Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “[b]efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Wikipedia articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Wikipedia works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Iridescent says:] This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[ScrapIronIV says:] While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[IJBall says:] I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (barbarians) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate, imprecise, confusing, and thus unscientific terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrianism (held by some as monotheistic and thus included among the “religions of the book”); including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism; including or not Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth, and one will never know which set of religions is meant by such terms, although one will always know that whoever is referred by such terms is or was supposed to be exterminated anyway. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to which culture victim of Christian or Islamic physical and cultural genocide the reference is made, whether to those of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the Native Americans, of the Yazidis, of the Greeks, of the Romans, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia dismissed, trivialized, and demonized by Christian propaganda as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing, dehumanizing, blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, specify, and therefore humanize such a wealth of religious traditions together with their followers, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One extra remark: while the words “pagan” an “paganism” are seldom or never used in relation to ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Sumerians, of the Egyptians, of the Akkadians, of the Harappans, of the Hittites, and so forth, which were not subjected to the episodes of physical and cultural genocide called “Christianization”, these very same terms are systematically used to describe those other polytheistic religions which were subjected to such episodes of genocide, such as those of the Celts, Slavs, Norse, Saxons, Prussians, Balts, Native Americans, and so forth. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the terms “pagan” and “paganism” were created and have served strictly as a war propaganda jargon in support of physical and cultural genocide, not unlike “idolater”, “infidel”, “devil worshipper”, “heathen”, “satanist”, “apostate” etc., variously used by Abrahamic religionists from biblical times (whatever is the fact behind biblical mythology) to the Islamic State in our days. In other words, there are arguably more similarities than differences between the Islamic State terrorist razing Palmyra or decapitating a Yazidi “idolater”, and the Christian-biased Wikipedia editor trying to raze even the scientific names for non-Abrahamic religions exterminated by Christianity or trying to decapitate a co-editor just because they have objected to the obsessive, indiscriminate use of such Christian-terrorist jargons as “pagan” and “paganism”. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Wikipedia page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Wikipedia linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Wikipedia is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Wikipedia with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, since Jewish tribes are not necessarily implied in my edit, and given the word's many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

When it comes to ignorance of the meaning of words, consulting dictionaries, or just reading in general, makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search for the word “derogatory.”

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

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Wikipedia editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

However, just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some authoritative quotations from the above links:

“Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Paganism has also been understood by some[who?] to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally[who?] seen as insulting by adherents of those religions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Perception

“Pagan, adjective”

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.”

“Pagan, noun

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.”

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

“Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

“'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one.” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

“...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] It [pagan]] merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

You might want to elaborate a bit more in depth on your thoughts, and explain exactly why you say that the derogatoriness of a term is irrelevant within a discussion centered on... the derogatoriness of the same term!

Or maybe you want to say that the derogatoriness of the term “pagan” is irrelevant in the context of an article describing the extermination of a people and its religion just because they were, eh... “pagan”, is it?

[Nyttend says:] It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning,

For about two millenia, and always with the same derogatory meaning and purpose, as extensively shown elsewhere in this discussion, to wit, as the foremost war-propaganda enemy-bashing hate-jargon supporting the physical and cultural genocide globally perpetrated against countless non-Christian peoples, called “Christianization”, akin to the 1400 years old parallel physical and cultural genocide waged against non-Muslim peoples known as “Islamization”, both parts and continuation of a wider and older relentless war against humanity, civilization, and religious freedom, known as “Abrahamization”, which started when Hebrews invented the so-called “first Noahide commandment”, which commands and wants binding on all of humanity, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike, full surrender and submission to the Hebrew tribal “god”, the cruel, murderous, genocidal, envious, narcissistic, exclusivistic, monomaniac, mythical creature of a sick imagination, known as “Yahveh”, as represented, of course, by “his” “chosen people”, the Hebrew, thus conveniently elevated by their own supremacistic mythology to the supreme rank among nations, with a little help from their Christian and Muslim ideological vassals.

[Nyttend says:] and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant.

Of course. They will understand exactly what is meant, to wit, “someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen”, a “devil worshipper”, an “idolater”, “someone worth being burned at the stake”, “someone from a worthless culture worth being destroyed and denied”, and so forth.

Jsp722 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here; all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect. You also need to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries and personal attack edit summaries. That said, in the instances I looked at and the instances mentioned above, the replacement of the word pagan with the more accurate specific, neutral, and correct terms has been an improvement. "Pagan" is not, and should never be used as, an antithesis of "Christian" or other 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-millennium religions, monotheistic religions, or Abrahamic religions. Where specificity is available and verifiable, specificity should be used. Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

[SoftLavender says:] Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here;

Dear SoftLavender, thank you for your remarks. My usage of the phrase “my humble edits” is just a polite way of saying that I would be happy to listen to diverging opinions, or that I don't expect my edits to by accepted without question.

It is an expression akin to “in my humble opinion”, often initialized by IMHO, and described by Wiktionary as an expression “[u]sed to introduce or qualify a statement, as expressing one's own view, not one backed by external authority or to be accepted without question”, although in case my expressed views are even lavishly supported by external authority, which IMHO makes my usage of the word “humble” very humble indeed.

What makes you construe standard good manners and politeness as “crap” is beyond me, but is probably not my problem either, and therefore I'll let it go.

As to the supposed “condescending attitude” from my side, you might care to specify where did you find it, instead of just irresponsibly machine-gunning your subjective perceptions as though they were some sort of obvious truth.

Finally, as to your compulsive need to start sentences addressing others with the commandeering phrase “You need”, which is hardly a show of collaborative and collegial civility and respect, I'll leave the topic for you to discuss privately with a professional, if so you wish.

[SoftLavender says:] all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect.

As the old saying goes, “you teach best what you most need to learn.”

[SoftLavender says:] You also need

Did I say it was compulsive?

[SoftLavender says:] to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries

I believe that expressions such as “pagan” and “paganism” are indeed politically motivated, and highly so to that effect; a well-documented genocide-supporting, religious-terrorist propaganda slur, to put it mildly, not unlike the “idolater” and “devil-worshiper” name-calling used by Islamic State terrorists in support of their own unspeakable mass-murderings. Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, I wonder why a reference to the slurring-propagandistic nature of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” should be excluded from edit summaries, since they are one among the many important reasons justifying the edit to start with!

[SoftLavender says:] and personal attack edit summaries.

Since you have failed to offer any evidence in support of your presumably subjective, impressionistic assessment, may I assume that your accusation is not serious, and therefore can be safely ignored.

[SoftLavender says:] Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus.

This has been my main, often repeated point from the very start, as you can see if you just care to read all of my posts on this thread.

However, for some unknown reason, some people, in a somewhat hysterical way, saw my humble objections against the usage of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” as some sort of transcendental-disciplinary-issue-and-existential-threat-against-Wikipedia-urgently-necessitating-the-violator's-summary-crucifixion, which in turn necessitated my, er, humble subsequent responses together with explanations on my own views on the topic.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Someone's threatened to crucify you? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You are obviously a Crucifixion denier. Jsp722 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Is that your joke? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Anyone's. Jsp722 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, no. Not mine. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Did someone say everyone's? Jsp722 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Someone said "some people, in a somewhat hysterical way". 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Congratulations. Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Tired already? Why am I a "Crucifixion denier"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You missed the opportunity to ask. Now you have to figure it out by yourself. Jsp722 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Ah yes, handy that. Struggling already, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I see. Just keep struggling, then send some news. Jsp722 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We can see why you're so popular here. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Awesome. Are you two, or how many? Jsp722 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I sense the beginning of a bromance here! - theWOLFchild 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Rock on. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Martinevans, being a “we”, can easily “bromance” themselves self-sufficiently (assuming of course that the two or more “me” making up their “we” belong to the same gender). Jsp722 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We obviously can have no issue with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. The central idea, that the word "pagan" is often misused, is probably a valid one. But Jsp722 seems to be more concerned with rubbishing the views of other editors and sneering at their supposed ignorance. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My general feeling is that the discussion about the terms “pagan” and “paganism”, which gave rise to the current thread (please see its title), is for the moment rather exhausted, and reasonably settled, with general agreement on the shortcomings of the terms, which is arguably an asset for Wikipedia's future development. Clearly this Administrative noticeboard/Incidents page was not the appropriate place for such discussion, but that is the way it happened. There was some noise at the very end of the thread, by people who gave absolutely no contribution to it, and apparently more interested on provocative jesting, or on venting personal frustrations, than on actually contributing to the settlement of the topic — a settlement which has been reasonably achieved and was the only purpose of the current incident. Jsp722 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There were two points. The first is the substantive one about the use of "pagan" and other words, which I hope we have indeed exhausted. The other is about interactive style, in particular Jsp722's, though a quick riffle through history does suggest that other editors have made some contribution to the problem. The paragraph immediately above is an example of an approach and style thoroughly inappropriate here. (In a college session of friends setting the world to rights it might be far more appropriate, context is key.) Jsp722, would you accept any sort of mentoring? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course! I'm here to learn. (Although your two sentences before the last remain a bit of a mystery to me). Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the word "pagan" as commonly used is inappropriate for a world encyclopedia for the reasons noted. It would be far better to name the religion or culture the word "pagan" was intended to reference. I also agree that Jsp722 needs to learn some manners in order to be more effective at effecting the changes he'd like to see. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be my mentor, as proposed by Richard, if this is feasible. I'm ready to learn about manners, about effectiveness at change, and about just anything else from you, or from anyone else to that effect. Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds much more encouraging. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can have many mentors! From Hebel I'll learn obsessively to wikistalk/wikihound editors for personal motives, to gratuitously mass-disrupt and vandalize their useful edits, and to still have the impudence to report my victim to an ANI page; from IJBall I'll learn to join the chorus frantically asking the summary elimination of disliked editors just for the fun of it; from Iridescent I'll learn to suggest that other editors are “Nazis” in the lack of any other arguments; from Nyttend I'll learn to find fault in the faultless, and bold-facely to pretend that I have never heard that “pagan” is a derogatory word; from SoftLavender I'll learn to start every sentence addressed to another editor with a domineering “You need to”, the joylessness to dismiss even standard collegial politeness as “crap”, and the exhilarating pleasure to be found in controlling and punishing; and from Martinevans I'll learn to refer to myself as “we”, and how to spend my night making witty remarks without falling asleep! Jsp722 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job it's not a case of "us and them". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you come again with your “us” thing... But I have to agree, this is indeed a case where Pagan is wonderful! Jsp722 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not quite so encouraged by Rklawton's mentorship, admin or no admin. Given the advice offered here, I don't feel that Rklawton is paying correct attention to the content of the article he has suggested has some form of 'redundant' information about who followed what religion. Given that the subject of the article (being Sviatoslav I of Kiev) is someone we don't know very much about, the length of the section on religious affiliations, and the context of a changing European politico-religious landscape, and the lack of any positive or negative connotations as to religious choices outside of an alliance-based predisposition, suggesting that any references to religion are redundant seems more like a WP:BADIDEA than a desire to improve the content of the article. Perhaps I have misunderstood Rklawton's reading of the article and he could enlighten me as to why "It's amazing to me that someone would link a person's religion to a generic article that essentially proves your assertion that its use is POV.". How is the article 'generic'? How is Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology a gratuitous use of mentions of his religion as opposed to that adopted by his mother and other political figures around him? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have gone way too far discussing content on an ANI page. It is irrelevant here whether or not “in the context of changing European politico-religious landscape” or “outside of an alliance-based predisposition” it is a “WP:BADIDEA” to discuss “Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology”, let alone the “religion adopted by his mother”. Not only irrelevant, but preposterous. Please ladies and gentlemen, cast your votes below, so that we can put an end to this farce, and so that those willing seriously to collaborate can work. Thanks! Jsp722 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: in your rebuttals above, you've linked twice to simple wikt, but not to ordinary wikt where the primary defintioins are in no way pejoratuve? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer: For whatever reason, the editor of the simplewiki used “derogatory”, whereas the editor of the ordinary wiki used “pejorative”, in both cases to define“pagan”. Therefore, “pejorative”, although not “derogatory”, is found on the ordinary wiki at least 4 times, as quoted below:

• “2. (by extension, pejorative) Savage, immoral, uncivilized, wild.”
• “(civilisation): barbarian, barbaric (pejorative).”
• “2. (by extension, pejorative, politically incorrect) An uncivilized or unsocialized person.”
• “3. (pejorative, politically incorrect) Especially an unruly, badly educated child.”
• Also, on the ordinary wiki, the word “pagan” appears precisely because it is an entry on the list of English pejoratives”.

As you can see, “pagan”, itself a demonized word, is used as a particularly perverse way of demonizing even “misbehaving” children; demon (Anc. Grk. “daimon”) itself being a satanized word; “Satan” (Hbr. “adversary”) itself being a devilized word; “Devil” (Sanskr. “deva”, “god”, “luminous being”) itself being an evilized word, and so forth.

The idea here is to make out of whoever does not toe the line of the Abrahamic “god” the very definition of “evil”, “evil” itself being defined in Abrahamic religions not as murdering and so forth, bit as opposing a murdering “god”. Jsp722 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But those definitions are not the primary ones, are they. As you rightly point out, Jsp722, they are (2), (2) and (3) respectively. That doesn't make "pagan" necessarily a "demonized word." It depends on the context as to which meaning is intended, and thus whether or not it's inappropriate. I think that's why many people may see your crusade against use of this word as misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less like “shit”. Definition #1 is just feaces/feces, perfectly neutral; definition #2 is derogatory. The same applies to “ass”, and any number of slurs you can imagine. The devil is in definition #2. Besides, as already noted elsewhere, not only the word's overtones are derogatory, but its origin as well; it is a word meant from the start to be derogatory which became a name for those derogated. Therefore, in this case, the devil is in definition #1 as well. But, may I insist, this is a topic to be discussed on specific talkpages, maybe one day even on dispute resolution pages, but not here. Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's just your interpretation. Insist all you like, but this is a general discussion based on the overall pattern of your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was suspecting this; please don't tell anyone, and just pretend that we don't know anything. Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m not “just pretending that you don't know anything”. I’m suggesting that your comparison of the word “pagan” with the word “shit” is not a very good one. I’d say that “shit” is used more often than not in a derogatory way. It’s frequently used as an expletive, for example, which pagan never is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You managed to miss your own point, which is that the derogation is most often in meaning #2, just this. And being an expletive is not a requirement for being derogatory, although calling a “misbehaving” child “pagan” is surely an expletive. Jsp722 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m aware that words can have more than one meaning. And yes, meanings can sometimes be unclear, or can partly merge. But in this case, whereas I see a word with two separate meanings, you seem to see a word that has always carries a mixture of all possible meanings. I certainly didn’t say that being an expletive is a requirement for being derogatory. Calling a misbehaving child a “pagan” might be an insult, it might be bigotry, but it is certainly not “an expletive”. Additionally, I don’t think that the origin of a word has any significant place in its meaning in everyday use. Most people will use the word “pagan” without any knowledge at all of its etymology. I’m pretty sure that’s true for most words used by most speakers of modern English. So I think your overly-prescriptive approach is based on quite false premises there. Should we ban the word “influenza” because it had its origins in medieval astrology? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not like “shit”. A word can only be disparaged as “derogatory” or as a "slur" when it is clearly and according to most and many sources, generally in such use. However, the word “pagan” is still used to describe something, even in fairly recent scholarly works about the subject. Your personal opinion about that word is therefore just that, when it comes to it’s use here on Wikipedia. That may change of course but that is not up to us as editors here. Maybe it’s not the most fortunate of words, but we can say that about some other words that are in general use as well. And for the time being it is in general use. Your offense may very well be, as derived from your above comments, just your personal opinion about the matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many slurs are embedded in language and in people's thoughts, deformed as they often are by millenia-old massive slurring propaganda and bestial beliefs transvestite as “religion” (no offence intended to beasts, please) most people hardly even perceive that they are slurring, a fact well described by the Microaggression Theory;
• recency, laziness, carelessnes, and even claimed unawareness do not make a slur less of a slur, and unawareness is hardly a distinction for scholars;
• your views about the sacred mission of Wikipedia editors as perpetrators and perpetuators of slurs is fascinating, but hardlly fit a disciplinary page; and
• your noble view about the slur being the fault of the slurred brings tears to the eyes, and surely the world will be a better place when more people think like you!

