin Upton. And this is not to suggest that anyone winning an aware is not notable per BLP1E, but it is due to the nature of what pageants are: the participants are not being ranked on past merit but the there-and-now, as opposed to other awards like Nobels, Oscars, etc. where it is based on past merit that usually can be documented to a great degree, so BLP1E would not apply. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. the majority of them have no actual claim to notability and are never heard of again. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP covers the fact that once notability is achieved, it does not need to be sustained. And, as far as the whole BLP1E thing goes, please see this excellent comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Ironically, one of the articles currently sitting at AfD, Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) concerns a contestant who won a state-level title, then was forced to resign it less than three weeks later. On that particular article I do believe there are legitimate BLP1E concerns, due to the extremely short nature of her time as a titleholder. Thus there are no news stories of her making public appearances as Miss Oregon, no "preparing for Miss America" articles, and no subsequent appearance at the national pageant. So, on that particular article there are some legitimate BLP1E concerns, IMHO. But, your average state titleholder who won her state title, made numerous public appearances throughout the year, and represented her state on the nationally televised national pageant? No, no BLP1E concerns, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is begged if notability was met to begin with in terms of NTEMP. And BLP1E still applies to a pageant winner that would have media appearances after the fact but otherwise nothing notable. Classic example: JetBlue flight attendant incident is not about the person involved as that is basically how BLP1E is applied. Similarly for pageants, it is rarely the winner but the event itself as a whole. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think ANI is the best place to debate notability. But as I said before, national winners are notable IMO as they receive significant coverage for the year and go on to compete in Miss World or whatever. Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything." I agree completely, but like I said earlier, most of these US state-level winners will get 100 times as much third-party media coverage as, say, most of the people who competed in Miss Earth 2015. Heck, in some of these cases (Miss Congo (RDC), Miss Moldova, Miss Swaziland, Miss Kyrgyzstan, etc.) I'm not really all that certain that the national pageant itself is particularly notable - never mind the individual winners. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd actually be surprised - in some of these smaller countries, a larger percentage of the population knows about "Miss (Country)." It's a lot bigger deal for anyone to be competing and representing their country abroad, and they get a lot of attention not only when they win their pageant but when they go to Miss Universe and other pageants. I on the other hand have no idea who Miss America is this year, but that's because American culture is overloaded with celebrities who are world famous. Angola naturally is different. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course BLP1E applies. And as I commented above, the level of personal detail on these pages is grossly excessive. (And in the one AfD I commented on, the highest profile source doesn't even mention the person in question, and went on about the person's educational history and other trivia that is completely unencyclopedic. And the article was written by an admin. They should really know better.) Polequant (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And here we have that same admin reinserting dates of birth, parents occupations etc. Seriously? Polequant (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Can we please move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pageant_winners_and_notability. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

New user creating tons of unnecessary redirects

It's More Fun to Compute (talk · contribs).

This user created his account yesterday, but has already made over 100 new redirects, most of which is completely unnecessary. I do not know what to do, so I am bringing it here before it gets out of hand.

To Michael Jordan, he created the following redirects:

This goes on with other articles, too. Nymf (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Neelix sock? Just get this account to give up his Adminship cause we already established creating useless redirects is not a reason for a BLOCK. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who that person is. However, I must ask why there is a template for redirect from misspelling template if there is no intention to use it where appropriate? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warn user to stop and then Block (indefinitely) and WP:DENY if they don't. This is just the latest form of trolling. Nip it in the bud. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the Camelcase isn't necessary, but could you please explain what is wrong with Micheal Jeffrey Jordan? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately you've come along at a pretty bad time in relation to odd redirects - misspellings can be handled by the Mediawiki software, as when you search for a misspelt article, it will suggest the correct one. Adding redirects for every possible misspelling, while cheap, is a bit disruptive and ultimately pointless. I'd recommend stopping, and focus a bit more on content :) -- samtar ^whisper 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam, even extreme cases [171], is not blockable we learned. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, this is not an appropriate place to bring up how Neelix was dealt with. You know very well that who is and is not blockable depends on circumstance. You coming here citing precedence like we are a court of law will only confuse the new user. If you want to discuss this my talk page is open. Fun to computer please ignore the above comment, it is wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. HighInBC 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We all know new users don't start by rapid creating dozens of stupid redirects, so confusion by "new user" Fun to computer is unlikely. Inconsistently however is confusing to lots of editors :) Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot create any new redirects? I'm don't want to be blocked. - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, at the current time. As you might gather, there has recently been a bit of tiff (trying for British understatement here) about mass redirects for inane spellings, and tempers are short. The kwetching from certain editors above notwithstanding, you may even get blocked if you overdo it right now. Go improve content rather than duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already! :) -- Elmidae 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• He's a sock of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs), and a case has already been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Whenever an admin gets around to it, just block him and G5 his redirects. Not much else needs to be discussed here... -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are nuking the redirects by "It's More Fun to Compute", can we nuke the ones by the other recently blocked sock A window cleaner me (talk · contribs) at the same time? There's about 150 categories/redirects on that user as well. Nymf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The new user & the IP 108.71.133.201 are the same individual, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll let the SPI run its course regarding the socking claim (seems likely to me), but I've blocked User:It's More Fun to Compute indefinitely, because while this thread is going on, they are continuing to create stupid redirects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even forgetting the socking, creating redirects for every possible misspelling one can think of seems like overkill. I've created a few redirects where I can never remember the proper spelling. But this is excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• CU confirmed the named account at SPI; I mass-deleted all his contributions and rolled back a few dozen of his other edits before I ran out of time to do WP stuff today. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of all this, is there a policy page or guideline we can point people to to remind them that it's more than unnecessary to go around creating redirects just to (as Elmidae nicely put it) "duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE lists all the reasons to create redirects, so that might be what you're looking for... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see no harm in the preponderance of those redirects being created, and would not have deleted them. pbp 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Since mass-creation of redirects is the latest form of trolling and/or inappropriate behavior, and since in the past month we've so far had at least five or six editors called up on ANI for creating thousands or tens of thousands of redirects, I propose that mass-creation of redirects be added to WP:DE as disruptive editing and a blockable offense. That way, we have a policy onhand that we can point to and enforce rather than having to have this same ANI discussion over and over and over and over again (not to mention all the hundreds of man-hours it takes to undo the damage each time). I don't think this trend is going to go away, so we need to nip it in the bud and codify a policy/guideline about it. And by that I do not mean WP:RPURPOSE; I mean a specific stricture against mass-redirect creation. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Mass redirect creation may be unhelpful, but;

The most productive thing to do with a redirect, as long as it's name isn't actually harmful, is to ignore it, saving time during which you can foil some actual trolls.

What is the "damage", apart from people voluntarily sorting through redirects? If they were left, it would make no difference.

Please do not post false accusations in response to this, anybody. I did mass create redirects, which was unhelpful, but I am not a troll, vandal, spammer or any of the other slurs used towards me on October 31. Thank you. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer barracking at a RFC

Following discussion with an Admin relating to the notability policy of a AfD, it was agreed that I should open a RFC to gain consensus. After some thought I decided to open a discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations which seemed the most relevant venue for discussion. As directed at WP:RFC I attempted to formulate a question about the issue which was neutral and invited discussion from editors with different views. User:Neutralhomer has been increasingly abusive in this discussion to me, including insisting that I have to reply to him rather than go to bed (which is nonsense, there is no time limit on a discussion), [that I am acting in bad faith], am timewasting, [be disregarded as I have only been editing for less than a year] and writing [messages on my talkpage] about "stirring hornets nests".

