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

YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

See also: § Harassment getting worse

It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

[1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please look at this edit in particular [1] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [2]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [3]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [4] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[5]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [6] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.

You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [7] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [8]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [9] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [10] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.

And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.

As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[11]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)

But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [12]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[13] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.

I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [14] especially [15][16][17]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [18]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [19] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at YuHuw edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw is editing as an IP editor again. He is "answering" a question raised at Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's increasingly bizarre that someone who objects so vehemently to being called Kaz should then proceed to act exactly like... KAZ. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

He is still editing as an IP editor. I guess he will start logging in as YuHuw once this item on WP:ANI has been archived.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geolocating to North Israel... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

178.217.194.100's long-term edit warring and continued addition of unsourced statistics

Last year, Jolly Janner and I repeatedly tried to explain to 178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at User talk:178.217.194.100 the need to source additions of statistics to demography articles. The editor largely ignored our advice, and engaged in edit warring. As well as adding statistics without sources, their additions are often poorly formatted, they have ignored repeated advice about the correct use of commas for thousand separators and full stops for decimal points, and the edits are likely in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I noticed today that the editor has resumed their behaviour, restoring unsourced material that was recently removed from the Demographics of France article and re-adding statistics about England and Wales to Demography of England that were previously removed. I think that enough is enough and some action needs to be taken to stop this disruptive behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that wasn't reverted? Jolly Ω Janner 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to advice about correct formatting, suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a fairly long block and a six-month topic ban on stats charts. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• It would be great to get input and/or action from some administrators on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• This issue appears to still be ongoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with recommendation by Softlavender for a long block and topic ban on the IP user, who unfortunately seems unwilling or willfully ignoring requests to engage in further discussion about the matter. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this still a problem? I see a comment from the IP editor acknowledging a problem with their editing and recent edits try to provide a source, although the formatting isn't ideal. Zad68 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The IP has commented that they won't edit UK demography articles any more, but that's not really acknowledging the problem, which concerns their insistence on ignoring WP:NOTSTATSBOOK at a whole range of articles. Edits such as this suggest that they also haven't taken on board messages about the need for proper referencing, as the URL linked to is just a menu page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• More of this today. Quite why Demographics of Algeria needs population pyramids for 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014 is unclear. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• The IP has made lots more similar additions tonight, including reinstating that material at Demographics of Algeria after Jolly Janner reverted the additions I linked to above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• He seems to have acquired a fetish for raw survey data used to calculate population pyramids. I suggest all of them be removed. Only the population pyramid itself would be useful in an encyclopedia. I've suggested a possible workaround to it on his talk page. In the meantime, we will have to remove all the survey data from our articles. I would still welcome a block, since we've previously advised workarounds, but the user doesn't listen. I don't hold much hope on this occasion either. Jolly Ω Janner 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please block this user soon? Another round of disruptive edits today after ignoring my alternative on their talk page. I've cleaned up some pages, but it takes a long time to revert them all. As they admitted, they are trying to add it to every country. Jolly Ω Janner 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this case? The IP user doesn't appear to be willing to respect consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP continues to insist that these are good edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Block reviews

I blocked Threegoodmonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as WP:NOTHERE, two edits only, both blatant trolling, and if this is not a sockpuppet then I am a threegoodmonkeys' uncle.

I also blocked Hendersonmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for more complex treasons, which should nonetheless be readily obvious from a quick review of his contributions. I have been watching Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some time, it is a device claimed by its inventor (a convicted fraudster) to generate substantial amounts of essentially free energy; there is a crossover with cold fusion and a long history of promotion of claims which are generally reckoned by the reality based community to have no merit. Given [20] I'd have thought this wasn't in the least controversial as a block-and-revert, but one editor has demanded that I recant so I bring it here for review. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Good blocks both. Miniapolis 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Without even giving my thoughts regarding their possible sock puppet connections here, I will say that both of these blocks are completely justified, were made with good judgment and cause, as were well within Wikipedia's blocking policy. I agree that they are suspicious per this edit. Not only a day after Hendersonmj was blocked, Threegoodmonkeys was created. Just 11 minutes later, the edit above was made (which was only the user's second edit). Is it a "smoking bullet", such as having similar words, habits, articles, MO, etc? No. But it does yield reasonable suspicion? Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