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're now telling us that "many slurs are embedded ... in people's thoughts"? Yes, I think a discussion about such things probably belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the end, everything boils down to thought and language, I think. I don't know where you think this discussion belongs, but I see its placement on a disciplinary page is a tragicomic excrescence in Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself. I have also put this comment as a comment in the section below which may not have been the right place to write it. I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing has led a number of other editors to think that a general discussion on the use of those words might be more efficient than leaving discussion "to the talkpages of each specific article". You seem to think that those words have no proper place in this encyclopedia at all? Where would a general discussion be best placed? At WP:DR perhaps? But then there are also editors who think your approach to editing itself warrants some kind of sanction. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely words such as “pagan” and “paganism” have a proper place in Wikipedia, for instance on Lists of pejorative terms for people. Otherwise such usage of words should be checked at each specific occurrence, in order to ascertain the best replacement. Since “pagan” and “paganism” are just generic, blanket, and on top of it indefinite words, and this another of their essential shortcomings, each occurrence may require a different replacement and rephrasing. There are many partially or entirely distinct religions and sets of religions indiscriminately labeled as “paganism”, and thus no room for a simplistic “one size fits all” here.

As to the best place for discussing the issue, while I believe it should be each article's specific talkpage or, in case of need, a dispute resolution page, but never a disciplinary page, others may indeed think otherwise. Since I am no administrator, this is actually not my problem; I just discuss the topic with whoever might be interested on it, wherever it is decided by administrators.

The unasked question, however, is whether or not this topic, rather than my “pattern of editing” is a disciplinary issue warranting some kind of sanction. Probably those favorable to the indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism” will tend to see any scrutiny as a disciplinary issue, while those favorable to scrutiny will tend to see the topic as something to be freely discussed on talkpages, and anyway no good reason for any kind of disciplinary action.

In general, however, I believe that treating any debatable topic as a disciplinary issue is an unhealthy sign for Wikipedia, but my contribution cannot go beyond just offering this remark.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2016 (U TC)

I don't see anyone here advocating "indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism”". And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever would deliberately have such an agenda. I would suspect that misuse of those words, if that misuse can indeed be agreed by consensus, will probably have grown up incrementally and unnoticed over many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The very usage of the Christian slurs “pagan” and “paganism”, as already extensively shown and largely agreed upon, is itself indiscriminate by nature, which is by the way the very nature of slurs in general, specially of those intended to support genocides, such as those perpetrated by Christianity.

It would be very difficult to perpetrate relentless genocides against countless peoples and cultures throughout two millenia without an agenda. Surely a Ku Klux Klan member has an agenda when they call people perceived as dark-skinned “niggers”.

The bestiality of a behavior is often unnoticed, specially by perpetrators. Islamic State fanatics decapitating, drowning, burying, and burning alive a “kafir” (“disbeliever”, the Muslim word for “pagan”) probably do not realize the bestiality of their own behavior: rather, they think it is pure behavior recommended by their scriptures (which happens to be exactly the case).

The Christian usage of the terms “pagan” and “paganism” are in every respect similar and paralell to the Muslim usage of terms such as “kafir” and “shirk”; they are the derogatory epithets given to “disbelievers”, in order to justify their physical and cultural elimination. And it is not less so just because it is “unnoticed” by some, or because the usage grew up incrementally over many years.

Another similar word is “apostate”, which was for centuries used by Christian hate-propagandizers, for instance, to name in a derogatory way the Roman emperor Julian, which they called “Julian the Apostate”. After a long and heated debated, folks decided that 1700 years of slur were not enough to justify the continuation of such despicable usage on Wikipedia, and moved the page from “Julian the Apostate” to “Julian (emperor)”, and the world did not come to an end.

By the way, that fruitful debate happened in a civilized way, without any threat of disciplinary action against anyone, although it changed such a millenia-old usage. The same should apply to the current discussion about “pagan” and “paganism”, no matter how many pages might be potentially affected by refreshing views on the topic.

Indeed, on each page someone may raise objections, and these objections will have to be discussed, and if there is no agreement there will be a dispute resolution by a neutral party. And there are 1.150.000 Google results for the search “Wikipedia pagan”, plus 450.000 results for the search “Wikipedia paganism”.

Therefore, phobic reactions and accusations that my “modus operandi” is somehow disruptive make no sense at all, specially because my 5 or so edits (please check and correct if you have time) have all been largely found to be good and praised as better than the original “pagan” or “paganism”, even by experienced and learned editors, on this very page.

Therefore, dear Martinevans123, please cast your vote so that this ridiculous disciplinary incident, regretted even by its very initiator, comes to its deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You say this discussion "doesn't belong here", but then add another huge wall of your own carefully constructed argument. I see we've now moved on to "niggers". And you've made just "5 or so edits"? I'm sure closure of this thread does not depend in any way on my !voting, dear Jsp722. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not me deciding where this discussion takes place. Never heard that giving an example means moving to another topic. Twenty-seven edits on the pagan thing since 2009, according to last count, as detailed below. Of course it depends on you, Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative. Jsp722 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on this place seems to have been inadvertently deleted by this edit I'm going to resore it here again. Sorry if there was any mistake. As far as I can see the word “pagan” is descriptive of some religions or religious practices we know of or know very little about in a historical sense. And it has been and is still used widely to describe that phenomenon or set of phenomena. Of course it has also been used in a negative sense, but I (and many others that still try to use in a purely descriptive sense) don’t think the word should be disparaged just for that. The word “Deva”, the Indian word for “God” may very well be the origin of the word “Devil” (and it wasn't an Abrahamic religion that made it so) but it is also a cognate of “Dieux” (French) and “Deity” (English). Revivalists of pre Christian religions call themselves Neopaganist! What I mean to say is that if a multitude of sources show that a word is clearly objectionable, we, here on Wikipedia, would seriously have to consider that. On the other hand we are dealing here with a word that, for now, is in general use to describe a particular phenomenon. We don’t get to judge that. Others might do so in the future, but that is not the task of an editor in Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any inadvertent indeed deletion; now I'm afraid of reverting it and making things even more complicate, so I leave as it is. Now short answers, so that people may concentrate on all-important disciplinary issues without losing their time with unimportant content issues.

• The argument of “knowing little” about “paganism” is hardly a justification for the naming.
• Looks like Abrahamic religions have lots of Iranian roots, including the demonized “deva” thing, plus ressurrection, final judgment, militancy, and so forth.
• As words clearly show, “Dieu” is actually the “Devil”!
• Revivalist introjection of slurs is hardly an argument, specially because such a folk as Sviatoslav I was hardly a revivalist; please note that American Blacks proudly call themselves “Niggas”, adapted from the racist, derogatory ”Niggers”.
• Finally, your whole case for defining Wikipedia as a tool for perpetrating and perpetuating slur, while interesting, can be appreciated in other places, hardly on this ANI page.

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness (including this latest salvo [1]) are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting and personal attacking going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks like a content dispute, unnecessarily brought to teh drama boards, in which the content issue has largely been resolved in favor of Jsp722's position. Good faith editing and failure to properly grovel in the face of the almighty power of the admins are not good reasons for any kind of disciplinary action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons above. Jsp722 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Just for your information, the issue is already well-resolved for quite a while, thanks to the active contribution of many users, while your only contribution has been your persistent, disruptive bid to make a tempest in a teapot, demanding disciplinary measures on the basis of triffling issues, such as me referring to my own edits as “my humble edits”. Jsp722 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment it is not normally allowed for !votes from subjects of proposed bans, when the !vote is about them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment If so, the one proposing the ban should not be able to vote either, as the vote is about their proposal Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it works over here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So be it. Everyday we learn something new. Still, giving double weight to accusation and zero weight to defense sounds a bit unbalanced, if I'm allowed to say so. Besides, apart from medieval, inquisitorial judgments (and any deliberation, even consensual, is a judgment), the accuser should never judge, to start with because of their natural bias in favor of their own accusation. Jsp722 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion would sit far more comfortably at DR. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A topic ban is necessary when an editor refuses to budge on one particular issue. Jsp has shown a willingness to learn and has accepted at least one mentor. Wikipedia has several noted "single issue" editors who have helped Wikipedia move forward, and I'm confident that Jsp can successfully join their ranks. And, of course, Jsp has raised an excellent point about the use of the word Pagan in our articles. Many of our articles would be much better served if we could specify a subject's religion with reliable sources rather than label it with a term that could mean almost anything. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• His response seemed to cast the meaning of the term "mentor" in a new light?Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not new. Learning what not to do from the mistakes of others is surely a very old idea. Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not the style of mentoring that Rklawton had in mind. That's not to say that many people, myself included, don't come to this page to try and learn from the mistakes of others. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably I misunderstood what you meant; sometimes you are a bit esoteric. Anyway, if you are interested on more details on the style of mentoring implemented by Rklawton, you are welcome on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban. Now it seems to be that their modus operandi is to go to every article where "pagan" appears (presumably excluding the article Paganism) and replace it with other words to that effect. The problem with this approach is that article descriptions of religions should be based on reliable sources, not POV pushing as to the suitability of the word. From the above walls of text I feel it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on these issues. Also, I simply don't believe in the real world that "pagan" is particularly pejorative, with organizations such as the Pagan Federation proud to use the term. Therefore I would support this restriction. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search, there are 1.150.000 occurrences of “Wikipedia + pagan”, plus 454.000 of “Wikipedia + paganism”. I have edited some 5 instances (you may go through my history and correct the number), all of them with detailed edit summaries. When my changes were opposed, I did not engage in any edit wars, rather waiting for the opportunity to engage in discussions on talkpages. All of my changes have been scrutinized on this thread and found to be good, despite some criticism to my edit summaries, which I have accepted. Therefore your attitude seems to be a bit exaggerated and alarmist, and actually tending dogmatically to impose wording to wikipedia without allowing for the possibility of discussion, which adds to the weakness of your argument in support of it, since, after all, people like Sviatoslav I were not “neopagans” anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you've slowed down it may be due to this active thread. But it is clear from your above comments that you consider "pagan" a pejorative word, which you would like to see expunged from Wikipedia. I disagree with both of these points. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Which means that you want to impose a disciplinary sanction just because of a content disagreement. Like sending Galileo to burn at the the stake just because the Earth was flat. Congratulations. Maybe we rename Wikipedia to Inquipedia! Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, it seems that Galileo and his mates were all pagans. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just “tendentious”. Jsp722 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Jsp722 has useful contributions to make, but is making them in a way that disrupts the encyclopaedic project. I would suggest mentorship on discussion style, if Jsp722 will accept it, first. Would Rklawton be willing to lead this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From my side already gladly accepted; from Rklawton's side he is willing to lead and already effectively leading, as one can be see on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask if Rklawton has the time and inclination to take this on formally? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Richard, following your suggestion, I have accepted Rklawton's “mentorship” in an informal way, because I have learned to appreciate his human qualities, knowledge, and skills. I see him, as I could see others, rather as a beneficial friend capable of helping making my contributions better. However, I'm not at all interested on accepting any “formal mentoring”, or anything which might restrict my legitimate freedom as an editor. If this means that you will vote for my ban, please vote for it by all means.

Me and other users such as David Eppstein and _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} obviously have different opinions from yours about what does it mean to be “disruptive” and what should be or not treated as a disciplinary issue, and anyway I am vastly used not to be on the “winning” side. Wikipedia has countless other topics of my interest, and even if I am banned from editing all of them I still enjoy the good fortune of having plenty of rewarding activities in life. Therefore, please cast your vote so that this tragicomic incident, which should never have started, and which was regretted with perplexity by its very own initiator, comes to its well-deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed to help mentor Jsp with the caveats he has noted above. This is not a "formal" relationship - just a collegial one between two editors who wish to see Wikipedia continually improved. Rklawton (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I suppose my main criteria for success would be for Jsp722 to discuss in a style that doesn't needlessly irritate people who tend to agree with his substantive points, and doesn't needlessly distract people who tend to disagree with them. Softlavender, would you think this a good point to close this thread, or are any further actions required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the reasoning of User:Mrjulesd. A cooling off period on the topic would be a good idea, so the contributor can practice his interaction in less confrontational areas. --Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If I were mentoring (I'm not volunteering) I'd probably suggest some sort of cooling off period. But I'd be happy to leave that to a voluntary arrangement with an experienced editor such as Rklawton. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Softlavender. Having seen this issue from both sides, and seen the extent to which Jsp722 seems prone to disregard WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and similar guidelines, that time might allow Jsp722 to gain needed perspective on the issues leading to tendentious editing regarding the word pagan. A word to Jsp722: please consider taking some time to study the pagan communities who embrace the term to describe themselves. Dar Williams' excellent "The Pagans and the Christians" on YouTube might help desensitize you to the word 'pagan,' and convince you that it is far from always pejorative. And please take advantage of the offers of help from more experienced editors here. loupgarous (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”! I'm sure the same happens in Saudi Arabia or in al-Raqqa when someone questions equivalents slurs such as “kafir” or “shirk”. American Blacks embraced the slurring “nigger” as “nigga”, but “nigger” is not the less slurring. Besides, Sviatoslav I of Kiev or massacred Quichua South-American aboriginals were hardly “Neopagans”, and should hardly be described according to “neopagan” fashion. While a word does not have to be “always” pejorative in order to be a slur, the fact is that the pagan word was born and has been used for almost two millenia as a religious slur to justify physical and cultural genocide, to which you appear to be rather desensitized. Furthermore, the “pagan” word says nothing, as it is just a negation, an indefinite generality, a fuzzy word for “non-Christian” (and many other possible negations, which just add to the uselesness of the word, as already extensively discussed above), which says nothing about what is supposed to be described. Jsp722 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Jsp722 is now showing 'red'. Is this an indication that the user's retired his username permanently or deleted it? loupgarous (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No it does not mean that. From the looks of it, User:Jsp722 should have always been red. Since they have never created a userpage the link to their userpage shows up red. -- GB fan 10:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, after wading through numerous walls of text, I've come to the opinion of weak support. Jsp722 believes "pagan" to be pejorative. I don't think it is important whether it is or is not, but Jsp722's belief is important. The usage of the word "pagan" can be, and has been vague in some very clear cases (like "Norse religion") and some where reasonable minds can disagree (like "followers of traditional religions" here). Making the encyclopedia more accurate is a good thing. However, it seems that Jsp722 is engaging in this editing to get rid of the pejorative word without regard for whether the instance of its inclusion is reasonable or not (see the edit summaries in particular: [2] [3] [4] [5]). Further, and probably more concerning it seems that Jsp722's editing style is a little less than civil as SoftLavander has pointed out [6]. While I respect that resonable minds can disagree on whether the edits are an improvement in specific instances, and single purpose accounts can be helpful, I think on balance, Jsp722's pattern of editing is causing more disruption than improvement, and a break from topics in the subject and mentoring on how to edit in less heated areas would benefit them when they are able to return after a few weeks time. I think 6 months might be too much, but I don't have a particular alternative. Wugapodes (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To briefly clarify, my reasoning is not simply in response to the removal of "pagan" but Jsp722's larger pattern of tendentious editing. While those few edits relating to "pagan" which they enumerated below wouldn't cause me too much pause alone, they are part of a pattern that seems to show me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia but to righting great wrongs. A pattern that is not recent but has extended back to 2010: paganism-related in 2010 paganism related in 2010 [7] paganism related in 2011 something about whitewashing in 2011 changing of Burma to Myanmar. A number of these edits were helpful and improvements, but as I said above, the way in which Jsp722 goes about them is tendentious and causing disruption. As such, I still support a temporary topic ban, not because of the specific recent removal of pagan but because of the larger pattern of editing. Wugapodes (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, let's change the proposal, from ”temporary topic ban” to “permanent user ban”. I can improve my “civility”, I can offer smoother edit summaries, I can be less rude and sneering, I can refrain from personal attacks, I can gladly accept mentorship, I can learn and abide by Wikipedia rules, I can do or make an effort to do nearly everything I've been recommended to by both sympathetic and unsympathetic editors. What I cannot, however, is change what you call my “edit pattern”. As already remarked elsewhere, I am the avid reader, and the occasional editor. If I find something which I believe to be unfitting, I contribute an alternative, with a justification. If it is not accepted, so be it; I have never entered edit wars. Most of my edits have been accepted, some thanked, even praised; after 1700 years, for instance, the Roman emperor Julian is not anymore the “Apostate”, and so on. This is my way of collaborating; if this does not fit Wikipedia, please kick me out by all means. Now to say that I am “tendentious” just because I changed the colonial name of a country for its actual, legal, official name; or because I stated that a person, not a company, offers bribes; or because I replace hyper-tendentious slur “pagan” with neutral “follower of traditional Slavic, German, Semitic, Greek, or Quichua religion” is beyond me. Maybe I'm just in the wrong place! Jsp722 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Starting on February 11, 2009 and ending on January 7, 2016 (when this incident started), 83 months in all, I could find exactly 27 edited paged where edits were performed by me replacing words such as “pagan” and “paganism” with descriptive phrases such as “Norse religion” or “ancestral Slavic religion”. This makes an average of 0,32 edited pages per month, or one edit every three months. Recent edits were as follows:

1 Dazbog

2 Prussian Mythology

3 Germanic paganism

4 Old Prussians

5 Kaaba

6 Quraysh

7 Hubal

8 Sviatoslav I of Kiev

9 Varangians

10 Gamla Uppsala

11 Himyarite Kingdom

Edit #1 was “thanked” by the learned and experient editor Ivan Štambuk.