The fact is that I am interested in a discussion about the notability issue of community radio stations. That is not, in my opinion, a time wasting activity - because this issue matters to me. I understand that User:Neutralhomer feels strongly that WP:NMEDIA applies only to radio stations in the USA, but as shown by extensive comments by other editors, I am not alone in thinking that a broadcast license by a national regulator should be a sign of notability. I should certainly not be castigated for attempting to follow WP:RFC and I should not have to put up with this kind of bullying. JMWt (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I and others have tried to get JMWt to understand that "community radio stations" do not exist in the US, they are only in Canada, the UK and Australia. So, NMEDIA rules don't cover them. When NMEDIA was created and later updated, it was created to be vague enough to be used all over, but primarily in the US and Canada. Reason being, the people who work on radio station pages are typically from the US and Canada. We didn't have any knowledge of British communications rules when NMEDIA was written.

I suggested to JMWt that he create UK-based rules (under NMEDIAUK) so that there isn't any overlap. But JMWt couldn't accept that. He also couldn't accept that US, Canadian and UK radio stations are completely different.

This has gone on and on for hours and the RfC isn't going anywhere. I requested it be closed and the discussion moved to JMWt's talk page. That seemed to irritate JMWt even more than he already was.

There is a clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT going on with JMWt. No matter how I explain the rules, no matter how anyone else explains them, he just doesn't get it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am entitled to open a discussion about the notability of community radio stations worldwide even if (you think) I am wrong about WP:NMEDIA. WP:NOTGETTINGIT does not imply that I have to agree with your conclusions and that a RFC is concluded within 24 hours when you say it is. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) It really does look as though people are trying to explain a very simple concept to JMWt, but JMWt is just not comprehending. People, Neutralhomer in particular, are so sick having to explain the same thing over and over and over and over and over that he's become frustrated. This is now being held against him. As someone who has previously had this happen to him, I sympathise more with Neutralhomer than with Mr Fingers-in-ears-LALALALALALA. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that I'm talking about the bullying not the disagreement about WP:NMEDIA. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If saying "you swatted the hornet's nest, you don't get to run off to bed" or "you've been here less than a year and it is showing bad" is bullying, then I apologize. That doesn't change the fact that you still don't understand that NMEDIA doesn't cover "Community Radio Stations" because NMEDIA was written, however vaugely, for US and Canadian radio stations. Again, because we didn't have knowledge of UK rules and regs.

I, again, invite you to work with the community and create rules for UK stations as NMEDIAUK, ones that will cover the "Community Radio Stations" found in the UK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sorry you feel you were bullied" apology not accepted. I've been very clear from the start that I'm talking about how to assess the notability of all small community radio stations on wikipedia. Once again, I deplore your attitude when I am clearly trying to clear up a source of disagreement over notability. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What you still aren't getting is while you are trying to "assess the notability" of community radio stations, you are doing so with rules that don't cover them. You are trying to lump all radio stations into those notability "assessment". I deplore having to repeat myself and I have done so now several times. Several times you just haven't gotten it. I'm hoping you do soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree. That is not for this discussion, but your attitude. Which has still not changed markedly. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, my attitude has nothing to do with your understanding of the matter. Numerous people have written large swaths of information and you either barely acknowledge it or completely ignore it and keep right on going. It's kinda hard to have a discussion of any kind when the other person isn't getting it. Reyk, help me out here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer Communiuty radio actually does exist in the United States , please | see this organization . KoshVorlon 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: These are almost solely Public Radio formatted stations. Some, like WDVX and WMMT, are Americana and Roots music. But others like WEAA and WTJU are public radio stations airing varying degrees of NPR-type programming.

What I was meaning is the FCC does not have a category for "Community Radio Stations" like OFCOM in the UK does. The closest thing we have is low-power FM (or LPFM). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: Local Community Radio Act. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That brought about changes in LPFMs, but did not create them. LPFMs in the US have been around since 2001. LPFM was started with the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know. The point is that community radio is clearly a thing in the US and acknowledged as such on the legislative level. That the official category of license does not have the word "community" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But this seems like a tangent and gets at the actual substance of the dispute, which does not require ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, if there was a "community radio" category in the US, I think it would be alot easier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMWt: frankly your attitude sucks, and you should read WP:BOOMERANG. Now climb down off your high horse and listen to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you with, I must say, commendable patience. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Your attitude sucks" and "climb off your high horse" is how we help people resolve behavioural disputes now, is it? It seems to me people should let the RFC proceed and stop patronising JMWt. Fences&Windows 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As an admin, JzG is exempt from the civility policy, arbitration hearings, and any other normal process that non-admin peons face on a daily basis. Please check the sooper sekrit policy on IRC for details. You have been warned. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is. JMWt has chosen to come here with a vexatious complaint and in doing so has drawn attention to the fact that JMWt, not those about who he complains, is the primary problem. JMWt refuses to accept explanation or consensus, and comes tot he admin board to complain about those who are patiently explaining the problem. This happens all the time, and the essay WP:BOOMERANG explains typical consequences. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: - see, I'm not as wet-behind-the-ears as you seem to think I am. I happen to know a) WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, b) WP:CCC, c) that WP:BIAS is a known thing, d) that there are standards of WP:CIV, e) that nobody "WP:OWN"s essays, never mind prior consensus or policies. But most of all, I am entitled to operate without WP:HA, particularly where I am engaged in WP's own procedure for trying to reach WP:CON on something which is obviously a contentious issue across many AfD. You can say WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you like. As an WP:ADMIN your comments are clearly uncalled for, and you should know better than to attack the person rather than the issue - which I notice you have not bothered to engage with in the forum where it is clearly correct to discuss it. Any further personal attacks from you will be escalated. Furthermore if you can't see the above complaint as a problem outwith of the discussion at hand, then you shouldn't be an WP:ADMIN never mind adding comments to this page. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I am missing it. What is wrong with having a RfC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: there is nothing wrong with having an RfC. The problem here is that a single user does not like the views I hold, the fact that I've started an RfC, the fact that I've put the discussion on that particular WikiProject talkpage, the suggestion by me that the notability of radio stations in other countries around the world should be judged on the same basis as those (he says) are only to be covered by WP:NMEDIA, the fact that I've only been editing for 12 months, the fact that I dare suggest that there is no consensus here, or the fact that other people might actually think that WP:NMEDIA can and should apply to radio stations outwith of his jurisdiction. Which all would be absolutely fine if he was able to communicate these points in a way that is not a personal attack. And then, when challenged, makes it out that the bullying I've illustrated in my complaint above is just my impression of what was said. It wasn't. By any objective standard, that was bullying. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue's not the RfC. The issue is one editor who can't or won't comprehend what people are saying no matter how simple, is acting overly offended at everything, won't accept any kind of conciliatory gesture, and is doing a lot of screechy litigious posturing. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, I am entitled to disagree with someone else's understanding of a consensus (expressed in an essay, not a policy) no matter how much they want to insist that their way is the only way to look at it - and I note that others in the discussion have strongly disagreed with the WP:NMEDIA understanding being expressed here as consensus and as WP:NOTGETTINGIT. No, there is a real disagreement and there is a discussion about how to resolve that disagreement in policy. I am entitled to be involved in a RfC which is civil and engages on the question rather than in personal abuse. If you don't get that, maybe you shouldn't be writing on this page either. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