We block people for WP:TREASON now? Heh, all hail His Royal Majesty Jimbo the First, Ruler over the English Wikipedia, Emperor over all language colonies, projects, and metas and Lord of Wikia.--v/r - TP 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly. For treason, we sue them in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Only petty treason you know! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Violates BLOCKNO - What JzG forgot to mention is that he is not only watching Energy Catalyzer, but also editing it, edit warring on it, and discussing it on the talk page from a strong POV [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. It was only after the block that the blocked user outed themselves as a sockpuppet. WP:INVOLVED and WP:BLOCK are pretty clear that admins don't get to take control of content of an article that they have decided is not "reality based" and block users who get in their way. I would expect that admins doing this repeatedly might find themselves desysoped at some point. I would also point out that while comments about Rossi's past criminality are not WP:BLP violations, speculation that he is still committing crimes blatantly violates WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep; two edits there in the last six months... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So involvement "expires" after 6 months now? I must have missed that memo. Pretty obvious that Guy is involved here - while these may have been good blocks, he should not have made them himself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am "involved" in preventing long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a convicted fraudster. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to tie an admin's hands because they're familiar with a topic. It's unnecessary bureaucracy to have to call in another admin for such obvious cases. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy and practice say otherwise.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is also policy, you know, though I see below you don't put much stock in it. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I'm honestly a bit torn here. First of all, I will acknowledge your response, your concerns, and the diffs that you provided. While the diffs do show JzG's involvement with the article, they were made back in August and September 2015. It also appears that any opposition to Hendersonmj's edits would be content and source-related (I'm going to read through each of Hendersonmj's changes again). Do edits made six months ago still consider a user involved? My thought is that it depends on the situation. My first gut reaction when it comes to this situation is no, but I'll admit that I'm not overly familiar with the "history" of this policy and what has been determined in the past. However, if I were in JzG's shoes, I probably would have played it safe and had someone else do the blocking (because you never know). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for other admins to take an interest in this article. It's been a problem for a looooong time and it's heating up (no pun intended) because Rossi is now suing an investor who considers he failed to prove his claims. We are likely to see a fair bit of SPA action there in coming months. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an emergency. If the article is subjected to problem editing, someone will report it, and someone else (an involved admin) will take care of it. This is how it's supposed to work, and by the way, it tends to work really well.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:. The reason JzG is involved and should not be blocking people he's in content disputes with and protecting the article for a year, is not only because he's edited the article, but also because he has an expressed bias about the subject, and apparently a loathing of its inventor. Admins don't get to skate around policy or WP:BLP policy just because they really really feel strongly about a subject.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I completely understand what constitutes being "involved" as an Administrator, and I agree that he would have been seen as "involved" if he had made those edits you listed a week ago, or maybe even a month ago and then performed the block on Hendersonmj today - especially if it would have gained him an upper hand in a dispute, argument, or with contributing or editing the article. However, it's been six months since he's last contributed to the article whatsoever (assuming the diffs listed were the latest edits that he made to the article/talk page). Is he currently in any content disputes with anyone involving the Energy Catalyzer article and at this very time? Is there something that can show that his blocks were done in order to gain an upper hand in a dispute that is currently occurring? Again, I admit that I haven't observed enough discussions to where I fully gauge how long or when an Administrator would cease becoming "involved" with an article, but my first reaction here is to ask these questions and then base my judgment off of these answers. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• JzG was completely upfront about his minor involvement (note the lowercase) in this article and I don't see a case here that the blocks were bad ones in any other respect. We have WP:IAR for this very reason, to ignore the strictest interpretation of policy subclauses in order to do something that obviously benefits the encyclopedia. Let's remember we have 2-300 active admins and 5 million articles. We can't rely on getting someone else to do it in every case. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Interesting. Does it go without saying that you also believe that IAR applies to the BLP policy that people constantly beat their chests about? - MrX 20:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  The whole point of IAR is to employ common sense in specific unforeseen cases that don't fit into strict policy boxes. So I can't say what would be an appropriate case until I see it, otherwise we'd just put that into the policy. If there's a BLP issue here, please let us know what it might be. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think I already understand the principle and practicality of IAR. Regarding BLP, evidently you didn't trouble yourself to read any of the diffs that I already provide upthread, such as:

• "Yes, he [Rossi] has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch."
• "I think it is very useful that you have publicly associated yourself with Radin, Weiler, Sheldrake and sundry other cranks"
• "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims."