Edit #9 was praised and supported as “entirely appropriate” by barnstarred user ScrapIronIV, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #2 and edit #5 were both praised as “an improvement” by multi-barnstarred user Richard Keatinge, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #8 was initially rejected by multi-awarded veteran editor Iryna Harpy, who notwithstanding later accepted the possibility of a suitable replacement for ”pagan” with the following words: “We'll see whether we can table a proposal on the article's talk page that other editors find acceptable”, as it can be seen from my talkpage.

All of the remaining 22 mentioned edited pages are similar. Besides, among the total 27 edited pages I could find only 5 which have been reverted by other editors in the last almost 7 years, until Hebel, the initiator of the current thread, at once reverted several of the most recent ones. However, even this user regretted the direction taken by the current incident with the words: “but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go?”, showing vivid willingness to discuss the topic outside disciplinary constraints, as one can see above, by the end of the main thread.

I hope that this objective data may help to put the current discussion in its due perspective. I'm no “vandal” (itself an ethnic slur) indiscriminately destroying Wikipedia pages . Rather, I'm the avid reader and the occasional editor; and whenever I edit I offer substantial edit summaries justifying my changes, without ever having entered any edit wars.

And no, mine is not a “single purpose account”, as suggested by Wugapodes above; my edits since February 11, 2009, have ranged from ancient Israel, to Sumeria, to human sacrifice, to Western philosophers such as Cassirer, Heidegger and Bergson, to Jainism, to Amorites, to Yoga, to Hindu conceptions of godhead, to American pharma companies, to German historians, to Scythians, to South Indian monasteries, to fighter jets, to Tibetan oracles, to the Greek Delphi, to Dionysian Mysteries, to Hebrew dynasties, to Epicureans, to Indian atomic theories, to Buddhist discourses, to Mongolian alphabets, to Tibetan dissidents, to Belarussian statecraft, to Chinese warlords, to Kashmiri pandits, to Kartvelian-speaking people, to Icelandic alphabets, to Iranian newspapers, to Buddhist iconography, to Mongolian Communist leaders, to Tibetan theocratic hierarchy, to Yazidi people, to Hypsistarians (this one was about the “pagan” word, in 2010, and is still there), to computer viruses, to Chinese geography, to Turkic generals, to Tsakonian peoples, to Iranian religions in the Himalayas, to country nomenclature, to Buddhist lineages, ritual and philosophy, to Jewish kabbalists, to Roman law, to Spiritism, to Norman kings, to Syrian politics, to uranium mining, to Greek goddesses, to old Indian metaphysical treatises, to Russian writers, to Central Asian demonology, to Manchurian statecraft, to Slavic gods, to Ukrainian politics, to Vedic gods, to Chinese ethnic minorities, to Portuguese navigators, to Tibetan philosophers, to Lithuanian monarchs, to Émile Durkheim, to Central Brazilian Native tribes, to even the already discussed articles were the “pagan” thing came about.

And, as to the suggested “cooling off”, it is already in place, both because I have refrained from similar edits on the topic since the start of this thread, and because other more knowledgeable and skilled editors such as my informal mentor Rklawton, and Iryna Harpy, have already shown willingness to refine ideas and coordinate any future edit proposals on the topic, with ongoing discussions on my talkpage open for anyone interested on them.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been watching this discussion for a few days now and I feel it has been going on for too long. A six-month topic ban would be way over the top. It seems this user has a lot to contribute and has shown willingness to achieve consensus, let him get on with it. If it turns out mentoring doesn't help with improving issues with collaboration (edit comments and such), a temporary topic ban could still be revisited. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. [8]). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits ([9]), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ([10][11][12][13][14] and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion ([15][16]). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk ([17], until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past ([18][19]), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ([20] For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content issue. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions thus far.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Wikipedia principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, Snow Rise. I'm afraid I feel that Eaglestorm is not going to change, following their presumably intentional choice to refuse to discuss this even at ANI, the edit summary "illegal block by conspirators", this rant and rude comments to IPs like this (although to be fair, the IP was wrong to make this revert). I understand that Eaglestorm has been around for a while and made a lot of edits, and while I'm sure many of the ones he/she makes today are still constructive (e.g. this and this, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter), if they were a new editor solely reverting edits to HIMYM articles and writing these overly intense rants, I would probably be quoting WP:CIR. They've been blocked five times and they still don't get the message. I don't wish them any ill will, but I do feel that this discussion has been in vain. However, I still hope Eaglestorm will take your comments on board and try to react less angrily and defensively in the future. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose indef block. While this thread does look to be a masquerading content dispute, what we really have here is a user with a long history of blocks for edit warring, refusing to discuss anything in any venue, and personal attacks. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; any one of these would be unacceptable behaviour as isolated incidents, but together and in a pattern they show an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to the NPA block above was to post a screed disguised as an unblock request railing against the "deletionist alliance" (paraphrased) working against them, which after their block expired they removed immediately with a note decrying the "illegal block by conspirators" (removing a personal attacks block notice with another personal attack), followed by a nasty note (now deleted; it included the text "Get lost and mind your own business, loser!") to an IP with three edits. We don't need any more of this kind of editor around here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I have to agree. Unfortunately, this user appears to unambigously lack even basic competency with regard to our most minimal standards for civility and the collaborative process. Indeed, despite more than eight years on the project, they seem to lack familiarity with many of our most straight-forward content and behavioural guidelines. At this point, it is pretty obvious that they will not desist in outright harassing any editor which they perceive to be members of the "conspiracy" that exists in their head; they cannot disengage from said editors because "these assholes" are "RUINING EVERYTHING!". Frankly, at this juncture, the diatribes have devolved to the point where I honestly don't think they can be described accurately as anything but meltdowns and temper-tantrums. Even putting aside the paranoid suggestion of conspiracies, I just don't think this user has the social maturity required to participate on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Snow rise has summed it up nicely. For an editor to have been here as long as Eaglestorm, this really is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise, as well as the fact that this editor should know this type of behavior is unacceptable, considering they have over 13,000 edits and have been here for eight years. Not to mention this[[21]] complete lack of trying to recognize wrong behavior, as well as trying to shunt blame to other editors in a ban appeal. Boomer Vial (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([22][23][24]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [25], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [26],[27],[28]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [29] and a couple dictionary definitions [30] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
  For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [31] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [32] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[33] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely fine; this can certainly be a section of the article (provided that it's done appropriately... lol ;-)) - but when you put those kinds of words in the lead paragraph (especially in the first sentence that describes who or what the article subject even is), it implies a very biased viewpoint. The adjective "white supremacist" (when describing a person) is very controversial and it puts the article out of the neutral zone if used to describe someone in your opening statement. This is the issue, and it is the primary cause of the focus in this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Wikipedia:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the reality then it can be stated plainly in the opening sentence or in the lede in general, if it's well supported by reliable sources. It is not necessarily a violation of NPOV to do so, as someone else said above. NPOV is about representing sources neutrally and with due weight. It does not prohibit stating a harsh truth plainly if that is supported by reliable sources. I also don't see any policy that is about not using modern-day takes to define an article's subject. If information later comes out that changes the general perception of a subject, then this is indeed used. For instance, Monsanto did knowingly sell PCBs long after they knew of their dangers, and they hid those dangers. That was in the 1960s and the 1970s. The knowledge of this came out in the year 2000 with a legal proceeding that revealed internal memos showing their culpability and knowledge at the time. This knowledge would be fair to use to define what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, with good sourcing. History is often revised with further knowledge and with further interpretation. In fact many people were white supremacists while they may not have explicitly called it that at the time. The degree to which that was a notable ideological principle in a person might be the measure of whether it should be a primary label for them. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't want to take this discussion to far since it belongs somewhere else, I think there's an obvious difference between information about a historic situation (regardless of when that information became available) and modern intepretations of events and behaviour based not on new information but modern beliefs, values etc. To give a made up example, if someone finds a letter from some BC/BCE individual where this person calls for the elimination of race X via force, that would be new information. If someone says that person was calling for genocide, that would be to some extent a modern intepretation. This doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't include the information in the lead. (Actually I'm somewhat symphathetic to including the information in the lead here, although I do question whether it would make sense if we were talking about a BC/BCE individual. And to go back to my earlier example, I also support the current or a similar wording in the Genghis Khan article.) Rather all I'm saying is we should make a distinction between how our understanding of events change based on new facts or information that emerges of what was going on; how our understanding of events changes based on our modern day values, ethics, beliefs etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree with this distinction very much, and i hold that both are valid. The link to WP:PRESENTISM above is interesting, though it's an essay and not a policy or guideline, so it's not required to be followed in toto. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Rigel Squadron 2 violating WP:NFCC#9

User:Rigel Squadron 2 continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:Rigel Squadron 2 despite warnings at User talk:Rigel Squadron 2#January 2016. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor's user page looks like a bit of a WP:FAKEARTICLE as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, and after checking about, it has been G3'd and the user indef'd as WP:NOTHERE, as said fakearticle was their sole reason for being here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: User:Rigel Squadron 3 looks like the same thing. User:Rigel Squadron did until it was blanked, while Special:contribs/Rigel Squadron 4 hasn't made any edits. I will be opening an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rigel Squadron. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

...aaaand looking at those I think we have an even larger potential sockfarm here. I'll post at the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:ErikvanB interwiki VANDALISM

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

---

It is about the renaming of a page: Portobuffolé. This page was originally written like this, not only in en.wikipedia but also in other Wikis with different languages. And it is the right name, as I am going to show below. A pair of Dutch admins (one is User:ErikvanB) started changing the name to Portobuffolè in ALL Wiki pages when I dared to correct the name in nl.wikipedia. So I thought to deal with the problem following the rules: I requested a renaming of the pages in Talk:Portobuffolé and in it:Discussione:Portobuffolé (since the name belongs to an Italian town). You can read my reasons there, but here they are summarised up too: in Italian there is a lot of confusion about accents, especially about accented E, the only vowel which can have both grave and acute accent. This is why pronunciation and orthography guides exist, guides like the DOP (the most important pronunciation/ortography dictionary of Italian language), the DiPI (another big shot, even more complete), Sapere.it (the main on-line Italian encyclopedia) and Treccani (the most authoritative Italian encyclopedia). It was established both in English and in Italian Wiki to use this spelling, so the admins have corrected the name also in the other languages. But yesterday one of the Dutch admins who were the origin of all this unnecessary mess decided arbitrarily and without consulting anyone that "Portobuffolé" is wrong and started over again renaming a lot of Wiki pages; so far they are: Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, and... English! This is vandalism. If it was when I changed the pages "without" consent, then again it is now when this admin, abusing his power, is changing the pages "against" consent. Not only in his own language Wiki, but also in others among the which there is this one, the main and international Wiki and the first one where it was decided to use the correct spelling with acute accent. Let's remember that, if it is true the municipal site of the town uses (mostly) the grave accent, it is as true that: it uses also the other and more correct spelling; it uses also a spelling where there is an apostrophe in place of the accent; it makes orthographic errors about accents such as "perchè" (instead of "perché"); it is not an orthograpic guide and on the contrary it contradicts them all; a lot of other municipal sites of Italian towns ending with accented E have wrong spellings in their home-pages (I am not making examples because the aforecited admin would probably go and modify immediately them too); who is not Italian cannot know the confusion we Italians make with accents, at school we are not even taught to distinguish grave from acute accent, and the fact that even in a municipal statute ([34]) is used an apostrophe in place of the accent and when the accent is used it is found in some articles grave and in some others acute, well, this speaks volumes about its reliability... So: please, make this admin stop vandalising the Wiki project just for personal feelings, and restore the consensus spelling in all the articles that have been vandalised by him/her. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is with IPs bandying about vandalism accusations in the last couple days? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with them. But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? "A content dispute". Although I note that (as you yourself concede) "Portobuffolè" is what the comune itself uses consistently on their website, and they presumably know how to spell their own name. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent: "...and they presumably know how to spell their own name..." and that is one of the clarified issues in the Italian and English talk pages; your statement is uncorrect. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Iridescent, you're uncorrect about the speling. EEng (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