NH tries to apologise for expressing frustration and you scream "apology not accepted" in boldface. I stand by my description of you as unforgiving, litigious, and quarrelsome. You're not here to participate in consensus building- you'd at least try to understand other peoples' views if you were- you're just here to yell at everyone and get your way by threatening to "escalate" your feigned outrage to some other venue. This is not a good attitude to have around here. Reyk _YO! 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was a non-apology couched in terms that were made to make it sound like I was imagining abuse and then using this as a forum to repeat endlessly the same point he was making before. I don't want a faux apology, sorry. Now as to your other points, they're obviously garbage given that there are various editors who do not agree with the understanding of WP:NMEDIA that was so forcefully used as an accusation that I was WP:NOTGETTINGIT, even to the extent of resorting to personal abuse - and also given that I've never posted on this board about anything before. I don't care if you think it is vexacious, I don't care if you have a description of me or whatever else you bring up that is totally unrelated. I want someone to recognise this as what it was: abuse. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason nobody is "recognising this as abuse" is that it isn't abuse. It's just the usual frustration at having to repeatedly explain something to someone who isn't listening. Abuse would be if someone said "You are an asshat" or something along those lines. It's clear at this point that you will not succeed in convincing anyone that you are a victim of misbehaviour, or get anyone to take any sort of action against NeutralHomer. It is time to stop beating this dead horse. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately you are not the one making the decision, then, because you've already shown that you are unable to do so fairly. JMWt (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I had walked away from this thread (and the RfC) due to a migraine from repeating myself ad naseum, but I feel the need to come back and address the above.

JMWt, don't try to guess what I was thinking when I apologized. It was a real apology, not a "non-apology". I don't appreciate having someone try and read my mind and guess what I was thinking.

If I was being abusive, believe me, there would be a crapload of admins jumpin' all over me. As Reyk kindly put it, you are "quarrelsome" and "not here to participate in consensus building". Plus, as JzG said you aren't "listen[ing] to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you". Several users, myself included, have had, as JzG put it, "commendable patience", toward you in having to explain things over and over and over and over.

So, what you may think is "abuse" is actually pure-and-simple frustration. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK fine, so make an apology here without reservation and admit that it is possible to have different opinions on the validity of WP:NMEDIA without constantly pushing that I'm WP:NOTGETTINGIT - which is about consensus. I totally understand your position on WP:NMEDIA, I don't need you to keep repeating it. JMWt (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologized once, you didn't accept it, I'm not doing it again because you ordered me to. As for NMEDIA, and I can't believe I have to repeat this again, your understand and lumping together of two seperate countries, two seperate platforms, doesn't make sense. Ask for consensus on something that has consensus, doesn't make sense. You are trying to find consensus in British radio in rules that are admittedly (and admitted by others at WPRS) of having a North American bias (again because we didn't have anyone to write them from the UK). So, no, you don't understand my position, and unfortunately, yes, I do have to keep repeating it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's your understanding and other views are available. That's the whole point of the RFC. If you bothered to look at the discussion, you'd see that all of your points on this have been comprehensively answered. And not by me. As you are unable to comprehend that someone could possibly have a different view to you, and further that you need to keep repeating your view as accepted fact, then I can't do anything but believe your apology was fake. You don't want to apologise, you just want to continue with the same behaviour. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You only get one apology, that's how the real world works. You don't shoot down one and then demand another. Doesn't work that way. As for the "comprehensively answered" points, no they haven't. It's just your perfered view. You're projecting your problems back onto me and I don't have time for it. I have articles to create and update, the real reason we are here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why would you think I give a toss what you think of me? If you come to ANI it's on you to convince people that your complaint is merited. Instead, multiple editors have given you advice that it's ridiculous and that you should drop it. You have elected not to pay any attention, which I am coming to understand is your primary defining characteristic. Fine. You want to yell that you're the innocent victim, and that you'll go on yelling until people see it your way, you can go right ahead. But don't be surprised if, like me, people find themselves sympathising more with NH when you stamp your feet and tremble with rage. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you here and what are you actually adding to this discussion? Someone insisting that a RFC should be closed within 24 because someone else doesn't agree with their opinion, and resorting to something they admit is abusive, is something you want to encourage is it? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have considered your repeated assertions that I shouldn't post at ANI. It is my determination that they are erroneous. They are therefore disregarded. I will, however, stop posting in this thread because you are wasting my time. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Good. JMWt (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never admitted to being abusive. I said "If I was being abusive". Don't put words in my mouth again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either you were being abusive and are now apologising for it, or you weren't and aren't. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The above is a classic sign of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I apologized, you swatted it down, you don't get another one because you demand it. Not the way the real world works. You also don't misquote someone when what I said it right up there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias from rape supporters

(non-admin closure) 166 troll. BMK (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the edits at David Lisak and Mary P. Koss and at RSN. Anti-rape activists are being run off this site in favor of the typical men's rights/rape deniers. This is not how neutrality works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.177 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC) The way to call out a controversy is not use personal attacks. Suggesting this be closed. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Some diffs would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see that Ricky81682 made an edit to Mary P. Koss, hence our resident Ricky stalker on the 166.17x.x.x addresses has surfaced. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

False closure of ongoing debate about notability of certain cricketers

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

---

User:Davey2010 made several false closures of AfDs about marginally notable cricketers on the grounds of SNOW KEEP. There is a serious debate going on about such articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davey2010 Their non-admin closure is completely unwarranted. SageGreenRider ^talk 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit talk about bad faith!, Consensus was to Keep and as I said if you disagree with it you go to DRV, BTW as an aside you're meant to discuss it with me before hauling my ass here!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• For those who can't be bothered to go thru my contribs here are the AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)), I'm no genius but I'd say the outcomes to these are blindingly obvious, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the phrase "hoist with one's own petard"? SageGreenRider ^talk 00:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No and it has no relation to this as I've not screwed up .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that your foul language is the result of present intoxication? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Please do not use foul language. SageGreenRider ^talk

I'd suggest retracting that comment as it could very easily be considered to be well over the boundary of a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope no intoxication - If you don't want me to use colourful language then don't bring me to the dramah board over stupid reasons, I'm no genius but those AFDs are obvious keeps and the only reason I'm here is because you don't like the outcome, I've had AFDs that were closed as for instance Keep when I wanted them gone .... Would I bring someone to ANI over it ? Hell no. –Davey2010^Talk 02:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• All of these look to me to be clear keeps, and WP:SNOW did in fact apply - coming across them I would have closed them exactly the same way. There was no "serious debate" ongoing in these AfDs. In one there was some discussion, but nothing to stop the closure as was done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• They are part of this debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6 as Davey well knows