I look forward to hearing about how these comments improve the encyclopedia and how they are not indicative of an inappropriate bias for anyone using admin tools anywhere near this article.- MrX 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're right, I apologize for forgetting that part of the discussion. I don't want to encourage such comments but I don't see anything particularly problematic about them, sorry. According to our article on Rossi, he was responsible for a series of frauds, including a notorious cold fusion fraud. The encyclopedia should not be used to lambaste criminals but we can point out that a person who committed fraud is a person who committed fraud if it is relevant to the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. Rossi is a convicted fraudster, that is a matter of established fact. It is also an established fact that he has used several successive announcements of funding to imply legitimacy. I encourage any admins to look through the talk page history - there are two kinds of people promoting the e-cat, cold fusionists and Rossi believers. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion is relevant, as is the pseudoscience case. I draw a distinction between newbies appearing at the talk page to tell us we're completely wrong and Rossi's device will save the world, and people who appear and pitch right in to editing content, repeating prior rejected edits, and showing knowledge of Wikipedia jargon. I don't think that is unreasonable. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying "Rossi was convicted of fraud" (past tense; factual; sourced) and "Rossi is perpetrating a fraud" (present tense; speculation; unsourced). If I posted on talk:Dennis Hastert something like "Dennis Hastert is probably molesting boys right now", I would rightfully be admonished, if not blocked. If I did it repeatedly, I would be blocked. This type of conduct from an admin is shameful and falls short of the high standard of conduct that's expected of admins (or so I thought).- MrX 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the three quotes you list states that Rossi is committing fraud, only that he has a history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims, which is - as you yourself note - a matter of simple fact. I have no particular interest in this other than as an extension of the cold fusion article with its long history of advocacy editing by cold fusion believers. If anything my POV should be the opposite to what you imply, as my best friend actually worked on Fleischmann's original cold fusion experiments, but I don't really have a POV other than "prove it" and that means not taking Rossi's word at face value. It would be like taking Kevin Trudeau's word on a claim about the HCG diet. We simply don't take the word of people with a legally established history of dishonesty, especially in the area where that dishonesty was identified (in Rossi's case free energy). And we don't sit idly by while "brand new editors" pile in to add previously rejected promotional content. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims." I don't see how a reasonable person in the reality-based community, with basic grade school reading comprehension skills could see that as anything other than strongly implying that Rossi is committing fraud. To put it even more simply, "It happened again (Getting people to throw money down the drain)" and "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model" are unsourced smears and plainly not allowed by WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• These were both good blocks. The second would not have been if it hadn't been promptly brought here for review. —Cryptic 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and I thank MrX for prompting me to do so, I should have done this without a reminder and I will bear that in mind going forward. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

JzG's behavior has fallen short of the standard's expected of both editor and adminstrator; this rollback style edit is not minor [26] and does not meet the criteria for use at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. His block of Hendersonmj, with no prior discussion on article or user talk, is both hasty and involved. The fact the Cold Fusion has been crap since Fleischmann and Pons conned politicians and the media in 1989 is not a valid reason to violate policy; Wikipedia standard is reliable sources, not truth (see, for example, Chemtrails and numerous articles on inexplicably notable people -- names omitted per BLP but think so-called "reality TV" ...).. WP:IAR is properly understood as not letting the technical wording of policies interfere doing the commonsense thing, not an excuse to skip necessary steps in dispute resolution. WP:AGF and all that, and no, no one is suggesting wiki suicide, it's really just not that important an article. The notion that admins are hard to find is not supported by evidence; a recent AN request had a wait time of only 21 minutes; there was nothing so urgent requiring action on Energy Catalyzer in an accelerated time frame. I'd like to see a reversal of the Henderonmj block and a commitment from JzG to avoid misuse of rollback in the future. NE Ent 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I always enjoy your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. I rolled the edit back because it was blatantly promotional. Remember the context: a "free energy" cold fusion device that is being promoted by a convicted fraudster. Dispute resolution is fine for genuinely new accounts (cf. recent AE against Conzar, a sincere but misguided newbie). This looks like a sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet, given the known and documented off-wiki collaboration of cold fusionists).