May I kindly refer you all to this page on nl-wiki? ErikvanB is no sysop on nl-wiki (albeit many wished he will one day apply) but one of our most valued vandalism fighters and controllers. Also I was harrassed by this person everytime logging in with another dynamic IP-adress. Regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There: the other Dutch admin I talked about above. The reasonement (s)he makes in the Dutch talk page is the following: I don't care about your sources, no matter how strong and reliable; I don't care about the inconsistency of the official site, where you find not only both Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé but also Portobuffole' (with apostrophe!) and where you find several accent/apostrophe spelling errors (such as "perchè" and "Mansue'"); I don't care about what was established both on en.wikipedia, the international WIki, and in it.wikipedia, the one which should worry the most about its towns spellings; I've, pardon, we've decided that "Portobuffolè" is totally correct and "Portobuffolé" is completely wrong and, since it's personal with the Italian IP who wants to change the name, I don't even care if this behaviour of mine harms the Wiki project itself. That is what (s)he is meaning in the linked talk page. I would like to remind this Dutch admin that at the beginning, when (s)he was starting reverting my edits on nl.wikipedia, I came on this admin's talk page asking civilly to discuss about the issue and explaining my point of view... Just to read answers in Dutch and a not well hidden refuse of any chance to talk. When (s)he went out of nl.wikipedia and moved every single article named "Portobuffolé" to "Portobuffolè", even the ones that had the right spelling before (such as the one in en.wikipedia), well, you can imagine how I felt and reacted badly. But is my one-month-ago reaction a valid reason to invalidate the correctness of Wiki-pedia itself, acting also against the English, Italian and other languages admins who moved the pages respecting the decision and according to the provided sources? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. Whether or not this is appropriate it is not vandalism, and continued accusations vandalism over something that is not can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger: then I have a question for you. Why, when I had first moved the pages across the Wikis linking the sources I have provided above, "that" was called "vandalism", "I" was called "vandal" (and blocked), my edits were reverted in all Wikis and in all Wikis it was witten in the summary that I was an inter-Wiki vandal globally blocked? Or, better: why was this right while now the fact I am doing the same is wrong? And remember that this time it was English admins, Italian admins, other languages admins who moved the pages, and also remember that this time both in en.wikipedia and in it.wikipedia we agreed that the correct spelling, according to sources, was Portobuffolé and that renaming the pages was correct, it was not my personal initiative. I hope you answer me and clarify this doubt of mine. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 9:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. Firstly, I noticed there wasn't any consensus about the spelling, and yet, the spelling was changed on every wiki, so I reverted the moves on a few wikis and gave five random reasons why Portobuffolé may not be the correct spelling (or not the only correct spelling): Comune di Portobuffolè (TV), a city poster, Google Earth, the regional website, and the provincial website. That's all. I received a friendly message from Lucas, an Italian admin, on my Dutch discussion page, but then IP-address 151.*** suddenly appeared, and I don't know who he is. There are now long discussions everywhere, for example on this page, here, here and here, where 'vandal' admin MoiraMoira refutes accusations of vandalism. It is best that everyone agrees before pages are moved. I am certainly not a vandal. ErikvanB (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You like to be precise. Let's be then. I made a move request on en.wikipedia and it was accepted. The sources I brought were strong and reliable and they establish clearly that the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. When I showed such sources on it.wikipedia where the discussion was stalling they were considered the turning point of the issue. I may understand that on nl.wikipedia, "your" Wiki, you might allow no foreign users to change pages even if he or she is being right, but the fact you came to en.wikipedia to rename a page without consulting anyone and without asking anything just on the basis of your personal opinion "IS" vandalism. Or, if it is not, it was not my similar behaviour when I tried moving the page on nl.wikipedia either. I have already spoken about the other Dutch admin, I would like to speak, again, about "your" sources and their reliability, even if this is not the right place. The municipal site: the same site where you read 4 (four) times just in the home-page "Portobuffole'" with APOSTROPHE? The same site where you can find the official statute ([35]) where you read Portobuffole', Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé (3 different versions in the same document, an official and the most important document of the "comune")? Next: Google Images? I am able to use it too: [36]. Next: Google Maps? Where did they take the name from? From the official site, obviously, whose reliability I have already shown. Regional site? Boomerang effect: I read "votiamo portobuffole’ borgo dei borghi italiani". With apostrophe, again. Reliability, again. Provincial site? I read 4 times the apostrophe version, even in the coat-of-arms, and just 2 "Portobuffolè"s. Boomerang effect, again. You are just searching the web for anything which can prove your statement is correct, while I have brought since the very beginning authoritative encyclopedias and pronunciation/orthography guides which ALL say the same: the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. Period. Let's be precise. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to get upset for a minor issue like this one, so please keep WP:LOVE above everything. Please talk about sources and reasons, not about users, to avoid personal attacks and uncomfortable feelings. I posted a reply in Talk:Portobuffolé, if you are interested please leave a note there. Thanks. :-) --Lucas (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

NewsAndEventsGuy reported by NewsAndEventsGuy

Earlier today, I started at a thread at the talk page for the occupation now underway in Oregon. Afterwards, with WP:APPNOTE in mind and intentionally selecting a wide array of pages with eds who may or may not agree with me but might be interested in the thread, I posted pointers to the thread. I was cognizant of the WP:CANVASSING and WP:SPAM rule and tried to follow both while pulling in more interested parties from a wide range of perspectives to the discussion. Here they are....

10:32, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sierra Club 10:31, January 16, 2016 Talk:National Cattlemen's Beef Association ‎ 10:29, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sagebrush Rebellion ‎ 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Federal lands 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Harney County, Oregon ‎ 10:24, January 16, 2016 Talk:Burns, Oregon 10:22, January 16, 2016 Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ‎ 10:21, January 16, 2016 Talk:Bundy standoff 10:19, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

I started with the Sovereign Cit Movement, and ended at Sierra Club which hopefully shows my effort at NOT soliciting one sided views.

Later, an admin interacted with me briefly at one of the talk pages. I did not know they were an admin, and I explained that I thought WP:APPNOTE applied. With no substantive reply, the admin then deleted all those postings citing SPAM. I have no beef with the admin.By not mentioning their name I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm not pissed at them and am not complaining about them. Since I have started this here, I will privately ping them about this filing and they can comment here if they wish, or not, it's all good, as long as somebody explains.

At first, when I thought they were a regular ed vandalizing my talk page comments I challenged them at their talk page. When I learned of my identification error, I then realized I must have screwed up and asked for an education. They declined. That conversation is here.

So here I am still ignorant. Would someone please explain why this identical message sent to those pages was a WP:SPAM violation, rather than an WP:APPNOTE?

==Bundy's Militia's demands == :Regarding our article about the [[Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge]] please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question [[Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Should_we_say_anything_more_about_Public_Lands_Privatization_and_demand_feds_cede_ownership?|"Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"]]

Thanks for enlightening me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Lava

:::I'm happy to answer your complaint on the merits. I need 24 hr. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) with Lava's retraction of seeking a Tban against me, this is now moot. I'd still like some admins who apply the guidelines to teach me about SPAM and APPNOTE in this context, and for that matter, if I should have pursued admin opinion on the question via some other process. I'd be glad to hat, and go there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What complaint? (And if "I need 24 hr." means that you're typing up another wall of text, please, don't. No one has time for anymore autobiographical novels. No one has made a complaint against you, ergo no response is necessary. For the sake of us all, please just leave it at that.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm not an admin, but here's the explanation I think you're looking for. Firstly, I think the link to WP:SPAM is incorrect, I believe LavaBaron was referring to the proper link is the canvassing guideline by a similar name. The problem is that you were excessively cross posting. From your post it seems that you posted this on 9 different pages. That's a lot, especially on article pages. I'd say for notifying multiple people, either use WP:RFC which would get a good number of people or post on the page of one or two WikiProjects or article talk pages with a large number of watchers. Notice that the section right beneath WP:APPNOTE shows that "Mass posting" is inappropriate notification. LavaBaronThe admin you mention (and myself for what its worth) probably believed that you were posting on too many articles in violation of WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS more broadly. Wugapodes (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: - I agree with you but, in point of clarification, I didn't raise this issue about cross-posting to NewsAndEventsGuy, @Valfontis: apparently did. I only chimed-in here as I thought it was an unusual thing for him to report himself (I've been watching NewsAndEventsGuy's contribution history as it often requires editors engage in a bit of clean-up after he hurricanes through an article, as noted in my diffs below; other than some furious first-shaking from him it's never really a big deal and he never edit wars or anything - so certainly not block or ban-worthy, just a little tedious [I have a suspicion I know what the specific issue with his unusual edit style is which is the reason I have intentionally not brought this to ANI as I think he deserves some slack - of course, my best efforts were for naught when he decided to report himself]). LavaBaron (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I've struck above. Wugapodes (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem, these interactions vis a vis NewsAndEventsGuy often devolve into a high level of confusion all around. LavaBaron (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trout Support 7-Day TBAN - The enthusiasm and exuberance you've shown for editing WP is commendable. However, your current ... unusual ... style of editing is causing (unintentional) disruption. Reporting yourself at ANI is a prime example of this. Relentlessly posting to my Talk page with demands I self-revert some gentle guidance I've given you similar to what Valfontis offered or you'll report me is another example. "Guerilla deleting" articles by blank/revert citing the "precedent" of unrelated AfD discussions [37] is another example. Unexpectedly introducing a staggering Wall of Text into a relatively calm and good-mannered page [38] is another example. The examples you, yourself, have cited above are more examples. You've become a bit of a bull in a china shop. Again, I think this is not intentional and if you had the opportunity to observe from a distance for a few days you could be a very fine editor. LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Trout and move on NewsAndEventsGuy has apparently been a rather consistent editor since 2011. He's not new and I think just needs a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough, a don't see a topic ban as effective as it's not intentional disruption. If he's aware of the disruption being caused that LavaBaron is citing, I believe he's a mature enough editor to adjust. Perhaps I have too much faith in people, but I think a topic ban is too much. Wugapodes (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Great points, Wugapodes, you have me convinced that a clue adjustment is all NewsAndEventsGuy needs. Changing my opinion to admonish only. LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks for your comments. Yes I am aware of the allegations. If he believes them, he should probably file at AE. We're both on notice that DS-AP applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the second half of my suggestion was "and move on". You already reported yourself at AN/I which is disruptive in itself (see WP:POINT) and opens you up to community sanctions whether you like it or not. I recommended a trouting over sanctions because I think you'd be better served learning from your mistakes, but part of that is recognizing you've made some, and not asking people to report you at AE. LavaBaron provided a good explanation as to why the edits you made were disruptive (with links to specific instances). My recommendation for trouting is contingent upon you learning from your mistakes and working to not make them again. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Understand the mistakes you've made, learn from them, and move on. Wugapodes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's easy... I'm eager to learn from mistakes, and I make plenty.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care if anybody is pissed at me or not. Especially since as far as I can tell, there is no reason for anybody to be pissed at me. I cleaned up some talk pages and maybe I was hasty. Enjoy the debate. Valfontis (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the fact I am an admin has no bearing on my actions, I would have done the same without the bit. I had no idea about any sanctions against anybody, I just watch a lot of Oregon pages. And yes, the cross-posting seemed excessive. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, @Valfontis:. Subjective minds can differ on these IAR type things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (Later) Elsewhere I just saw your link to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. Given the context (and the care I know I took in deciding) I don't believe the list was "indiscriminate". But IAR works too. Whatever. Thanks again for the response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

There is an on-going battle over details of content which should be on the David Bain page. This has now been going on for some weeks. Although there have been a number of editors involved, the one who has been the most disruptive is Mr Maggoo. Others who have been constructive are Akldguy, Moriori and Gadfium.

Mr Maggoo is the self published author of a book titled The Bain Killings Whodunnit? written under the pseudonym Michael Sharp. He outed himself in correspondence with Akld guy here. He seems to have very strong opinions that David Bain is guilty of the murders for which he has been acquitted. Although there has been much discussion on the David Bain talk page about the various issues, Mr Maggoo has shown himself to be incapable of "hearing" what other editors are saying. In response, he has often taken a hostile approach when communicating on the talk page. He frequently adds or deletes material without giving a reason on the main page and his justifications on the Talk page make little sense. There are so many examples of his disruptive behaviour, it is hard to know where to begin. Turtletop (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that when I edit the David Bain Wikipedia page citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles and books [not my own] Turtletop deletes them. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Maggoo has a history of quoting unreliable sources, especially the David Bain:Counterspin website. He also repeatedly tries to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred for lying. Even when he does quote a reliable source, he seems to have little understanding of whether the information he wishes to include is relevant. His edits all support the view that David Bain is guilty even though the privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and his convictions have been overturned. Turtletop (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain article has had ongoing disputes mostly between SPA accounts for some time. A sockpuppet investigation on some of the accounts found them to be unrelated. I semi-protected the article to prevent new SPAs getting involved, and have tried to keep all parties discussing on the talk page.-gadfium 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain murder case has been highly controversial in New Zealand. Mr Maggoo is a novice editor who began editing on 11 December 2015, and has edited nothing but DB-related pages since. He became frustrated at being asked to provide reliable sources and indent his posts correctly. He initially ignored advice that he was not permitted to cite from his own work or from a highly NPOV website, Counterspin. Nevertheless, he has learned much, albeit slowly. He is now competently adding information to the DB article which the OP objects to. This is essentially a content dispute and I note that the OP has not asked for any particular action here. Akld guy (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is partly a content dispute. But it is also about Mr Magoo's attitude and disruptive editing. Some of the edits he says he will make on the talk page are reflective of taking revenge rather than being constructive. I would like to see Mr Maggoo blocked from editing OR the page completely protected from editing by anyone except administrators. Turtletop (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You yourself removed highly relevant material that was correctly cited and pertained to the alleged pregnancy or childbirth of one of the victims. You did that, despite knowing that your removal of it would be controversial. Mr Maggoo should absolutely not be blocked. He has learned much and has now become a threat to the NPOV editing of the page by Turtletop. Both Mr Maggoo and Turtletop have edited contentiously, but there has been no bad behaviour, insults, or abuse that would justify a block on either, and certainly not on Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Mr Maggoo made an edit about you in which he told you to stop being a girl. You have also seem to have allied yourself with Mr Maggoo by reposting a link to his self-published book and made insulting comments to Moriori accusing him of a conflict of interst with no evidence whatsoever. You have also made insulting comments about David Bain's sister in this post: "Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)"

Your neutrality and your personal judgement are highly questionable. Turtletop (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy has played a valuable role in mediating between the conflicting parties.-gadfium 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He has also contributed to the conflict and has started his own one with Moriori.Turtletop (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't make this about me. I have not aligned myself with Mr Maggoo. I came down on him hard in his early edits for not sourcing appropriately, and reverted many of them, but now that he has learned, he is posting material that you don't want in the article. I believe that some of that material he's adding should justifiably be in it. I did not accuse Moriori of having a conflict of interest, but asked him whether he had one, asking for a yes/no, not his identity. I note that he has not yet answered the question despite the elapse of more than two hours, prior to which he was active on the Talk page. He has to be given time to answer of course. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking is equivalent to accusing. Why did you ask/accuse him in the first place? You appear to have done this to divert attention away from your posting of a link to Mr Maggoo's COI self-published book. Turtletop (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Gadfium, he may have played a mediation role, but he undid that with other behaviour, and I am quite surprised you didn't give him a little nudge for his insults to me. At the Bain talk page I have left the following reply to his latest insult -- "You continue with offensive insult. The Wikipedia article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Wikipedia articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI." Moriori (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also suggested that a total block could be put on the page. It's about all of us - and you seem to be avoiding taking any responsibility for your offensive behaviour towards other editors. If you don't want it to be about you, then I suggest you withdraw your insults to Moriori and apologise.

It would also help if you stopped accusing me of not being neutral. Bain was found not guilty and my contributions generally support that outcome. When you and Mr Maggoo add material which undermines that reality, you are not being neutral - and that's what leads to the content dispute. Turtletop (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reply to a number of false allegations made about me by Turtletop. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First he accuses me of citing the Counterspin website. I have not cited the Counterspin website. I asked if I could cite the Counterspin website as a reference and was told I could not. Turtletop himself has cited the Counterspin website. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second he accuses me repeatedly trying to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred. This is not correct. When I first started editing on Wikipedia I set up a paragraph heading Response by Michael Guest. At that time I wasn't aware I had to cite a source. That paragraph was removed for that reason. I then asked if I could cite two different sources as a reference and was told that neither of those sources were reliable. I have not been able to find a reliable source I can site re that paragraph, so I have not tried to set it up again. Once is not repeatedly. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third, he says all my edits support the view that David Bain is guilty. I resent that insinuation. I just find an article pertaining to the subject and cite it. I could just as easily say that all Turtletops edits support the view that David Bain is innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, he says I have little understanding as to whether the information I am including is relevant. Let me assure Turtletop that I have no problem deciding what is relevant and what is not. And might I add I always endeavour to quote verbatim from the article I am citing. For example I don't say "some academics" when the article cited only refers to one academic. Turtletop would have us believe that a number of academics support the suggestion made by Justice Binnie that the Government was "shopping around" . From what I have read one law professor supports Binnie and three law professors disagree with that suggestion. [User:Mr Maggoo|Mr Maggoo]] (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is directed to Turtletop You are definitely not neutral. You are trying to keep the insinuation that Laniet may have been pregnant/given birth/aborted as a result of incest by her father, despite the fact that not one witness has ever stepped forward to say that they saw Laniet with a baby, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had given birth, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet gave away a baby for adoption. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a pregnancy/baby/abortion. Mr Maggoo and I are attempting to corroborate that with highly relevant pathology and hospital record material that shows that there was almost certainly never any pregnancy. You have on several occasions disruptively attempted to censor that pathology and medical material from the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly anyone KNEW anything about this case. That’s why it has been controversial for 20 years. And of course there are no witnesses who KNEW Robin Bain raped Laniet or committed incest with her. But multiple witnesses testified that Laniet told them her father was sexually abusing her. On that basis the Privy Council obviously concluded that where there is smoke (and there was a lot of it), there may well be fire - so they declared there had been a miscarriage of justice. If you still think you need to include material that you think proves she wasn’t pregnant, can I suggest you read the following. Under the heading Due and undue weight, WP says:

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence”… “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects”.