• I've not even commented on that DRV and I never participate in DRV anyway .. So no I literally have no idea!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Further point would be, if "serious debate" is going on, then what is there worth of an ANI to report? Davey2010 closed them as clear SNOW KEEPs, which anyone read the !votes would conclude. I think the only reason you believe the closures to be "false" is that you don't like the fact that articles you proposed for deletion have been kept. If this isn't closed forthwith as frivolous, we might begin to wander into boomerang territory. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Have you looked at the articles? The !votes come from the cricket cabal that has a tendency to believe that anyone who puts willow to leather is notable. SageGreenRider ^talk 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate going on in the DRV because there is an issue over GNG v sport-specific statements like at NCRIC. THis is an editorial discussion, not needing admin intervention. It does not belong at ANI. It really shouldn't be in a DRV either, but at a suitable policy location where widespread community input can be included and considered. Sage, if your perspective is supported in that overall discussion, these deletion proposals will be revisited, as will the one at DRV. You and Davey having a conflict over them is neither necessary nor productive for either of you in advancing your perspectives. Speaking as a contributor to the DRV who was and remains critical of Sandstein's close of the AfD, the overall outcome will be reached more rapidly without pointless conflict. EdChem (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. At what forum do you think this debate is best hosted? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Village Pump, with neutral notifications at the N and NCRIC talk pages and at the DRV? Maybe others have suggestions? I just don't think that a suitable location with a broad audience has yet to be found / used. EdChem (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW Sandstein's controversial closure of the AfD was caused in part by a mechanical failure of WP:CRIN to point to the section it is supposed to. On some browsers it doesn't point to the correct section. SageGreenRider ^talk 02:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse all of Davey's closures. Clearly had consensus to close all as keep. --Jayron32 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban or WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135

Every now and then, we get men's rights editors or those with similar views POV-pushing gender symmetry content or a gender symmetry angle onto the domestic violence articles. This is why the Domestic violence article is under Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. There have also been cases where such editors impersonated women to more easily push their viewpoint. Gender symmetry is the controversial viewpoint that women commit as much domestic violence as men, or more domestic violence than men. Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), a relatively new account, showed up to the Domestic violence article making a series of dubious and problematic edits, and has since mainly only been focused on the domestic violence areas of Wikipedia. Charlotte135 has denied being a men's right's editor, but Charlotte135 has nonetheless edited the Domestic violence article and the Intimate partner violence article in ways that push the gender symmetry viewpoint, usually with a faulty understanding of the WP:Neutral policy, even when pointed to the WP:Due weight and WP:Valid aspects of that policy. When others try to explain the problems to Charlotte135, Charlotte135 makes it seem like those people are being non-neutral and/or have an agenda, and often doesn't seem to be actually hearing what they are stating. For example, Charlotte135 has mischaracterized me and my intentions so badly that I find it difficult to discuss anything with Charlotte135, and have resorted to leaving notes for a response instead of replying directly; in fact, I will ignore any claims by Charlotte135 in this thread because of that very aspect. Charlotte135's editing and arguments have drained me and a number of others, and the matter only seems to be getting worse. I don't see what there is left for me to do in this case but propose a topic ban or MRMPS restriction with regard to Charlotte135 editing domestic violence articles. At one point, I thought about asking SlimVirgin to help, but she has enough on her plate to deal with. Below is a collapsed point-by-point retelling of what has occurred:

The issues at hand

Charlotte135 showed up at "01:43, 21 October 2015" with this, this and this edit. I reverted because the edits were WP:Valid violations (trying to make it seem like men and women are affected to the same degree by domestic violence). Charlotte135 came to my talk to complain; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#Domestic Violence is not a gender issue!. Charlotte135 showed up in the "Claim about male self overestimating" section of the Domestic violence article, supporting a misrepresentation of sources and a gender symmetry viewpoint (a source used for the material was reporting on a men's rights group piece). Johnuniq made a rebuttal, stating, "A fluffy media report about claims made 'by the men's rights campaign group Parity' does not satisfy WP:RS for edits which seek to overturn conventional (and sourced) understanding of a topic." Kaldari stepped in to help with some of the dispute. With this edit, Charlotte135 removed "though women are more likely to be injured 'largely because men are stronger on average than women'", despite this being well-supported in literature on domestic violence. I noted this in a discussion with Charlotte135, and stated that it was my belief that Charlotte135 removed the material on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. Charlotte135 argued the matter, with a misguided understanding of what being neutral means on Wikipedia. In the "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section, there is much of the same from Charlotte135. Johnuniq stated, "Editors should agree to play the game and be civil (as has occurred), but let's not beat around the bush: your account has under forty edits and is just over two weeks old, and your edits in this topic focus on men's rights activism—see WP:MRMPS. Such activism has not taken over this article in the past and is unlikely to be successful in the future." Charlotte135 denied being a men's rights editor, and later took issue with the "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" material in the lead, suggesting that this needs to be balanced with material on men. The lead already had, and still has, material on men being victims of domestic violence, but not material on being as victimized (or close to as victimized) as women; this is because the literature generally does not state that. Charlotte135 and I reverted each other over this bit, which stated, "A 2010 review article entitled 'Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?' in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." I reverted Charlotte135 because the text made it seem like it was Scientific American reviewing the literature, when it was actually commenting on a researcher's analysis, an analysis based on the highly criticized conflict tactics scale. I also reverted because the content was WP:Undue weight (not generally supported by the domestic violence literature), and did not use good WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Charlotte135 continued to argue for the text. This resulted in a WP:RfC, which closed with WP:Consensus being against the addition...per WP:REDFLAG. As seen with this section and the discussion immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 added to the lead "On the other hand, a meta-analyses conducted by Archer (2000) concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, after examining 82 studies that found gender symmetry." I reverted per the material not being WP:Lead material and per it being WP:Undue weight. After much discussion, that material was left out of the lead. But by this point, I couldn't be bothered to directly respond to Charlotte135, since Charlotte135 repeatedly misrepresents me and my intentions and doesn't seem to ever truly listen. In the "Info/study removed" section, Charlotte135's gender symmetry POV-pushing editing continued, with Gandydancer taking objection this time. Kaldari stepped in again to help. In the "For NPOV sake" discussion, Charlotte135 was again arguing that the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence in the lead needed to be balanced with gender symmetry material. Gandydancer took the time to try to explain to Charlotte135 why Charlotte135's proposed text was problematic, but it didn't seem like Charlotte135 was truly listening. In fact, Charlotte135 kept repeating, even after Fyddlestix stepped in to explain. It got to the point that Gandydancer stated, "I've reached the end of my comments here as well. I have no desire to RE:HASH this over and over again. Using the reviews that she offers, it seems that Charlotte wants to cherry pick the statement that the percentage of male/female violence is equal and just leave it at that, but not include, for example, that male physical violence is more likely to include punching and choking while females slap and scratch and that female physical violence is often used as a defense against male violence, which is also included in the reviews. I assume that Charlotte will now throw hooks out to try and drag me back into this discussion, as she has proven that she does so well, but I'm done here." In the "Multicultural differences / age differences in the research" discussion and the one immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 went after the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence again, this time arguing from an adolescent perspective, citing a U.S.-centric source that stated, "Among adolescents, where many preventative and educative interventions, in Western countries are currently aimed, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males." I noted, "To state that the vast majority of available sources say that female adolescents perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than male adolescents is not entirely inaccurate, since a lot of scholarly sources state that this demographic, which is mostly made up of white adolescents in the United States (because of the limited way this topic has been studied), perpetrate equal rates of IPV, and note the severe limitations of this research." I ended up having to fix the text that Charlotte135 added because it was added in a biased and misleading way, and editors agreed that I fixed the problematic addition. In the "WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis" discussion, I took issue with the way that Charlotte135 presented the alternative names in the lead, since the literature generally does not separate the terms in that way. To me, Charlotte135 distinguishing domestic violence from intimate partner violence, when the literature generally cites them as the same thing, seemed to be Charlotte135 attempting to combat the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence again. In this section at the Intimate partner violence talk page, Charlotte135 took issue with the Michael P. Johnson's typology. Note that Johnson is one of the scholars who disputes gender symmetry, and he is therefore a target of men's rights editors. I noted in the discussion, "Michael P. Johnson's typology on intimate partner violence is the most cited typology on intimate partner violence; scholars consistently support that typology, to the point that it is not simply Johnson's typology anymore. It is not simply a theory; it is a typology that has been repeatedly validated by research." I noted that his typology is given the weight it is given because, as this reliable source states, "Two typologies in particular have received considerable attention across various disciplines: Holzworth-Munroe and Stuart's (1994) male batterer typology and Johnson's (2008) intimate partner violence typology." Charlotte135 took to calling me a big fan of Johnson's, with the implication that I am POV-pushing and with the assertion that I am desperate to keep the Johnson material in the article. Charlotte135 then made this edit, which I reverted, at the Domestic violence article, stating, "flyer22reborn it is just johnson mostly. your edit changes context entirely", when it's actually the case that there are different researchers reporting similarly to Johnson in that section. After that, Charlotte135 made this edit with the derogatory edit summary "Why are you Flyer22reborn trying to edit war and parade your hero Michael Johnson's controversial POV and his personal theories." CFCF came along and reverted Charlotte135 here and here. Charlotte135 then added this "citation needed" tag, stating, "citation needed for a big call," even though the "others" who have identified those types of violence are shown in the references in that section. Lastly, after I declared that I was done with the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles, partly to test Charlotte135, Charlotte135 made this edit to the Intimate partner violence article, which removed "this is generally perpetrated by men against women," even though that bit is supported by sources in the article. Like I noted to Charlotte135, "That the most extreme forms of intimate partner violence are perpetrated by men against women is well-supported in the literature." This also true in the case of adolescent males and females.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban or some restriction