With the exception of the lawsuit, which was under discussion on Talk, the material added was largely material that has been the subject of extensive prior debate, and rejected as synthesis. There is a patent, therefore it works! Or not, since British Rail had a patent for a flying saucer powered by nuclear explosions.

If any admin wants to replace the block with a DS notice and warning then that's fine. Or if the consensus of uninvolved admins is that I was wrong, then I will unblock and apologise. I have no problem with people asking me to post a block for review, I have no problem with accepting the results of any independent review (we can of course ignore the voices of the usual griefers). Guy (Help!) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual, NE Ent is encouraging trouble for the encyclopedia with completely unrealistic views about what others should do. Anyone wanting to offer advice about how to prevent fringe pushers subverting articles should spend a few months helping stem the never-ending inflow first. Johnuniq (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging trouble by pointing out that an admin is using admin tools (rollback, protection, and blocking) to control content? Thank you NE Ent! The way to prevent articles from being subverted with fringe pushing is the same way you prevent bad content in any any topic area. If you want to see a never-ending inflow of bad content, try new page patrol. I assure you, fringe topics are not our biggest wiki-emergency, by far. - MrX 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, a contentious topic Homophobia has been kept NPOV without any involved blocks by simply watching and editing [27], [28] and reverting NPOV inclusions with appropriate edit summary [29]. While tiresome and tedious, it's not actually that hard to edit per policy. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison. Homophobia is not a commercial product being promoted by a convicted fraudster, and bigots typically get short shrift on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• both blocks were good. i should note that i was one of the targets of threemonkey's monkeying around. also kudos to Guy for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have read through all of the difference posts and the comments here. It seems to me that JzG ought to have asked another administrator to step in. There are many admins who would have been able to intervene without the appearance of impropriety. I seem to recall the Arbitration Committee requiring that in multiple rulings of theirs. I don't see any outright problems with what JzG did but HOW he went about it. New England Cop (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds easy, but people who have tried it know that it often does not work. Admins are busy and an uninvolved admin would need at least half an hour to understand the background before they were in a position to think about the particular edits being reported. The topic in question is a magic box that produces an inexhaustible stream of very low cost energy, and people have invested large amounts in the company that is developing the device. Along with the free energy comes an inexhaustible supply of editors keen to add factoids to promote the device. Please review the archived talk page discussions and join in if you would like to help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Please post a diff of an administrator requesting assistance on either AN or ANI and not getting a timely response from another administrator. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • JzG has been an admin for a very long time and has been involved in enough controversy that he clearly knows the Arbitration Committee requires excusing oneself and calling in an uninvolved administrator when there is even the appearance of impropriety. He chose to ignore this and all in all it's a very, very minor violation of the rules of conduct governing administrators. I'd simply file it away and keep it in mind when and if JzG is ever called to the carpet to explain the many controversies he has been involved in. I propose archiving this thread but not forgetting it. New England Cop (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What I should have done was post it for review unprompted. That owuld have stopped the disruption and maintained transparency. I acknowledge fault here, and have thanked MrX for reminding me that this is what I should have done. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• First block is obviously fine under the traditional interpretation of wp:involved, which is to not worry about it much when it comes to "duh" cases like that one. I didn't bother looking at the second block but it sounds ok too based on other people's comments, and that no one has called for overturning it. Bringing it here for review when someone asked for that sufficed, imho. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions

In March 2015, Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) had an editing restriction imposed because he was routinely reverting any edit made by an IP address based editor regardless of whether it was vandalism or a good faith edit. The editing restriction was:

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

On the 23rd March 2016, Wtshymanski reverted an IP editor in violation of this ban with this edit.