If you insist on including testimony that Laniet was NOT pregnant, you are giving undue weight to a minority aspect which was of no relevance to the Privy Council or to the jury at the retrial. The topic is David Bain (and perhaps whether or not he is guilty). Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is not the topic.Turtletop (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is germane to two issues: 1. that she was pregnant to her father, which you are trying to insinuate is a motive for him killing the members of his family, 2. the issue of Laniet's credibility, since if she was given to fantasies about a pregnancy/childbirth/abortion/white baby versus black baby, then there exists the possibility that the alleged incest with her father was also a fantasy. You are trying to censor from the article medical evidence that refutes a pregnancy because it counters your insinuation that there was a pregnancy/baby. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's credibility is not the topic. David Bain's is - or was. Your allegation of censorship is offensive. I don't control anything on WP so I can't possibly censor it. Please use more moderate language. Your allegation that I am insinuating that Laniet was pregnant to her father is also offensive. You have now said this a number of times. I have never said any such thing and your insinuations are a breach of WP:assume good faith

You have refused to apologise to Moriori over your insinuation that he had a COI so I don't expect you will apologize to me for your behaviour either. It would go a long way towards resolving this if you did. Turtletop (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of trying to communicate with other editors via edit summaries - would you consider using the talkpage first, and holding off on reverting other editors as an absolute last resort? SQL^{Query me!} 07:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tried the Talk page. It didn't work. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to master the correct procedure when using Wikipedia. Could I just say in my defence [ though age is no excuse] that it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks specially when that old dog is in his eighties. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of us come out of this scrap looking good. I ask that some uninvolved people add the article to their watchlists, and crack down on any poor behaviour.-gadfium 04:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. They generally have zero tolerance towards this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...I find this Mr Maggoo's choice of name interesting to say the least? 😨 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page is protected for 2 days. Will escalate protection, or issue blocks if the warring continues. SQL^{Query me!} 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [39] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [40] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [41], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [42] [43]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [44], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [45] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [46] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [47] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [48] which I restored [49]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[50] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[51] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [52], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [53], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [54], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [55]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[56] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [57] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [58], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [59]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[60]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an IP block

I am requesting an indefinite IP block for following two users which are created to insult me personally. Both of them are obscene and mean really bad in Urdu:

1. User:Jinnah ka lund choos (means "Suck Jinnah's dick"
2. User:SheriffIsInTown apni ammi ki choot mein peshab kiya (Don't want to tell the meaning, just block it please)

These users were created after I had weeks of edit conflicts on Bangladesh articles with User:Akbar the Great along with heated conversations.

I was thanked by these two user accounts after I replied to User:Vinegarymass911's oppose vote on move request which I am supporting at Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks. I thanked this user earlier for an edit on that same page. I have also interacted with this user on Bangladesh articles and we kind of have opposing views but User:Akbar the Great did not seem very happy with User:Vinegarymass911's edits and he expressed that during talk discussions so it might be a ploy.

I have an ongoing conflict with User:Vaibhav.times at Adnan Sami and earlier today he left me a kind of nasty message on my talk page.

Not sure who created those two accounts but if someone can find out their relative location and see who that matches with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be sober discussing about some topics and don't blame someone without any proof, i said some relevant things and for your information i haven't created these accounts .. Please stop bullying people on your behalf . Anyone can check the messages which were in discussion on his page rather than going so low and blaming someone. Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd name is something on the order of "SherrifIsInTown to piss in your mother's [something]" (Google Translate's translation was "discount" but that doesn't seem to make sense, nor do the alternates it provides). Both names appear to be flagrant violations of WP:USERNAME and should be username blocked, if not indef blocked as sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK [something] means le arse. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, I can put that problem behind me now. BMK (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These two ids should be blocked at once because they are insult to religion as well as personal attack and whosoever involved should be punished too by blocking his/her ip too. Only my two cents that why MR Sheriff is always in conflict with most of the editors? And even for reason he is it doesn't give him any right to point fingers on others without any valid proof. It is some sort of name shame and getting so low to prove his point Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He most certainly has the right to bring their usernames to the community's attention, since, as you agree, they are flagrantly insulting. BMK (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

True but only conflicting usernames, not of the editors whom he differ in views on some topics. It is just relating them to the conflicting usernames and it is sort of name shame for them without any intention and reason. Once you have proper proof you can bring in anyone's name but not just basis of your useless and pointless imagination. Vaibhav.times (talk)vaibhavthedestroyer--- 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK I think @User:SheriffIsInTown should open a sockpuppet investigation on these two. Although it is not fully through the "red tape" but no one can deny this kind of blatant sock puppetry. a simple checkuser will show which accounts are connected to these guys. I am quite sure it will be a nasty surprise for the person who did this.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: beat me to blocking both. I'd open a SSP regarding these. SQL^{Query me!} 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked both of those accounts. I hard blocked them so any account on the same IPs will be autoblocked. HighInBC 07:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:SheriffIsInTown so proof is infront of you, please don't blame people randomly Vaibhav.times (talk)

@Vaibhav.times: You can't edit your comment like that to ping someone. You have to have the ping template, and sig in the same edit. @SheriffIsInTown: SQL^{Query me!} 08:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why have I been dragged into this? Sheriff, if you thought I had something to do with this, I would consider you paranoid.

A few weeks back I saw this. Isn't there a way for Wikipedia to block certain words being used as a username? Who has pig as a username? I'm sure these two accounts will be similarly blocked. I also condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the attacks on Sheriff.--Akbar the Great (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well there's Pigsonthewing, just to name one right off the top of my head. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with "pig" in a username - it's all about context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and User:HighInBC this seems to be a serial offender who uses some Ip other than his to do his dirty work. The pattern of "thanking for edits" is telltale. My 24 november notifications show that this occurred against me with the stupidly named User:FreeatlastChitchat watched his sister taking bath and User:FreeatlastChitchat is a madarchod. Perhaps there can be some work done to unmask the real guy behind this? not sure how though. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested a request so that the words maybe added to DQBot's blacklist. Feel free to vet it here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to note to everyone that apni ammi ki choot mein peshab kiya, roughly translates into Discount to piss in your momma. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [61] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [62], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently it does happen, though. Plenty of people all over the Internet appear to be defending the interests of large companies, with tens of hours per week commenting on forums, news articles, and the like, essentially defending the image and public perception interests of large companies. I've seen it with my own eyes. When asked, they generally say they're doing it for their personal beliefs, or for some other reason. It's a real thing in the world. I'm speaking outside of Wikipedia, of course. In forums here and there, there appear to be dozens of people regularly doing that on a daily basis, to a point where it adds up to the bulk of a week. Some say they're retired and it's their hobby. I have seen some instances on Wikipedia of people seeming to be so strongly attached to a position that they will do anything to make it happen even when it flies in the face of common sense and reliable sources. That seem to be ignoring all rules for a mission. These are patterns i observe within Wikipedia in a year of editing. Of course it's true that Wikipedia should not tolerate ignoring policies, to suit anyone -- whether a big company or the pusher of a fad diet or a music band who wants "fame" by being mentioned in the encyclopedia with photo standing next to their idol, or whatever. I don't understand the original topic ban against Elvey. I've spent half an hour trying to figure it out, to no avail. It struck me as Byzantine, and i could not make sense of it. Anyway, is this a violation of Elvey "speaking of COI"? I don't know, it's sort of suggestive or insinuating, probably. But is that a crime? And is the original topic ban just or sensible? I really dislike gagging anyone from speaking against anything and would rather treat people as people, and if a person is constantly a problem in the community's eyes then address that, but don't cut someone's tongue. Strange things going on. If we could see this from a bird's eye view, from above the Labyrinth, what would we see? SageRad (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask if there is a place where issues of potential COI editing in places where vested interests would logically exist, in general terms (not with any specific editors in mind) is discussed? This is something that Jimbo has been speaking about in the press lately, and something that has been known to happen in reality, and so while i completely understand that we cannot speak about individual editors with insinuation that anything is editing for vested interests, it seems like a dynamic that does need to be discussed in principle. Is there a locus of this discussion on this that anyone's aware of here? Ping me if you don't mind. SageRad (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

• Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Range block needed

Hello,

Upon recommendation of HJ Mitchell, as he's very busy, I'm linking this here. Could some admin that is able to please perform a range block on this? Its some very nasty disruptive IP hopping that involves numerous articles, and its going like this for quite a time. Not only is this IP hopping being highly disruptive as foremost and obvious duh.. reason, its also very annoying for many users here. Furthermore, he's often warring, adding factually incorrect info, and what not. Its basically sockpuppeting through an extensive number of IP's. Therefore, this range should be blocked as its not only a violation of Wikipedia's policies, it furthermore also hurts Wikipedia's content and integrity. (Page protections have been made for a few articles, but it won't help given the large scale of articles he edits). I suggest that if the user genuinely wants to contribute to this place, he should create an account, and not resort to extensive IP hopping.

• 2600:1001:B108:5C2A:4147:4DD3:DCA:3D1B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B010:9EEE:1D6B:8EBB:FB63:F963 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B028:C7BF:B1F3:3AA9:79C:4502 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B11D:977D:A517:5FBA:AAD3:D458 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B009:A831:A5EF:A130:C8E:4CAC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B005:DBE2:C981:22C3:A25C:6F3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B120:119B:1C59:B5D3:F248:81E7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02A:FD5E:956E:BC34:6CBD:6CCC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B00F:5E95:C906:C2C7:7DA1:7557 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02F:340:809B:4820:B1B5:818B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B125:7270:8127:5D7F:CAF6:604E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Bests (excuse me if this wasn't the right ANI page for this to be placed) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a module to calculate IP ranges and have put a demo of what it does with the above here (permalink). It's not very helpful, I'm afraid. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Base range is 2600:1001:b000::/39. MediaWiki only allows /64 blocks for a reason, of course. RangeContribs seems to give only a handful edits. (Also, why does the tool not support IPv6 CIDR ranges.) I think, a softblock for the range is safe, of course the blocking admin will have to block several /64 blocks. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

National Society of Collegiate Scholars edited repeatedly by user Nscs in clear violation of WP:CORPNAME and WP:COI; other users potential COI

User Nscs (contribs) has exclusively edited pages relating to NSCS (National Society of Collegiate Scholars), and has claimed to be an NSCS employee. In addition to minor edits they have added the long list of NSCS sponsors to its page which is now in need of cleanup, and I have marked with WP:Advert. Several other users and IPs editing National_Society_of_Collegiate_Scholars are suspect, removing content that negatively portrays NSCS (example) and adding advertisement-like content. The article needs cleanup and further investigation (perhaps to be kicked downstairs to regular users), and action should be taken against user NSCS for clear policy violations. Saposhiente (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not obvious to me that a mostly lower case rendition of the acronym of a rather obscure organization screams WP:CORPNAME at me "unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit to that page was in February 2014 and several other editors have changed the page since - don't see an issue here. Mike1901 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I ripped out the list of sponsors as well as some other content-guideline ripping-outing (all unrelated to who contributed it, but thanks for brining that mess to my attention even if not admin-ish). DMacks (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just slightly curious that- with the exception of today's edits- the nominator has made one edit since 2011. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Nscs is 10 year old account inactive since 25 February 2014, next edit on 8th January 2016. Saposhiente was inactive for four years. Marvel Hero (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nscs was active through April, not just February, of 2014, in drafts that were rejected (on topics related to his organization). DMacks (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:David Biddulph left a note on User talk:Nscs about username concern and COI editing. DMacks (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Close to a legal threat

This comment comes pretty close to making a legal threat. At the very least the user should be warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I left a suggestion that SoIntSa may want to make it clear that they're not the one considering legal action. My interpretation is that they are implying RT may consider the allegation, that they are a propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian government, slanderous or libelous. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was saying that, such material constitutes libel in some jurisdictions (such as the UK where I was born) if claims can't be carefully backed up by adequate sources: that is to say, I was speaking in concern of wikipedia, not any legal threat by any means.

And just to clarify, No I have never threatened legal action against anyone, wikipedia, or any entity, and I think my wording was unambiguous enough and quite clear, but editors want to start a ruckus in a petty attempt to silence me.

Solntsa90 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Volunteer Marek has attempted to get rid of me for my opinion, even stating on the RT page "It's time you get blocked", implying that this is merely an attempt to oust me from the editing process on the RT page.

Just check the talk page, and see how vitriolic it has become; I have tried to maintain a polite demeanour, but a lot of insults and accusations can make anyone a bit grumpy. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I know about this case is the quoted diff in the OP. I tried to read it as a legal threat but failed. Whatever other problems there may be here I do agree with Solntsa90 saying " I was speaking in concern of wikipedia"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

even stating on the RT page "It's time you get blocked" <-- well, yes, if you're making legal threats then it is indeed that time (though you are of course being disruptive in other ways as well).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I don't think the mere use of the word "slander" makes something a legal threat, since that word is commonly used in a non-legal sense. However, in this particular case Solntsa90 made it clear in his sentence that they did indeed mean it in a legal sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And honestly, Solntsa90, while your edits and participation in the discussion at the article has definitely brought negative value-added there, if I was actually "trying to silence you" (though you do need to learn how to listen rather than playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) I wouldn't have suggested that you be warned but would've asked that you'd be blocked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

People really need to stop thinking a word is a legal threat. We have a page called WP:LIBEL. It's not a legal threat to point out policy. Wikipedia:No legal threats#What is not a legal threat says explicitly that discussions regarding libelous material is not a legal threat. --DHeyward (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less what I said above, but in this case the user did seem to be implying legal action. Anyway, the material under discussion is not libelous or even close. It's just that one user doesn't like it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording "That is quite slanderous, and subject even to libel" gives me pause. If someone is being slanderous the only way it makes sense to say "and subject even to libel" is if they meant libel proceedings. I would say this is ambiguous enough that we can get away with a clear warning that we are pretty strict about legal threats. HighInBC 16:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, it's not him (Solntsa90) making the legal threat, it's him making it clear that the editor in question might face legal threats for the content added by him. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which makes absolutely no sense (especially since the info's straight from a few dozen sources) - who exactly would sue except the user making the comment? Anyway, the distinction may not matter, see [70]. From the policy: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. ". I do agree that in this case this could've been done out of ignorance so for now a warning is sufficient. Having said that, pretty much anytime anyone starts bringing up libel or slander accusations on talk, especially when they are objecting to well sourced material, it's basically a tactic to try and win a dispute when you can't win on merits, and so is disruptive even putting all legal stuff aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that bringing an ANI NLT accusation based on a talk page discussion is much more of a tactic "to try and win a dispute when you can't win on merits, and so is disruptive even putting all legal stuff aside." I'd much rather see the discussion about why it's libelous on the talk page rather than an ANI thread that "libelous" is a legal threat. It's important to note that unless the statements are about the editor, they lack standing for legal action and is exactly why the policy excludes such discussions. Calling a statement "libelous" is not a legal threat in any sense. Not a close one. Not in the same ballpark. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, do you see the following as a legal threat - I don't want to see Wikipedia be sued by a third party? It's not a rhetorical question, but one I think cuts to the crux of this filing.... to me, that is what the user wrote, just in other words. @Volunteer Marek:, while you describe a common behavior, we shouldn't cultivate a kneejerk culture that concludes before it thinks. I can quote libel caselaw, and sometimes I see stuff in these pages that really looks like it could meet the legal standards, of which I have personal knowledge. So let's be dubious but open minded and take 'em case by case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it steps over the line into "legal threat" territory the way Wikipedia uses the term, but it's only about a millimeter from stepping across that line. Editors should stay away from legalistic terms such as slander and libel. If they're concerned about Wikipedia, they should say they are concerned that such-and-such could get Wikipedia into trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad behavior from User:Mona778

This user wrote to Jimbo Wales, referring to me and Yeza as "gang of Users...from the third world Latin American countries" because a situation in Spanish Wikipedia. We're sysops from that Wikipedia, and Mona778 had a local block because always erased his messages in the User talk page in Spanish Wikipedia. Also, we saw the same pattern in English Wikipedia and Commons. Seeing the history page he constantly erased the messages from ClueBot NG, Ponyo, AKS.9955 and me. So I reinstated the warnings because the user maybe don't want see warnings in his userpage. But, he uses Jimbo Wales as shield for any problem, maybe seeking a more powerful protection, and he accuses to us and the Spanish sysops as a possible "vendetta", and uses the misinformation pointing us as stalkers.