What? No. Also this weird use of MRA as a slur is dumb. Shall I try to topic ban people editing from a Feminist POV? Arkon (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - I'm currently reviewing everything stated here, as well as Charlotte135's contribution history. Looking at Charlotte135's contribs page, I will state that this is definitely a single purpose account focused primarily on domestic abuse and gender topics. Most, if not nearly all of this user's edits are made in articles that fall under this subject matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, it seems clear that "single purpose" is an appropriate label for the account, not that that is automatically a bad thing. A lot of the edits seem designed to push a specific agenda that seems to largely align to MRA, but I want to hear a response from Charlotte135 before making a firm decision either way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
• CommentI have edited well over 35 different topics ranging from menstruation through to the ebola virus. Admittedly most of these relate to women and women's health although that is a very, very wide net and is far from a single purpose account. However I have noticed most editors seem to edit within a specific scope, much more specific in many cases than I have. Mine has been pretty broad. Some editors only edit articles about horses for instance. Every single edit I have made to every single article page has added some value to the article, however minor. How the heck are my 35 plus articles edits in any way indicative of a specific agenda? My agenda is to help build a better Wikipedia. Could Lankiveil please provide some diffs for the other 30 or 40 articles I have edited and provide any evidence at all as to how any of these edits could be seen as biased in any way? Furthermore I am a woman and a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. I have a lot more to say on this too. But first things first and I'll wait for Lankiveil response. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135, I really think that you should focus on the information that Flyer22 Reborn has presented right now and respond to it. This is the initial information that we are looking at, and I think that your response is drifting away from the issues that are actually presented here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My comments above are completely on topic. My editing is clearly spanned over 35 different articles so I am confused as to how that possibly constitutes being a SPA?? I have never ever edited mens rights type articles, or violence against men articles, or violence against women articles, or any similar articles. Check my contributtions. I am a woman Flyer22reborn and not pretending to be a woman. How offensive. And I am a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. Utter nonsense. This report is baseless. However all articles, without exception, do need to report what the body of scientific knowledge states, and where possible and ideally in medically related content, we need to rely on high quality metaanalyses published in international scientific journals and that comply with MEDRS. And for the 100000th friggin time now Flyer22reborn, and any others worried about this, I once again stress this clear point. I completely agree with this statement in the DV article "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." This appears to be the only threat that Flyer22reborn is concerned with and the reason they posted this here. What more can I say. But yes, please anyone be my guest in looking at the 35 or more articles I have edited and the positive contribution that has made to Wikipedia based on policy. How is that not relevant? What is this?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

On the point of not understanding due weight, no evidence has been presented to support that statement? I believe I have a pretty good grasp of that policy by now, thank you very much. And before Flyer22reborn posted this here, I had again offered an an opportunity to mediate and to reach a resolution to their concerns. In that way, someone entirely neutral and does not hold such passionate and strong POV on this topic of domestic violence could guide the editing based solely and wholly on policy and what reliable sources say, not emotion. They could then decide if edits were applying due weight. Here is that offer for peaceful resolution that was aggressively rejected, once again, by Flyer22reborn. So that was a good option instead of posting here and accusing me of all sorts of baseless crud, frankly.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your edit summary, on most of those articles you have edited, you have made 1 or 2 edits while you have edited Domestic violence 75 times so that is where your focus has been.

What Oshwah is asking you to do is rather than offering reassurances that you are editing positively, could you address some of the examples provided by Flyer22Reborn? Most decisions on ANI are determined by the weight of the evidence presented and, right now, Flyer22Reborn has presented a very detailed and compelling group of edits with explanations...you need to provide a better defense than saying that saying the report is baseless. While you're not on trial here, you should try to rebut Flyer22Reborn's convincing argument with more than simply saying you reject her assertions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz is correct; we need to focus on the information submitted here, and I want to listen to your response regarding it. The goal of an ANI discussion is to review the information presented and make a logical and objective decision based off of that information. But we need to keep the discussion towards what's relevant in order to be able to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just struggling to see what policy I have breached. On your point of how many times I edited domestic violence, I can only look at others for examples. One example is Flyer22reborn, who has edited the domestic violence article and mensrights articles over 500 times, probably more. However all of their other article editing over the past few months at least, has been one or two edits using Wikipedia:STiki? My edits to the DV and other articles are good and have added value. I have complied with policies, have restrained myself from edit warring, put up with Flyer22reborn's constant abuse. I contribute neutrally to all articles, as I do in my own scientific career, and have no agenda, and nothing Flyer22reborn presented above, and none of my editing, proves otherwise. So again, and with my other comments above, I ask, what have I done wrong or different to other constructive editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never edited any of the men's rights articles Flyer22reborn and others have been edit warring over. And my edits on the domestic violence article are constructive. All articles Flyer22reborn edits to any significant degree are gender equality type articles. Not me. So why am I being accused of doing so?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Article silliness - Miss Earth

Could some kind person please have a look at Miss Earth, try to establish which was a good version, and maybe semi it too for a while? If you have a look at the history you'll see what concerns me. I can edit only right now from a mobile and I think others might do a better job. Thanks 213.205.198.190 (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Miss Earth looks like it needs page protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Eh, I might take that back actually. Stand by :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging from this revision, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the current one so far. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so apart from recommending protection, I don't see anything blatantly wrong with the article's current revision. I'll leave this thread open for someone else to check out as well, just in case I missed something. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of bullying

EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I attempted to add a link to Workplace bullying in the CIVILITY policy. EEng reverted with the comment, "I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you." He has since made several accusations of bullying, some of which could be interpreted as being made in jest [172] [173] [174]. Is this acceptable? Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page I think you are right that you have falsely accused EEng of bullying, and no, I do not think it is acceptable. I recommend you dial down the rhetoric a few notches. HTH. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy: "I think you are right" that "you have falsely accused EEng of bullying" doesn't make sense to me, based up on the OP's statements. Do you mean "I think EEng is right"? Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Knopfler: "When you point your finger 'cause your plans fell through, you've got three more fingers pointing back at you." Burninthruthesky's description fitted xyr own editing much better than that of EEng, so I replied accordingly. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Quite disappointed in EEng, He usually scores a ten on the irony meter, not just a weak and measly 8 and a half. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

While still an underestimate I appreciate that you are, at least, not making the scurrilous implication found in another editor's comments recently [175]. EEng (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Burninthruthesky My edit summary in reverting your addition of the link was not, as you imply, a dismissive

I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you.

but rather

Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here.Please explain on Talk how it clarifies the policy. (And I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you)

By misrepresenting what I wrote you are engaging in bullying tactic #9, "Starting destructive rumors or gossip"; #10 "Encouraging people to turn against the person being tormented"; and (presumably) #22, "Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person". And this time I'm not kidding.