Mona778 created a Archive, but is empty, all the previous messages are missed. Now, recieved a warning message from a new user MPS1992, without any idea about me. I'm user from 2005, and 10 years old sysop from Spanish Wikipedia and another projects, also I was Meta sysop. So, I deduce that MPS1992 was manipulated because the misinformation of Mona778. Also, I demand an apologize from MPS1992, for this negligent response.

I won't revert the blankings of Mona778, also I won't revert the warning of MPS1992, but I need to reply this distorted situation. --Taichi (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Aiaiai where to start. First of all, removing warnings is just fine. If y'all block for that on the Spanish wiki, power to you, but that is not how we roll here. Second, I looked at the warnings and what they were for. ClueBot's was wrong; there was nothing wrong with this edit. AKS.9955's warning was wrong too: this revert on AKS's part means either they didn't look to see what they reverted or they don't read English. And then you come by and restore two incorrect warnings and a couple of old things from Ponyo. No, that's not OK, Taicho; maybe y'all have different rules but here you'll have to play by ours. And don't go casting stones at MPS1992, who was absolutely correct. Best thing for you to do: apologize to Mona for incorrectly reinstating useless warnings (that's two different things you did wrong) and then move along. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant external link - useful/valid or too close to "outing"?

I'm writing an article on the UK undercover policing relationships scandal. As part of this I came across the following link (embedded in the wikimarkup via comment to avoid oxygen: ><). It aims to identify and document relationship aliases of the kind condemned by police chiefs today, as far as I can tell. I'd like views whether or not it is appropriate to add this as an external link.

Why it might be appropriate:

• High profile issue in UK; police themselves acknowledge in their statement that this activity was completely unacceptable and that targeted persons are considered victims of abuse
• Genuine research value - a person researching this area may well have a legitimate interest in learning what is known and cases it arose, which is hard to find elsewhere
• Factual rather than opinion, not designed or intended as an "attack page" per se
• "Names" are of persons using aliases in which there is legitimate significant public interest

Why it might not be appropriate:

• Could be considered an attack page anyhow, even if not intended as one?
• We don't have to advertise people's details as "persons who may have been involved in a kind of wrongful official action" (although we usually do when they are known and we have an article on the matter, see 'Death of Freddie Grey' and others).
• Potential for harm vs potential for beneficial encyclopedic information?

Comments appreciated; this is a delicate decision I wouldn't like to make without some sense of how views shape up and/or consensus. Not posted on article talk page in order to avoid oxygen there until it's clearer and because I'd like experienced views on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ELN might be a better place, though it seems somewhat dead. Maybe advertise this request for feedback there? --Izno (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Refusing proper categorization

• KewinRozz (talk · contribs · count)

I properly categorized the Lavdrim Muhaxheri-article, created by the user, see diff here. I was reverted, insisted, was reverted, then initiated a discussion. From the discussion, it is clear that the user does not know how to properly categorize people. He is new, and this is his only article. After several replies clarifying the matter, he is still not getting it. Last revert here. I have assumed good faith, but I'm losing patience. Am I wrong here?--Zoupan 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've replied on the talk page; As for now I'm reverting this to the original version which has been co - edited by not only me. The categories should be consistent with the article. I think that you're confusing subcategories with main categories when it's the main categories that are referenced to in the article. For instance, the article mentions "wahhabism" as a theory and not exclusively people who are wahhabists.Readers of the article might want to know both about the theory or people who adhere to it. The same goes with the rest. I'm currently looking at if your tag 'Kosovo Muslims' is consistent and relevant for the article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content dispute; in the future, things like this should go to a forum like WP:THIRDOPINION first, not here. But since we're already here, I'll give you my opinion. Looking at this diff, for the most part the tags on Zoupon's version make more sense the the other cats. This article is about a person, and thus person-oriented tags are more appropriate (e.g., "Wahhabists" vs. "Wahhabism." A tag like "Wahhabism" would be entirely appropriate if this person was an influential figure in Wahhabism as a school of thought, but not so much if they are simply an adherent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,Ohnoitsjamie, it concerns the following part; 'In August 2014 Kosovo mobilized to fight religious radicalism, also referred to as "wahhabism" and "radical Islamism", and terrorism by arresting around forty citizens who were suspected of engaging in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) I thought this conversation was about categories; I'm not sure what point you're making with this quote. (2) Please take this discussion back to the article's talk page where it belongs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is (was?). I seriously believe that further discussion between the two of us will lead nowhere. It is now obvious that the user has ownership issues. See this revert of copyediting.--Zoupan 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverted versions was also an over - write but I've changed to the 'wahabists'. I have no ownership - issues whatsoever, as one can see I welcome co - editors.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But you just reverted Ohnoitsjamie... Need I say more?--Zoupan 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this sort of dispute is exactly what the WP:THIRDOPINION dispute resolution process is designed for. Mike1901 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That may have been the case. But now we're here, and the third opinion was reverted.--Zoupan 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do yourselves a favor and stay away from category arguments. Nobody cares about categories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously some people do or we wouldn't be here, would we. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that anyone besides Wikipedia editors care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, touché. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

These categories were added by me and other co - editors and I've suggested that the discussion would be on the talk page so that other co - editors could partake. One can compare with the previous versions prior to today User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion between the two of us went nowhere. Since the user has been warned, I would also like to ask if this revert of copy-editing is appropriate?--Zoupan 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

...Lavdrim Muhaxheri was 9 years old during the Kosovo War. Should he be included in the "People of the Kosovo War" category? KewinRozz insists.--Zoupan 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior by experienced editor Alexikoua

I believe there's a glaring discrepancy between what you'd expect from someone who's been an editor for more than 7 years, and how Alexikoua (talk · contribs) behaves, especially concerning intellectual honesty. I made an edit (explained here and here) since this was the only way for me to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing this specific issue. I subsequently pinged Alexikoua to make sure he understood why I made these edits. Not a single time did he discuss the issue on the appropriate section on the talk page during this period (my post still stands as the most recent one here), but this has not stopped him from reverting, again, again, again, and again. His reasons for reverting in chronological order are:

1. He claims removing "in Albania" is disruptive
2. Accuses me of violating "DRN procedure" and threatens to report me
3. He implies the issue has been settled because it's been "refuted in all noticeboards (DRN etc)"
4. He states that "all noticeboards disagreed with this removal" (my removals of "in Albania")
5. He states that it has been "ignored in DRN & all noticeboards"

I will get back to points 1-4 (point 5 speaks for itself), but first some background (who's Kone?)

Why is Alexikoua insisting on adding "in Albania"? Because by adding "in Albania", it leads the reader to believe that Kone did not mean "Albanian origin", and Alexikoua has already decided that the latter is not possible (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:

• The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania".
• Eventhough two neutral editors claimed that Kone declared in his press release that he was of "Albanian ancestry" (here and here), Alexikoua insists that it could also mean "originating in Albania" (see the pattern?). Noitce how Alexikoua gets accused of distorting Kone's own saying. I'd argue that this isn't the first time Alexikoua distorts Kone's words (compare translations he did in 2014 vs 2015). The addition of "whether in Albanian or not" is important because it allowed him to argue that "all relatives are greek independent of where they live, and parents are relatives too, thus Kone's ethnic greek".

With regards to point 1 raised earlier, I'll let the admins decide. As for point 2, at that point, the DRN was closed, so it's beyond me how he can accuse me of violating DRN procedure. And finally, points 3 & 4 are downright dishonest. To refute means "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge." The DRN, which was closed due to no one volunteering, can be found here. Notice that in his summary of dispute Alexikoua never addressed the specific point which he argues was refuted. As for being refuted on other noticeboards, that's simply not true either. I welcome Alexikoua to present diffs where these points have been refuted on noticeboards. Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications (never mind that he doesn't discuss it on the talk page).

Alexikoua resorts to ad hominem and accuses me of "usual trolling", and again threatens to report me, but this time for "continuous disruption". Notice how he on both occasions doesn't follow through with the report, and on both occasions I am "1 step from being reported". One can only conclude that these are merely attempts to silence the new editor (me).

Shortly after the DRN was closed, I opened a RfC. Alexikoua stops by and accuses me of manipulating available material. Apart from the fact that it's disruptive to "crash" someone's RfC like that, the accusations he make's have no merit whatsoever. This is evident from the fact that the concerns I raised on the RfC concerning unsupported claims about Kone's ethnic background have now been remedied through consensus.

I even warned Alexikoua, but he didn't hesitate to remove it. [71]

I believe an administrator could look at all of this, and say "tl:dr, new user vs old user, this is a content dispute, will not get involved". I'd argue that this is the easy way out. At least ask Alexikoua to provide some form of evidence for points 3-4. Ask him about point 5 (is this even a legitimate reason for reverting?). Ask him why he ignores to discuss the issue on the talk page. Ask him why he's accused me of trolling. My closing statement will be a straightforward question to the administrators: provided what I present here is true, would you say that the actions of Alexikoua are in line with the policies of Wikipedia with regards to intellectual honesty? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A short note on one point: removing a warning is entirely acceptable; the only thing not allowed to be removed is a declined unblock request during the duration of the block in question. Removing a warning is considered the same thing as saying "I've read it". Don't have knowledge to dig into the rest here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's not acceptable. However, if you look at his reason for removing it, it reads "tag misuse". My intention was just to show that there is a pattern on behavior that's not allowing us to move forward with the issue. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a rather desperate report by DevilsWB simply because he fails to wp:OWN the specific article & more precisely to remove a tiny part [[72]]. Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic [[73]] he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens.

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[74]][[75]]) due to disruption in this article & he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[76]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[77]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[78]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[79]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic 89 he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens. Reading this might give you the impression that these neutral "third party users" (not sure if he meant users or user) decided to step in and lecture me about the problematic nature of my arguments. No, that's not what happened. What really happened, is that one of the users who happened to disagree with me from the get go, explained his position in his dispute summary. It's the same user who later made this statement: [80]

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[81]][[82]]) due to disruption in this article

I started editing under my IP-address, and decided to create an account shortly after, but I never hid the connection [83] Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing, but what Alexikoua is conveniently hiding is that my unblock request was accepted. [84] Further, I did what I promised to do. I opened a DRN, and during the time it was open I only made two edits to the article: I reverted vandalism, and placed an OR tag (which Alexikoua subsequently reverted). I asked an admin for assistance who agreed with me that the entry was troublesome. [85] I opened a RfC. I never touched the main part that was being disputed (the opening sentence under Personal Life), not once! I finally convinced the "third party user" that the entry was problematic, and he made the necessary adjustments. [86] With regards to the other part that is disputed, i.e. "in Albania", I started editing it after the RfC was opened in order to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing it, because he had until then (and still has) ignored the discussion related to this part on the talk page. It's all in my OP.

he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[87]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[88]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

Notice the lack of evidence here. For what it's worth, when I first made the DRN request, I didn't even include MorenReka [89], but this was closed by a volunteer since he noticed that MorenReka had made one or two posts on the talk page related to the dispute and his/her participation was thus required. There was never a cooperation between me and MorenaReka, quite the contrary. I told her/him that I preferred to tackle the dispute alone. [90] With regards to Lostrigot, he decided to enter the scene relatively late. But there's no cooperation here either, I agreed with his addition of Kone's origin (something I myself had been arguing for earlier), but I disagreed with his addition of trivia.[91][92]

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[93]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[94]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How's this relevant? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to recruit people online to join your battles on wikipedia is very relevant, as it is considered very disruptive. So I'm going to ask you point-blank: Is this [95] you? Athenean (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's called Stealth Canvassing: "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" and/or Meat Puppetry: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.", and both are clear violations of Wikipedia policy. In my eyes this is more egregious than the content dispute.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. However, I was a new user (only days old). I did not know the policies of wikipedia. If it's sanctionable, so be it. For the record, here's a similar request I made to an editor: [96]. I always had good intentions, I wanted to make something right that I knew was wrong. Also, this shouldn't be a reason to dismiss everything I presented about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: This is not a content dispute, but rather about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for administrator intervention regarding personal attack

Hi,

User @El Alternativo has resorted to personal attacks even after been asked to stop doing so.

Evidence on the matter:

• on this diff he calls me "juveline",
• on this other diff he calls me an "estadista" (someone who supports the statehood movement in Puerto Rico),
• on that same diff accuses me of patronizing him, and
• on that same diff claims that I'm somehow throwing jabs at him.

I have tried to remain civil but considering the continuous personal attacks on my person I would like to request intervention from an administrator.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Curious how the OP forgets to mention that I actually requested for the confrontations to cease and cooperate in editing the article in peace during the same edit. Anyways, is any of this even remotely close to being considered a "personal attack"? Saying "juvenile" when referencing a tag that was apparently added due to a revert is hardly an attack. And saying that his edit pattern would allow for a better attack since he is an apparent estadista is like saying it would allow for a better attack since he is democrat or republican. The reaction is way overblown. El Alternativo (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• But since we are here, I would like a take on the OP taking the source that I added to the article (my attempt to deal with his concerns) directly to the RS noticeboard without even asking me to prove it as reliable, and misrepresenting it as a strictly "pro-independence and socialist" source despite likely knowing, given his constant work on articles related to local politics, that the ideological range of the authors is varied and even includes people that belong to a centrist party. As noted in my rebuttal, this moves seems way undue and exaggerated to the point that I suspect a vindictive motivation, since he could have discussed the reliability of the source and I would have cited the same about PhDs and mainstream journalists, yet opted to take it all the way to the RS noticeboard, tag the article and leave me a note noting how he felt that I was being incivil for saying the word "juvenile". It seems to me that the OP may be abusing the RS noticeboard and he is most likely abusing this one. And since he is also actively engaged in a move war at Ricky Rosselló, I feel compelled to question if he is letting his passion of local politics get the better of him in his interactions with other users. El Alternativo (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not distort what I said. I never said that 80grados was "strictly" pro-independence and socialist. I said that it is a publication "with socialist and Puerto Rican pro-independence tendencies." Please stop twisting my words. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Excluding that other authors diverge from the posture that you adjudicate to the source, despite likely knowing beforehand, makes it voluntary omission. And since you took the reference to the RS noticeboard and tagged it as "failing verification" before the matter was disputed, and also before trying to engage me (if you can call posting a "warning" an attempt to engage), it seems quite clear that your intention was to defeat my posture before even discussing it, perhaps because you were offended that I called one of your actions juvenile. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly notice that the personal attacks persist. On this diff the user is now claiming that I am "pursuing some sort of vindictive retribution" against him. Can an admin please intervene? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I already mentioned and linked that above. How does that constitute a "personal" attack? It is just a note of the way that I perceive this sort of behavior. The only one of us that has actually tried to drop the one-sided conflict has been me by suggesting that you reconsider the overly-sensitive approach and I even took the first step by inserting your language in the article. Conversely, you did nothing to discuss the source's reliability with me; instead opting to take it there and tagging it. Given your edit history, it is likely that you know that it passes as a RS simply due to the notability and work of its authors within the mainstream. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Problematic signature

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

---

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

---

I really didn't know where else to bring up this issue. I have definitely had my share of disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz over the past few years, but now the addendum to his signature ("The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006")—and I'm not sure when he did it; that's just when I noticed it—is kind of rubbing me the wrong way. I mean, if that's how he feels, then why is he here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because he cares more about the encyclopedia than the admins? To be honest given his history, he is fairly justified in feeling aggrieved. Think yourself lucky, at least its not flashing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of clunky. Maybe cut the specifics and have a simple "treated like dirt since 2006". That rolls off the tongue a lot smoother. Rgrds. --64.85.217.207 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. If we admins are gonna treat him like dirt for a fucking decade, we'd damn well better get credit for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

_{Also, signature's fine. Just don't call out a specific admin or personal attack or whatever.} UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem in my eyes. Maybe he's doing point 18 of User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, or maybe he's not, but either way, it's not something that warrants sanctions of any sort. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's still just too clunky IMO. Maybe "Disdained by admins since 2006". Or just "Dissed by admins since 2006". Whatever. Rgrds. --64.85.217.207 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

One more quick thing...