EEng (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: I apologize for the lack of clarity in my message above. I did not intend to imply that the section I quoted was the entire edit summary.

I am not seeking to have you "oust"ed. I have asked whether it is acceptable to make accusations of bullying in the manner that you have. I am not 'kidding', and I haven't been at any point in our discussion at CIVILITY. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was kidding (though making a completely serious point in doing so) in the diffs you posted in opening this thread, and since you obviously know that‍—‌you even said so‍—‌what in the world are we doing here? You've been posting to my talk page and shopping this around [176] and it's getting tiresome. EEng (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I said your messages "could be interpreted as being made in jest". When I read the first one, I took it at face value, as you will see in my response. It was only after your later response, and visiting your talk page, I realized you may not have meant it literally. I told you on your talk page that I didn't appreciate it [177]. You later responded, what sarcasm?. When you accused me again this morning, I was shocked, and decided I would rather leave the discussion than continue. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked, "What sarcasm?" because it wasn't sarcasm. It was irony. There's a real and (especially in this context) important difference. I expected you'd follow up, and then I'd make sure you understood that. Please take to heart the comments made by others to this thread. Even if you think I'm being sarcastic, or bullying you, or whatever‍—‌which I'm not‍—‌the right response is to ignore it and continue commenting on the actual subject of the discussion. Bullies and trolls feed on their victims' cries of protest. While it wasn't my intention (I frankly wouldn't have dared hope it) this episode vividly illustrates many editors' concerns about defining an expanding list of behaviors as "bullying". EEng (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did follow up, but then decided I'd rather drop it. I guess I will have to do the same here because the discussion is so full of double-entendre it's making my head hurt. Bye. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

---

Wd all realise that he quality of NPP leaves a lot to be desired but there is no need for experienced users such as HW to give us cause for concern, just as

It is with great hesitation that I have to report the conduct of such an experienced editor as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · count). Unfortunately, a large portion of his/her edits consist of arbitrary removal of AxD and CSD templates from various articles.[178] [179] [180] [181] [182] - these are just the last two days. His/her actions have met with resistance and questions from a large number of editors - please see User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

I don't know what is the community view on serial removal of deletion tags - maybe sometimes it can be justified - so I'd like to present this case to more experienced editors. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• There was nothing wring with removing those speedy tags. I agree with HW that none of those articles met the speedy deletion criteria. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• One of those is a PROD, which anyone can remove without explanation (and the removal was explained and warranted); the speedies were all removed with good cause as all the articles show claims of notability. Furthermore, you accused Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of remov[ing] speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, which was not the case at all, and you went on to say It's not the first time that you remove AfD [183], when in fact none of them are AfDs and HW has never removed an AfD tag. This is looking more and more like a WP:BOOMERANG for you, Kashmiri. I suggest withdrawing this thread while you still can. Softlavender (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Softlavender Thanks but I'll keep this. It's not WP:BOOMERANG - I simply see little point of discussing when WP:BRD is not followed, the editor pushing for an edit war instead [184] [185]. ANI is then my preferred way, sorry. What you mentioned is the text of the standard warning added through Twinkle, I have little control over it apart from the comment (and yes, it was not his/her first controversial AxD removal, in various articles). However, HW's mass removal was (rightly IMHO) objected in more than one case, say here [186] (HW's incorrect claim that article "survived AFD") or here [187] where the article was created by a SPA and obviously fails WP:NACADEMICS. As AKS.9955 wrote below, the mere speed with which HB removes templates, seemingy without actually going through sources quoted and edit history, is of concern. kashmiri ^TALK 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• These edits appear to be legitimate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wolfowitz certainly has issues when it comes to removing CSD and PROD templates. For instances, check this post on his talkpage. I am of the opinion that he is doing it AGF but he needs to slow down and exercise caution; especially when so many people have raised objections. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• AKS.9955 - I agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should be asked to review Wikpedia's CSD and AFD guidelines, exercise caution and slow down with his tag removals. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• ~Oshwah~, yup, I wouldn't be too worried about edits from Wolfowitz as it is evident that he is contributing positively to WP. From what I have noticed, he seems to be well aware about the policies however it is his speed which is causing the problems (as the case I cited above). Just my two bits on this issue. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Almost specific example noted seems to be an invalid deletion tag. Most are unambiguously bad tags, a few are debatably bad; in those cases a debate should happen, which is what WP:AFD is for. Instead of blasting HW for removing bad tags, maybe we should focus on educating the community on the proper use of the CSD system... --Jayron32 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid

This editor has been serially removed sourced content from several Islam-related articles, often about people, sometimes replacing it with different (contradicting?) content, and other times with nothing in particular. This was consistently left unexplained by any edit summary or talk page rationale.

Examples: Ibn Arabi Sunni Islam Ghazan Fatima Meer Omar Nasiri Essop Pahad Ahmed Kathrada (these last four are re-classifications of people as "former" Muslims based on their political stances, nevermind the "Religion: Communism" change in the last one).

Another editor started a discussion with them and then we talked at length about proper sourcing, but today I already found more edits of the identical type: Muwahhid Muslim Abubakar Gumi (this last removed a valid category and added a non-existent one instead). There is also this edit on Saudis, on which I have no clear opinion.

They clearly aren't "getting it". LjL (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the original complainant, and I suppose that not all their edits were BLP-concerns, as at least one person 'former'ed is dead. But it drew my attention as the articles mentioned one as a hajji and the another as having "boycotted Salman Rushdie" as a blasphemer. Numerous changes of 'Sunni' to 'Sufi', 'Wahabi' to 'Salafist', 'Salafist' (and others) to 'Kharijite', apparently a progression to more pejorative terms (certainly that last one), and all the while deleting refs and adding/changing to unrefd assertions.

They've hit 340 articles in 556 edits. Creating such worthy categories as Category:Canadian former Shia Muslims and Category:Gabonese former Christians (latter one twice). Very fine categorising and characterisation of people into mortal sinners with various terms. In checking 50+ recent edits I was amazed at the count of other editors having to revert/repair most of those edits. Some were not reverted only, I believe, because the average editor is not qualified to accurately argue what makes someone a 'foo-ist' vs. a 'baz-ist'.

They were immediately and repeatedly approached since beginning to edit (June 2014) to: use RS, not mass add categories without refs, stop section blanking, use edit summaries, marking BLP changes as minor, etc. All these behaviours however continue.

They justify their actions by 'fatwas' supporting their position. Additionally claiming non-Islamic texts/refs must be discounted. Without of course ever mentioning any refs/texts/graffiti. Completely unverifiable edits.