I forgot to mention that the reason that I didn't ask him on his talk page is because he banned me from it years ago. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you're also allowed to ignore his signature and not being it up at all...--Jayron32 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Global rename please

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

---

An apparently well-meaning user, Duffhouseroyalwiki (talk · contribs), who I blocked for username vio, would like to change their username. Apparently I'm not allowed to do that, as I don't have global permissions. They're now asking plaintively if it'll be reviewed this week. I wrote up a message to the user, to tell them "Oh, just create a new account", but then I thought that might make it even more complicated. Could somebody with the right permissions assist, please? (Sorry about the doubled unblock request…) Bishonen | talk 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

I've sorted out the unblock requests and done the actual unblock - just need the rename now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the next step is for the user to make the request at WP:CHUS? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @MusikAnimal: since they applied for Global renamer specifically for this reason.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's all been done now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

OSMOND PHILLIPS

OSMOND PHILLIPS showed up several months ago, and most or all of his edits have involved adding a group of nineteenth-century American pictures to biographies of nineteenth-century Americans. However, these images have problems, and he persists, as seen in particular at Talk:Billy the Kid#Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall. He claims that each one depicts so-and-so, but aside from the lack of evidence for that, some of his additions conflict with reliable sources, e.g. at Talk:BTK, claiming that File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg (derived from his upload) is the same guy as [97], which has here been uploaded as File:John Tunstall seated pose cropped and retouched.jpg.

Moreover, the images he's uploading come from The Phillips Collection, part of an online magazine that admits that it has no provenance for any of these images — it's just some magazine that found them in an antiques shop, and some months ago he said that he is "THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION". He routinely says "they're confirmed by professionals" or "they're supported by researcher [name]", e.g. [98] and [99], and his userpage (speedy-deleted as U5, but identical to his Commons userpage) is filled with unsourced claims that he expects us to trust, but he repeatedly fails to provide evidence that would give anyone here reason to trust his claims. There's no evidence that these claims these are authentic, no evidence that these images can be trusted, and no way to verify his claims that they're the people he says they are, but he edit-wars to ensure that they remain (reverted here, with more reversions at [100]; and reverting multiple people at [101]).

And finally, consider his conflict of interest: we don't tolerate people who promote their own organisations by dumping lots of their stuff into articles (e.g. [102], with nine of his uploads) and edit-warring to defend that stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We routinely block accounts who are here only for advertising and/or promotion. This seems like he's here only for promotion. Katie^talk 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that I'd block the guy myself but I've edited Billy the Kid rather extensively. Katie^talk 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, the issue of the images added by PHILLIPS is already being discussed on Commons here, a discussion you are already part of. PHILLIPS has offered to provide a "check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person." That discussion is ongoing.

Your insistence that PHILLIPS states the photos have no provenance is a red herring. The full title of the the web page you linked to stating the images do not have provenance is "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance". The substance of the discussion ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors, but whether EN:WP editors are willing to take advantage of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods. This issue is part of that discussion on Commons. As noted there, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. They are running into the same disbelief here on wn:wp that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

Nyttend, on Commons you state, "discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there." So why do you propose here on en:wp to engage in a discussion of the images' and PHILLIPS' credibility when the images are on Commons, and that conversation is already being had there? You can't have it both ways: insist that en:wp and Commons are independent, and suggest that PHILLIPS be blocked here for images they added there.

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. WP is bleeding editors and fewer and fewer people are contributing. I have been acquainted with a number of exceedingly worthy editors who have abandoned WP due to harassment and uncivil behavior. I believe the multiple attempts to remove his images and his account here, here, and on this page border on uncivil.

Experts on WP are especially few and far between. The Old West Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through the halls. Since PHILLIPS is a professional and business owner, I get the impression they don't watch WP like a hawk as some editors do and may not respond to these concerns as quickly as some might prefer. Following the principle of don't bite the newcomer, I think it would be extremely premature and contrary to good faith to block him at this time.

I agree that PHILLIPS has reverted edits made by others when they should not. I attribute this in part to the fact the they are a newcomer and likely unfamiliar with WP's byzantine methods of conduct, its dozens of pages of policy, its dozens of policies and procedures, and WP's 5000 word long Five Pillars. Let's try to remember that some people actually live a full life without checking WP daily for comments on their contributions. I suggest a cooling down period and allow PHILLIPS to provide any evidence they have about the images that support their contention that they are of the individuals named.

In any case, the discussion here on en:wp ought to be restricted to whether PHILLIPS is engaged in promoting their business. They appear to be trying to contribute potentially informative and revealing images about a number of Old West figures. I don't see how their business benefits if PHILLIPS is releasing images into the public domain. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not merely that PHILLIPS is promoting his business: that's one problem, but as well, he's repeatedly adding images to articles that fail our verifiability and copyright standards. Uploading bad images to Commons isn't reason for sanctions here, but using bad images in violation of our standards is reason for sanctions. Moreover, note that PHILLIPS' website has lots of ads: making his collection more prominent through Wikipedia will obviously increase the number of people viewing the website, increasing ad revenue. We already sanction people when they attempt to promote nonprofits or personal websites; attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily." True. It that is, indeed, the case. And it's proven to be so. I'm not very comfortable with what seems to be a real lack of good faith and biting going on here. If that isn't what's intended, I'd love to see someone say that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that has concerned me since I first saw the Phillips site is whether, if this were text, it would be considered a reliable source. After reading the contents of "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" pages linked above—the text written by Catherine Briley—I was left feeling very uncomfortable as to the reliability of the site and thus the images being presented. Mr. and Mrs. Owner buys photos, they suspect (but do not know) that it was collected by Phillips based on photos that they think may be of the Phillips family mixed in with the photos that they believed to be of rather more famous Old West individuals. I've never seen a similar chain of guess and surmise being allowed before on Wikipedia: these are basic verifiability issues. And if the source isn't deemed sufficiently reliable, how can photos from it be deemed reliable, and especially as the photos themselves do not appear to have been marked as to the subject, but are apparently being classified by eye, including Mrs. Owner's artistic eye. Putting a definite name to a photo that isn't self-identified on the original is an extraordinary claim, and I don't think there has been adequate support/documentation to justify those claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits I reverted was only the photos. If I am not allowed to revert how can they be allowed to remove the photo. I am doing the same action as the person who removed them. Yes, I am a newcomer and have a lot to learn. Is it okay thatNyttend decided for himself to remove all of the photos? Should he be warned, temporarily banned? Put up for deletion like me? I don't know the rules as yet. He made the decision to remove all of the photos for all of us.

The Phillips Collection has nothing to do with the online magazine texasescapes as Nyttend states. All of the ads are on texasescapes. We receive no money from advertising from their online magazine. The editor believes in the photos and allowed us to write articles there to starting getting the collection known. We have made strides in research identification since then. The collection was originally collected from the 1890's to the 1930's we have evidence that proves this. The collection has gangsters from the 1930's and then stops collecting. We have NOT uploaded any photos to wiki that are after 1923. The oldest photos on Wiki is circa 1900. There were not as many publicized outlaws after that until the 1920's. The current owners of the collection purchased it in the mid to late 1990's. So it is not a recent find as they have had it for around 20 years. The collection is over 85 years old. They knew what they had but didn't know what to do with it. I was hired to have it researched and promoted if the research proved to be positive.

Photo's have been deleted when I first came to wiki because I was new and didn't even know they were up for deletion. I would not have known how to support them at that time. I submitted the Philips Collection resume of professionals and family descendants research on my user pages not knowing where to put it. Users against these photos were quick to remove the photos and the resume list. The same users are against the professionals stating that they aren't professionals. Yet these professionals get paid for their experience. We use professionals in the study of Photography, Victorian clothing, Historians and Forensic Arts. The forensics used, is the same forensics used to convict or prove the innocence in our court of law. Would these same users against the photos decide not to use the same forensics that may keep them out of jail? It doesn't matter what I put on here these same users will fight these photos. Nothing I can say will be good enough. That will be easily proved in reply's to this comment.

The majority of people believe that the Billy The Kid croquet photo is of BTK and others without provenance. Should people decide for us what we can see or what we should believe in. These users do not want anyone to see these photos and make up their own mind whether they are of the person or not and whether the public can see them and decide for themselves. These users are throwing away history. It is not for them to decide. To stop these photos they have put me up for deletion. So they will use any means to keep our history from being shared with the public. There is almost hundred photos that we are working on now to provide to wiki administrators the type of photo and the photography stamp information. We will need a little time. These users will try to have me removed before I can submit the information. I will be adding a long check list of the processes we go through with professionals to identify each person claimed in the collection. Last on the list is forensic analysis on higher profile people. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I realized that our checklist would be scrutinized just like our resume of professional people researching these photos. So I am going to walk you through the analysis of this photo we believe to be of Virgil Earp and his daughter Nellie Jane. I am sure the following will be picked at as well. Regardless of the research.

File:Virgil Earp-Nelie.jpg

Virgil Earp-Nelie

This is a cabinet card photograph. Cabinet cards were first seen in the mid 1860's and continued to circa 1900. The cabinet card is easily recognized because of the size which is around 4 1/4 by 6 1/2 inches. The style of the photography stamp whether printed or cursive, type, weight and color of paper, gold trimmed, scalloped or plain edges can help you narrow down the long years of the cabinet cards popularity. Along with decorative borders, color of ink, and back stamps. More information can be found on Wiki here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_card The photography stamp is WL [intertwined] Latour, 11 Main St. Joplin, Mo. There is plenty of information on the internet about Latour. Wiliam Latour [1845-1914] learned the trade at age 11. He studied the daguerreian photography art under the tutelage of Augustus Plitt, one of the St. Louis' most respected artists. From his instructor, he also learned ambrotyping and the aesthetics of photography, etc. He was known to have a business in Sedalia and Joplin, MO. One of the sites with this information is http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2356& Another site states he quit the business circa 1900. This information tells us he was in business while Virgil was alive. The style of the cabinet card and later business years works with Virgil's age. When we cannot find information on the photographer we look in the census records to see when he was in the area and what his occupation was. The writing on the back states "To Alice from Josie" It is believed to be the handwriting of Josephine Earp. We have another photo of one of the Earp's with the same writing style. Examples of her writing can easily be found on the internet. Her writing changed as she got older. We also have a photo of Josie on her horse and her writing on the back about her favorite pal. Virgil had a niece named Alice. She was the daughter of Newton Jasper from Nicholas's first wife. This can be found on Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3164. Evidence shows that it could be indeed Josephine and Alice of the Earp family. Virgil died in 1905 at the age of 62. This can be found at a reliable source called Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Earp Its also states that Virgil had a daughter Nellie Jane that he wasn't aware of until 1898. He visited her the next year and obviously other places. We have had, as an example, people say Virgil never was known to be in Joplin. We have found by these photography stamps that if the person wasn't good or bad and made the local paper or signed documents etc, you cant really say they was never there under most circumstances. Some of the photo stamps do match the area the person was known to be in at the time. A picture of Nellie Jane can be found on Find a Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40289053. Photos on Find a Grave can usually be trusted because most are uploaded by descendants. This is one of the places where we find family members and get their opinion on our photos. The photo of Nellie Jane matches well along with another photo we have of her taken in CA. Anytime you can identify additional people in the photograph it increases the probability tremendously. Virgil was shot in the left arm and lost the use of it. That is what historians believe. His elbow was damaged and completely or partially removed. Could Virgil actually be able to bend his arm like in the photo? We found another photo owned by Craig Fouts of Virgil, his wife Allie and John Clum. [We have photos of Allie and John Clum that match as well] Virgil's left arm is bent in both photos. Whether he had some use in his arm or he used his other hand to place it. The photo shows he could. Fouts is a known collector of historic old west photographs and is well respected. His photos of the Earp's are in all the Earp related books and Wiki. If this photo was a tintype we would know that a tintype is a reversed image of itself. Like looking in a mirror. We would know that Virgil's left arm that is shown bent is really his right arm.

 Virgil Earp's ears are distinguished. He has long ear lobes as does some of his brothers. He likely got them from his mothers side as Nicholas's lobes are not as long. More can be said about Virgil's facial features and hair but the ears are the best indicator as they do not change with the exception of the lobe getting longer at times. The clothing fits the era. Nellie Jane's dress style is correct for the late 1890's along with the color of it. Earlier dresses were dark unless it was a graduation or another special occasion. Wedding dresses were typically not white either. Virgil's suit and his removable collar that would be stored in a collar box was still used in that era. Several styles of these 1890 and early 1900's collars can be seen on the internet. We also check for jewelry, like Nellie's wedding ring to see when she married and does it work with the photographers years in business. We study the age difference between Virgil and his daughter. Whether Virgil is wearing a wedding ring or not. Virgil never married Allie but she was his common law wife. We look for moles, scars and any other identifying permanent marks. We try to find descendants, contact museums who has information on the individual. We contact authors and historians. We search old newspapers for information like this site Chronicling America by the Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/. We have joined ancestry sites to study their family trees to find clues of who the names are on the back of the photo if it isn't of the person photographed. Most photos have the names of family or friends that they are sending it to. Some of our photos do have their names on the back of the person photographed. Finally we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis. We only do this analysis on higher profile people because of the cost. We have not done Virgil's forensics yet, but we will. This information tells us that this is a circa 1900's cabinet card with the photography studio being in business during Virgil's later years. He is photographed with his daughter. Both are wearing the correct period clothing of the time. The cabinet card has the later color of grey with an embossed decorative pattern. The script is cursive and is appropriate for the time. The ink in the photo is the typical rich soft tones used in the later years of the cabinet cards. The writing on the back has known family names. We have around thirty photos of the Earp family members which enables us to compare with, even though they are unauthenticated. Many are with other family members. All of this information in a court of law would be enough to confirm their identity even without forensic facial analysis. Yet it is not good enough for some of the Wiki editors who want to stop all photos without a chain of provenance. It should not be up to a few, to keep the interested public away from such important history. How many of Abraham Lincolns photos have no provenance. Yes, he is easily recognized. Just because someone does not have the experience or talent to identify photographs does not mean the photo should be withheld. This photo was on Virgil's Wiki page to share with old west enthusiasts but was removed. I will be adding comparison photos soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Attitude issues at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was the topic of some contoversy, namely the depiction of the character Quiet (see Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain#Sexualized portrayal of Quiet). Over the last couple of months, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page. One particular IP editor (I'm assuming it is one person) is determinated to have as little of the controversy mentioned, and is convinced that who doesn't agree with them is wrong. The article itself is one thing, but this anonymous editor will not listen to reason, or just walk away. This has come to a point where this has to stop.

A message from October 6 reads: "I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". Untrue and accusatory, but not particularly a terrible attitude. After a while, they're back on January 8, starting off their new message with "Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points". Okay, sounds good. "There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME???" Taking a bit of a turn there. "To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Wikipedia standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual." Extremely concerning? Oh boy.

Well, from that moment on, things got worse. On January 12 there were two messages. The first: "They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents, obviously". Later that day: "You aren't interested in presenting facts, you're interested in putting forward a particular kind of opinion. One that states that EVERYTHING is sexist/sexualized, because you folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can".

Today came another post: "Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist."

All the while, experienced editors like @Peter Isotalo:, @Prisonermonkeys:, @Czar: and myself have pointed towards Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, on balanced articles, you name it. Today, @Sergecross73: had to semiprotect the article again, because they will not stop. --Soetermans. T / C 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrss.shourie

Persistent copyright violations. Bazj (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference: Mrss.shourie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I just deleted one article that seemed to be a direct copy of one of the linked references. So the concern is a valid one, at least on that front. The user's deleted contributions indicate that this is not their first deleted article - others were deleted in early November 2015. They said, in their edit summary, that they were basing it on references - perhaps there is a language issue at play that prevents them from understanding the issue? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikibreaking personal attacks and WP:FORUMSHOP

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

This editor has received multiple warnings about civility and personal attacks. The most recent yesterday. Despite being here only a short while, they have engaged in numerous conflicts, including one that resulted in a block for edit warring, and further exhaustive conversations to overturn a deletion at multiple locations. They originally opened multiple deletion reviews for the same AFD and once it was scaled back to only one DRV and the direction of the consensus clearly pointing towards endorse, they've continued to pursue the closer on their talk page and another admin on their talk page. Their conduct at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17 has been very combative telling editors they "lied" or calling other "annoying unqualified people" or telling them they "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". This editor has also made statements saying they'll "resubmit this petition" because they don't like or agree with the discussion. I also noticed on their talk page that they've essentially re-posted much of the deleted content using their user talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. I see this heading towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Mkdw^talk 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit was at 23:08 on 19 January - otherwise, I'd have blocked immediately for disruption. Their conduct at DRV has been dreadful, and probably got more people endorsing the close than would otherwise have bothered with it. I understand that they clearly feel strongly about the topic, but this isn't how it works here. So, if Wikibreaking is able to assure us that they are going to chill out, edit something else, stop threatening disruption, stop accusing editors of lying, and almost threatening civil action, then they can continue editing. I'm going to issue a final warning now, and ask them to come here and discuss the issue. Or, you know, not, and then they can discuss the block on their talk page. There does not appear to be much middle ground, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of refraining from the terms "lied", "annoying unqualified people", "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". First, they don't sound like personal attacks or insults to me. Second, I was talking facts. If you can't translate the language in the reference I linked, then you are not qualified to judge whether that reference is legitimate or not. Despite being unqualified, if you keep on insisting nonsense, then I am obviously annoyed & I have the right to express such infringement. Also, I obviously shouldn't have to avoid using the term "lying" (or the term bullshits) when you did lie. That's the level of discussion going on right now. I provide legitimate references on legitimate notable topics. My unqualified opponents just keep on insisting "not notable & not legitimate sources" without any indication to a specific detail. This is also why I split my article into 2 separate parts because the later half has ONLY English Google books as references (notable because of being talked about in the books & legitimate references because of being Google books published hundreds years ago). The result? Read the level of shits going on there. They shouldn't have any voice at all in this. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there is no such thing as "my" article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

When you start talking about "my unqualified opponents", it's usually a sign of a battleground attitude that will just lead you into more conflict and reappearances on this noticeboard, Wikibreaking. This discussion right here is a warning that your behavior has not been acceptable. You can choose to adapt to discussion, Wikipedia-style, or you can go on as you have and are likely to run into sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that response essentially highlights everything I've pointed out. I don't see this becoming a WP:NETPOS anytime soon. Mkdw^talk 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by their last comment Wikibreaking (is that supposed to mean something?) ought to consider improving their grasp of idiomatic English before editing English Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned with this colloquy from the DRV discussion, which, I think, comes perilously close to be a violation of WP:NLT by Wikibreaking:

• You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. [...] Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking appears to be claiming that their "privilege" and "entitlement" has been "unjustly infringed", and that this is a matter for the civil courts. BMK (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this edit[103] is both a legal threat and a claim of article ownership. The user in question needs to be indef'd immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's intended to cause a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT using legal language, which makes it a legal threat; blocked. I'll note that in addition to withdrawing the legal threat they need to have a better understanding of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND before being unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking is a problematic editor not only in DRV but also in editing other articles. The user added the same edit rejected as WP:SYNTH by other editors to other article. The user has a lack of grasping what the problem the user is doing and is incompetent in understanding the guidelines. Also, most of Wikibreaking's massive edits in Korean Wikipedia have been reverted by other experienced editor.Bulgogi, Gimbap,Taekkyon The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The user should be blocked indefinitely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't tell whether it's a true legal threat or use of legal language to cause a chilling effect, but I'm usually of the opinion that the difference should be academic in practice. "Real" legal threats should result in a block per WP:NLT. "Fake" legal threats should result in a block for disruption, either for a finite length, or until the "fake" legal threat is retracted so as to end the disruptive chilling effect. Generally speaking, some form of sanction is appropriate here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• The user has been blocked for legal threats, but I'd endorse leaving the user blocked because of their overall attitude. They have a serious battleground mentality and the trend I'm seeing is that they're unwilling or unable to assume good faith from other editors if they do not agree with their specific versions/edits. Their userpage, along with the massive amount of content they've added to their talk page, shows that they're almost guaranteed to be brought back to ANI and blocked for their behaviors. Upon being told by multiple editors that they're behaving poorly, their response is to accuse the other editors of lying and being disruptive. I don't think that there's any way that they could collaborate well with others even if we gave them a last chance unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• I tried to raise some of these issues with Wikibreaking and got nowhere. Their writing is aggressive and difficult to understand, but since I don't speak Korean, I was hoping that at least some of the sources were valid, and maybe other editors would be able to get through. Many other editors have tried, and now Phoenix7777 points out that this content has also been widely rejected at the Korean wiki as well, so AGF is exhausted. From their edit history, the user's name is likely a reference to Breaking (martial arts), so that part, at least, shouldn't be seen as a threat. Otherwise this is a constant battleground attitude over confusing and questionable edits, with only token attempts at compromise. Many of the user's edits go through contortions to advanced a pro-Korean and sometimes anti-Japanese POV ([104] [105] [106], etc.). There are competence, attitude, and advocacy problems here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a note, I added a bit to the block notice there noting that it's not just because of the apparent NLT violation that the block became necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yup, support all the above. The user was on notice about his/her combative behavior since 19 January and stuck the fingers in the ears. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mdclxvi0 harrassing User:JesseRafe

This account came out of nowhere and began goading me on my Talk Page. I politely warned them about it, and then they ran with it accusing me of harassing them even though I only responded (unprompted) the one time. My second time I gave them a Final Warning on it (because in recent months I've been getting a lot of flack from registered and Anon-IPs) while pointing out their mistake that I've not done a thing, and they responded (for their third time with lies on my Talk Page) that I had done so thrice. This person is also seemingly very well versed in Wikipedia policies, nomenclature and backdoors and it would not surprise me if they are trying to avenge a past dispute.

1. Random passive-agressive harassment, no prior interaction at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700180517&oldid=699601413 at 18:39, 16 January 2016
2. I send a generic TW level 1 warning on harassment of other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700498750&oldid=699719662 at 17:39, 18 January 2016 and think nothing more of it.
3. Then it gets good. User makes it obvious he or she is delusional or/and a different user with the following edit's claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700693285&oldid=700180517 at 21:33, 19 January 2016. Note that they said I am harassing them and they don't want to engage in a conversation with me! I had done nothing close to resembling this. My only interaction with this account was an automated low-level warning and by choosing my name out of a hat to harass on my Talk page the case could be made that a conversation with me (especially since they technically asked a question) was exactly what they wanted.
4. For the reasons as stated above I didn't want to have to deal with another abusive troll so gave them a Final Warning on harassment, noting that that notice itself was only the second time I had ever interacted with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700726190&oldid=700498750 at 02:49, 20 January 2016.
5. And, of course, after that final warning of harassing me, they couldn't help themselves and came back to my Talk Page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700831329&oldid=700743845 at 18:05, 20 January 2016 again accusing me frivolously of things that are easily seen to be untrue.

Given this, and the specific language used, I find it hard to believe this user has only 9 days experience on this site, and at that almost 20% of their total edits have been to blatantly upbraid me on my Talk Page with random noise and lies. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe, why don't you and Mdclxvi0 just agree to stay off each other talk pages? It seems like a tit-for-tat situation that isn't actually about any article. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with trolls and socks in the past but I don't think Mdclxvi0 qualifies as "an abusive troll" at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am off his page! I was never on it! It's blatant lies on my page and he or she needs to get a warning. How else would a user fresh out of not having an account in nine days make 3 out of 16 edits on my Talk Page complaining about me when I had never interacted with their editing in their (at that time) prior 11 edits in 5 days, if they were were not a new editor just a new account? To say this is a "tit-for-tat" is a very unsatisfactory response. Clearly this user has an agenda. In fact, to deign to call it "tit-for-tat" legitimizes this blatant and obvious harassing troll behavior. There is no tit-for-tat when one party is unilaterally harassing and libeling another. JesseRafe (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see harassment and libel, I see two editors telling each other to stay away from each other. This doesn't need to escalate if you can just choose not to interact with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, he feels as though because I am new user that he is entitled to sanction bans and harass people with accusations of sockpuppetry. He also threatened me with "administrator action" believing his time spent on Wikipedia gives him preferential treatment, and I am glad it didn't work! Screaming "libel" on one hand while accusing others of ban evading is ironic in and of itself. I have no interest in ever going to his talk page and am glad he is banned from going on mine. Thank you once again and will heed your advice to ignore. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This response itself is libel. I am happy to ignore this troll. The issue is his or her repeated and unprompted messages on my Talk Page over nothing but whatever he or she has imagined. I never knew this person existed until they started goading me. I had none of the mens rea this troll accuses me of, just stating the facts neutrally in the timeline provided above. What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance? JesseRafe (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance?" - She just told you, in plain English, to "agree to stay off each other talk pages". Also, referring to me as a troll is a violation of WP:PERSONAL and doing so only gives credence to your persecution complex. Let bygones be bygones, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting the administrators' time. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If calling another editor "an abusive troll" is a personal attack, then saying that an editor has a "persecution complex" is equally so. You want the other editor to stop? Then you do the same. BMK (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, both of you: knock it off. Slinging a continually escalating series of personal attacks at each other is only going to end with both of you being blocked, so let's have an end to that. You don't want to talk to each other. Stop talking to each other. If you want a formalized WP:IBAN then ask for it, without using words like "lies", "libel", "delusional" or "persecution complex", but the issue can be resolved right now by both of you walking away from each other and working on content instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Go to your neutral corners: JesseRafe, I was inclined to support your complaint until you started saying "libel", "delusional" and "troll". I understand you're annoyed over this, but that's no excuse for intemperate behavior. I'll grant that Mdclxvi0's sudden inquiry at your user talk is suspicious, but you need not jump to any conclusions. Also, your OP is incorrect in stating that you used a level-1 warning template: You used a level-3 as an opener. That's definitely not appropriate. That said, Mdclxvi0: Your response to JesseRafe's use of a user warning template, even if incorrect, was way over the line and only made things worse. All that said, it's way too soon for administrative intervention. Furthermore, I'm inclined to say there's no reason that either of you must stay off each other's user talk pages at this time. It would probably be a good idea to leave each other alone for a bit, but I'm not a fan of jumping to what's essentially a voluntary interaction ban given how minor the precipitating incidents were. We shouldn't reward either knee-jerk accusations of harassment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

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

---

Please change the figure for Beyonce as it has stayed the same for 9 years now she has not sold 75 million records worldwide she has sold an estimates 118 million to 150 million records. I believe you much change this as it is misleading people. Also since the release of 25 Adele has sold much more records then that of 90 million that is reported on this page. Thanks You for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:332:150:98BB:C1BC:624E:7A6E (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's best to discuss content changes on the article talk page. Have you tried that yet? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours

There's an issue with drafts being shuffled around by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that's being handled over at WT:WPAFC. However, we've had a repeated issue with an anon placing inflammatory comments over on that page. He was already banned after trying to get Ricky desysoped over at AN but apparently he's on a rather dynamic network and has swapped IPs consistently and continued to leave messages. Here's a hopefully complete list of socks:

• 166.170.44.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - original banned IP
• 166.170.45.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.170.45.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 107.72.98.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's already been banned on the first IP and it's pretty obvious he's the same guy. Could we get a ban on these and any other socks that he shows up with? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's just WP:DENY and move on please. The same complaint is happening here by regular editors here so if they want to bring it here, let them do it without encouraging this character. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but we need to at least deal with these IPs. It's vandalism all the same, even if it's on a talk page. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been months of this. WP:RBI. This character is following me around demanding the same thing ever change he gets. The subject matter is the excuse. Worst part if I can't even tell if it's from the longevity issues or the Indian caste stuff or the Koch-brother stuff or what but he's been consistently angry with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered leaving a polite message asking what draft it was but since he's already been banned after he tried to get you desysoped it'd be better if we just ban these IPs and semi-protect WT:WPAFC for a few days. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it's a draft that's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexis Ivanov's WP:Personal attacks and blatant incivility

User being reported

Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

This user and I are having a disagreement on the article Cossack Hetmanate about saying that the Cossack Hetmanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire in the infobox. My view is that this places WP:UNDUE weight on a small part of the history of state. It also seems to go against general accepted practice on Wikipedia in similar articles, so I have advocated placing this in the body of the article only. His view is that this should be included in the infobx. However, he has turned this conversation in to some very uncivil, rude WP:Personal attacks against me.

Personal attacks

• On Talk:Cossack Hetmanate, I asked the user to "Please be WP:CIVIL and follow WP:Etiquette."
• In the next reply, I again asked the user to tone down the sarcasm and insults
• The user responded with more mocking, saying "I already expect for you to whine and whine" and "For you it is Sir Ivanov, so please don't call me Mr. Ivanov"
• Disagreements about content continued. In accordance with WP:DISPUTE I appealed to 2 neutral editors for a third opinion: 1 and 2
  • On the talk page of Aleksandr Grigoryev, this user said of me: "you slithering like a snake with more and more lies"
  • On the other talk page, (user Toddy1), Alexis Ivanov called me an "innocent little baby", "a snake moving and slithering in the grass", "childish", and "shut your mouth boy".
    • I asked him to stop the name-calling and personal attacks yet again, and to take back those insults by striking through them (in accordance with WP:NPA) I asked him to stick to substance. Finally, I told him I would appeal to this page.
    • The user responded: "go and cry somewhere" and admitted to be intentionally behaving uncivilly.
• According to WP:CIVIL, I contacted the user on his talk page with my concerns, asked him to take back the insults, and stop doing them. I also told him I would appeal to this page.
  • The user deleted my post with a summary "deleted some filth"
  • The user commented on my talk page and said, among other insults, "I don't enjoy you vandalizing my page and desecrating it" and "don't come in my talk page ever again and ruining it with your writing". He also said "go ahead" and report his behavior to here.
    • I responded that "this is inappropriate".
    • The user responded: " I can clean my talk page as much as I want and delete filthy intimidating tactics"

I would like an admin's take on this situation. Where do we go from here?--BoguSlav 07:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

The user has been blocked twice before, the first of which has the summary: "persistent edit warring on several articles, personal attacks, some of them right on WP:ANI itself, uncollaborative editing".--BoguSlav 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I am completely uninvolved in the current topic area(s) under discussion, but I'd like to point out that this is a pattern with Alexis Ivanov. He seems to be completely incapable of editing collaboratively and sticking neutrally to discussions of content, sourcing, and policy, without going into WP:BATTLEGROUND mode and indulging in personal attacks, incivility, judgments, sarcasm, ridicule, anger, and so forth. Everything for him seems to be a "you're either for me or against me" situation, and if you happen at any point to disagree with him, you're in the enemy camp or the "you betrayed me" camp. It makes co-editing with him nearly impossible, and as I said, a battleground instead of a discussion or collaboration. I realize he's fairly new (has been editing 7 months), but he definitely needs to change his behavior and his outlook and his style if he wants to stay here long term. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)