This is someone editing solely guided by a personal agenda, supported by selected sectarian opinions and never-specified texts/tracts. Unquestionable and unreferenceable truths make for bad editors. This is one of them. Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I said at least one person was dead, so maybe WP:BLP doesn't apply to her article? But if a dead person is falsely claimed not to have been a Muslim, does that not directly impinge upon her son Rashid's reputation? Does the BLP concern extend to children/relatives? Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat (and COI disclosure after edits)

I believe this edit should receive prompt attention. Thanks. LjL (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) LjL I've placed the legal threat warning on their talk page, just so they have a chance to understand the likely future block. Other than that, it's a pretty darn clear WP:NLT violation -- samtar ^whisper 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been at least another two self-proclaimed English Democrats members who have made legal threats against Wikipedia editors for editing the article about their party. They consistently fail to understand both WP:COI and WP:NLT. LjL (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked that account until such a time as they have retracted the legal threat. HighInBC 16:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: Just so you are aware of this unpleasant development. Keri (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe that, after three such incidents (I believe Snowded was the target of previous legal threats), something more permanent should be done about members of this party attempting to edit related articles on Wikipedia, especially now that (by virtue of posting on their blog) they have made it clear that they are in fact party members, and not just pretending to be, which could have been a possibility. LjL (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I celebrated the link on twitter as I think the nonsense speaks for itself. But yes its not the first time and we have a whole series of these type of problems on various right wing sites. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User Sir Joseph

I ask the admin to review the recent edit warring and misbehavior of Sir Joseph. He has displayed an extreme bias and major POV in recent edits. He has also engaged in edit warring on Hanukkah page and Menachem M. Schneerson, constantly removing properly sourced information with claims of original research. Further Sir Joseph has removed any record of my warning to him from his talk page. From taking a look at Sir Joseph's talk page, I noticed this is not the first time. TM (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to close this ASAP. As you can see from the MMM page, I commented in the RFC that the claim that the Rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education needs evidence. No such evidence was provided. On the Hanuka page, this user is pushing a Chabad POV. If you query ARBCOM, this was done in the past, CHABAD is known for being POV warriors, whether intentionally or not, but saying a holiday celebrated for thousands of years is due to one Rabbi is certainly POV and should certainly not be in the lead, and should certainly not be pushed with a POV book.Finally, I can revert my talk page, after all, it's my talk page. I would ask the admins to ask this user to read up on Wikipolicy and to read up on what constitutes bias and POV. This is a waste of everyone's time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you guys don't mind, would you please warn him for vandalizing my talk page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph did not just comment as he says here, but rather, deleted properly sourced information both on Menachem M. Schneerson and Hanukkah. There were two sources on Menachem M. Schneerson supporting the information that Sir Joseph deleted. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I have not yet put that information back since, unlike Sir Joseph, I do not want to engage in edit warring. Instead, I encourage the admin to review the talk page discussion there carefully. On Hanukkah as well, Sir Joseph has engaged in edit warring and deleted properly sourced information. In addition, the admin may want to have a look at User talk:Prepstarr25 who has inserted himself into Sir Joseph's edit warring and who it now seems Sir Joseph - after his subsequent comment on his talk page - is teaming up with. Fact are facts, even when we don't like them. TM (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you yesterday, tell me which page in the book does it say that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. You can't come in with the preposterous claim and then when I ask for evidence just say it's in the book. It's not. You are a POV pusher. I suggest you view the Chabad Arbcom case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, book title, authors and pages numbers are all sourced. Have a look. Don't just delete. Also, your recent Hanukkah edit warring has proved once again that you will delete any information, even when properly sourced, that you don't like. TM (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not once did you mention a page number in the MMM article. I am still waiting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Usually, facts brought here are backed up by specific diffs. Care to show them? From what I can see, for example, there is either no clear-cut edit warring on Hanukkah, or if two reverts count, then you reverted three times. LjL (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

He also warned me for reverting my own talk page, accused me of being a sockpuppet or being involved with a sockpuppet, this is the general behavior of someone not realizing that you can't push your way to your POV. If the Rebbe helped found the US DOE, there should be evidence of that. Show it and I'll gladly accept it.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets not confuse the facts. There was properly sourced information on Menachem M. Schneerson. Sir Joseph removed it and stated its false backing up his claims with original research and totally disregarding two published sources. He continuously claims, falsely, that no page numbers are provided. As I have said before, take a look at the sources on the page and see for yourself. Now with regard to Hanukkah. There was information in the lede supported by several published sources, including books, news-articles and academic papers. Sir Joseph has just deleted it for no reason. If Sir Joseph has an issue, it should be raised on the talk pages, and credible counter sources should be provided. According to Wikipedia guidelines, one cannot just delete credibly sourced information, just because one does not like it. Initially after Sir Joseph deleted it, I added additional sources to strengthen the claim. But Sir Joseph deleted these as well. In this case Sir Joseph has exposed himself as not liking chabad and therefore deleting relevant information even though it has been properly sources in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I can not replace the information at this point since I do not want to engage in edit wars, but I do ask the Admin to please look carefully at the history, the talk pages and all the sources provided (both re the role of MMS in DOE and the publicity of Hanukkah) and make the fair and balanced derision. TM (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So? Which page number? You keep saying it's in the book, so which page number says the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US Department of Education? A claim like that would not be hard to find. If it were my book, it would be on the jacket, the TOC, the header, it would be on the ad copy. Please let me know what page number. Don't just say that you saw it and put it, you need to bring proof for this ludicrous claim.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the Chanukka article, you added sources after I reverted. In addition, even those new sources, are not sources that belong in a lead of an article. If you want to include something like that, it belongs in the body not in the lead, otherwise it is extreme POV pushing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, Sir Joseph, to me the claim you removed ("honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department") seems to be backed by the given source, i.e.:

Sue Fishkoff (22 April 2009). The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-307-56614-0. by the late 1970s he was pushinig the Rebbe's first Washington campaign-the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Firstly, that source just says he campaigned for that, not that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, as is claimed. Secondly, the book is not a RS. It is biased to the Chabad POV. He is claiming, not that the Rebbe was campaigning or wanting a DOE but that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would result in lots more than a mention in a Chabad biography. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Continue reading the book and you will see that it speaks of Congress honor to him for his role in it's establishment. But seriously, now that you have been proven that it is published your claiming that the book is bias?? TM (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias does not mean bad, but a book like that can't be used to push a pro-Chabad POV since it's a pro-Chabad bias book. Like I said a million times, if you are asserting that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would be in a dozen newspapers and Congressional Records. You said the book says the book says Congress honors him, so that would be in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record would be a WP:RS. And again, you keep mentioning, keep reading, but you don't mention pages, you need to specify where your proof is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You can not engage in original research to disprove what is written in two separate books. Fishkoff page 191-2. Telushkin page 161. Yo are now also making a sweeping claim Fishkoff is a pro-Chabad bias book. What next? TM (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, The Rebbe's Army is a pro-Chabad book, and I did a keyword search and found no mention of the rebbe helping to found the US DOE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the book is not a valid source. Between this and your edits on the Hanukkah page, you have exposed yourself as having an agenda. I ask the admin to review this carefully. TM (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, this board doesn't really care about the content dispute, and you have WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of the sources. However, you claimed that the page number relevant to the claim was not given, but I think I showed it was given. So let's stay focused. I haven't even seen a single diff in this discussion being given as evidence for anything yet (except below, where a different dispute was apparently merged together with this one). LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So can we 1) close this and 2) comment on the below users conduct? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not yet look at Sir Joseph's (SJ's) edits on Hanukkah and Menachem M. Schneerson or any other articles (except Israel), thus I cannot comment on his behavior there.

SJ appears to have recently edit warred on Israel. SJ, together with user: WarKosign, appears to have edit-warred against four different editors. Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. SJ almost instantly reverted Nishidani, restoring content that violates V & RS. Zero000 reverted SJ's edit. WarKosign reverted back to the version violating V & RS. Johnmcintyre1959 reverted WarKosign, and WarKosign reverted back again. I reverted WarKosign's edit, and SJ reverted back again to the version violating V & RS.

I explained all of the above to SJ on his user talk page. Furthermore, I also explained to SJ on his user talk page that 'stability' of content is a relatively weak requirement and is not a valid reason to retain content that violates the infinitely stronger requirement to adhere to core WP content policies. I also wrote that 'stability' is not a valid reason to edit war (nothing is) - and in fact SJ's (and WarKosign's) repeated reverts are exactly what caused the content of Israel to be unstable.

SJ's best response would have been to take full responsibility for his behavior, acknowledge he has edit-warred, reassure the community he will not edit war again, and reassure fellow editors he understands 'stability' is not a valid reason to violate core policies. Instead, SJ appears to have wikilawyered, which is one of the worst ways he could have possibly responded, because it implies that SJ seems to be highly likely to repeat his disruptive behavior. IjonTichy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If, as you say you have no idea what you're doing here, why are you commenting? Can you stop stalking me? Reverting something is not edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

SJ's last comment is further evidence he refuses to take the ample opportunities provided to him here, and on his talk page, to reassure the community he intends to play by WP's rules. Instead he used these opportunities to continue to display his BATTLEGROUND approach. -- IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Says the person who posted a comment on WP:AN that has nothing to do with the WP:AN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: One revert on 30 November, and one on 2 December... you call that edit warring? LjL (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring can take place even without violating the 1RR restriction. On WP it is very important to follow the letter of the PAG, but it is even more important to abide by their spirit. IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can comment only on one case, Israel. There Sir Joseph followed WP:BRD and reverted an edit that he disagreed with, restoring a long-standing stable version. Several editors including IjonTichyIjonTichy attempted forcing the new version. Eventually edit warring stopped and we began discussing on the talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy did not contribute to the discussion, while Sir Joseph did. It seems that a new consensus has been reached, and it agrees with edit in question, but it was still wrong for IjonTichyIjonTichy to push it against existing consensus instead of discussing. In this it's clear that IjonTichyIjonTichy's behavior was more disruptive than Sir Joseph's. “WarKosign” 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure it can, but two reverts in the span of 3 days, with talk page discussion, is quite obviously not edit warring. LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously edit warring, because it is not only two reverts, it's SJ and WarKosign together reverting four editors on the same content (content that obviously violated V and RS). And by the way it's not 3 days, it's only two days (about 3 hours longer than 2 days). IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Then under the same token, the other four editors are edit warring too (especially those who did not take part in any talk page discussion). Perhaps the page should be full-protected. LjL (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• This looks a whole lot more like a content dispute than anything else. Take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Ani is not for content disputes. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only a content dispute. Both Sir Joseph and WarKosign clearly edit warred with Nishidani,   Johnmcintyre1959,   Zero0000 and myself, to force a version of Israel that violated V and RS. Moreover, they refuse to take responsibility for their disruptive behavior, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge that 'stability,' which they used as their edit summaries, is a weak requirement that does not justify violating the massively more important core requirements of V and RS. (In fact WarKosign just used the lame 'stability' excuse again above.) Additionally, they seem to conveniently believe that their participating in a talk page discussion gives them permission to edit war with editors who also participate in the discussion as well as with editors who have not participated in the article talk page discussion. So both Sir Joseph and WarKosign are also clueless, or they pretend to be.

Instead of reassuring the community they will abide by the PAG in the future, Sir Joseph and WarKosign are engaging in ad-hominem attacks (both of them have now accused me of disruptive behavior after I made only a single edit to the article to revert their repeated violation of V & RS), they display battleground behavior and are Wikilawyering. Instead of sending a signal to the community that they will stop disrupting the project, it appears they are sending a strong signal that it is highly likely they will continue to behave disruptively. IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your vendetta or stalking against me, it is seriously troubling. Please stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sirlanz

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

---

I’m on my phone so I have to keep it short. Could someone please review the recent editing of User:Sirlanz? Please refer to a personal attack at User talk:Lmmnhn, and disruptive editing at Elsie Tu which he admitted was intended to prove a point about “Chinglish” and “gibberish” by Hong Kong Wikipedians. Told Lmmnhn (a prolific editor of Hong Kong subjects here) to stick to editing the Chinese Wikipedia. Disruptive and needlessly combative/insulting editor. Citobun (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Citobun: you are required to notify the editor about discussions here, so I have done that for you -- samtar ^whisper 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Citobun (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sirlanz: shame on you for that huge shower of consecutive edits on Elsie Tu, which you made as separate edits just to make a WP:POINT. That's disruptive. LjL (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Removing CSD tag

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

---

Resolved

Mlpearc (open channel) 18:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@RivetHeadCulture: keeps removing CSD tag at Common Language (band) without discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because you are trolling. Just another try to remove me from Wikipedia. I'm working here since 2003. Believe me. You will not win. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware it was a game. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be a simple trout then, since if you've been here since 2003, you'd know you can't remove a CSD template from an article you created. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, you need to stop removing the CSD template. You're on the cusp of a 3RR violation, one more revert will lead to a block. Use the talk page to dispute the deletion as instructed in the template.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was beaten to it, but I was going to remove the CSD tag, as there is a plausible claim the band could meet WP:MUSIC with the releases on the Blast First label. This would be better served at AfD I think. RickKJr (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the CSD tag. The article has a source and mentions multiple albums from various record companies. It may pass but any further dispute would require AFD. Nevertheless, RivetHeadCulture should not have edit warred over the tagging and instead made the same point at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply corrupt. It all started after User:Binksternet removed reliable sources from an article. I told him to stop. He didn't answer. After that, two other guys, one of them an "administrator", started to "harass" me... Now, one of them tries to destroy one of my articles. This has nothing to do with constructive work. It's corrupt and destructive. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Attempted outing at Michael J. Yaremchuk AFD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk, User:Kashmiri has posted a COI accusation against the article creator, identifying them by name and employer. The article creator has not not identified himself on-wiki. Whatever the merits of the COI allegation, per WP:OUTING, this sort of post was not appropriate; accusations identifying the editor by name/employer should be transmitted privately, not posted publicly. Revdel is called for, and the poster should at least be strongly cautioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate redacting personal name by HW, it was my mistake to include it. However, I do insist that in case a PR agency appears to edit their clients' articles, knowing the agency's name is allowed and indeed indispensable to establish COI with certainty. Here, I only asked whether the single-purpose account is associated with a given PR agency.

At the same time please convince me that this is not a WP:REVENGE ANI report from HW (see a report filed by me ealier today above). kashmiri ^TALK 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted the edit and contacted the oversight team. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that in cases like this, don't draw additional attention to the inappropriate information by posting here. Just quietly blank it from wherever it's posted (or revdel if you're an admin), and send a diff to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. EEng (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)