On the 16th March, Wtshymanski reverted an IP address editor with this edit. This was an indirect revert (by copy pasting) of this good faith edit made by an IP address editor. The ban was enacted precisely to stop this last behaviour.

Note: that the ban was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski was disguising reverts of good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism. This is also a known tactic: to carry out an apparently harmless edit in amongst a raft of other edits to check if anyone is watching. If they are not, it is back to business as usual. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the long ANI discussion about this editing restriction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This was a perfectly good revert. However, a ban applies and it's indefinite. Nevertheless, I find swinging the ban hammer based on a single (good) revert a little too much. The remedy was proposed to break a pattern, and this edit can hardly be said to fit that particular mold. Don't try to kill a gnat with a howitzer... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for the known tactic, unless you have evidence (and show it) that this is a recurring pattern with this user WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about this because although I'd fully support these particular edits (one is vandalism, one an error) there is a problem here that Wtshymanski acquired a richly deserved editing restriction to limit. He is in breach of it.

I favour no action here, as I can't see that any action would be any more than punitive. However he should be reminded that the restriction is in place. Any further reversions like this are likely to attract sanctions.

I'm mostly unimpressed by the IP editor here trawling to find excuses to bring Wtshymanski to ANI weeks after an uninvolved event. In what way is that a constructive action? Is there need for a WP:BOOMERANG here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Andy nailed it. The vandalism revert was brainless. yes W should not have done it, but pointless to punish now. But spank that petty IP. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the best response would be to caution Wtshymanski with no other administrative action. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion If Wtshymanski didn't breach the ban for over a year (block log is clean since 2013, so I can only assume this is the case), and their first technical slipup was not of the same disruptive kind that led to the ban in the first place, perhaps someone should suggest appealing the ban, or maybe putting them on probation where they can revert clear vandalism, mistakes, etc. for, say, six months, before the restriction is lifted entirely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite and infinite are not the same. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

An examination of Wtshymanski's editing history answers your point. Since the ban in March 2015, Wtshymanski has only made a handful of edits (19 to be precise) up to March of this year. He has since then sprung back to life with nearly 200 edits.

Someone above dismissed the second example that I posted as an 'error'. In what way? The IP editor made a good faith edit that was technically correct. It might be argued by some that we don't call batteries as cells in every day parlance but that is not the point. Wtshymanski reverted the edit against his ban. Part of the original complaint was that Wtshymanski was not checking the history prior to his actions.

An editing ban is an editing ban. Either we have them or we don't. At the very least, Wtshymanski should be warned that he has erred. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is interesting, and does make me lean more toward a six-month probation period before all sanctions are lifted than simply immediately lifting the sanctions, but then again you might be just as much at fault, because apparently an IP editor has been trying to goad Wtshymanski into violating their restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not me. I have had no interaction with Wtshymanski for well over a year (apart from placing the required ANI notice on his talk page). Also forgive me but I have had to make this post from an alternative platform because the ANI page refuses to update on my regular PC. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (AKA 212.183.128.252)

The IP who was reverted for their error went to 3RR to push an unsourced and incorrect change, in quite a proscriptive form, "properly speaking, a battery consists of two or more cells". This is simply wrong (1 cell is still a battery), especially when stated so firmly. So whoever reverts it, that's not a statement that belongs in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Before considering a reduction in restrictions, please look at the pattern of behavior here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

Some of the above incidents that should have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so Wtshymanski's block log does not tell the whole story.

Whenever a line is drawn that Wtshymanski is not supposed to cross, he stands on the line with his toes hanging over it and makes random short dashes over the line and back. This generates endless debates as to whether sanctions are appropriate for the minor infraction.

Also note that whenever Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself or comment at ANI (statistically, this is a great strategy for avoiding sanctions) but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". If he stops editing, please don't fall for this trick again.

Whenever administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his behavior. He has repeatedly responded to warnings on his talk page with a comment that he has been taken to ANI, no action was taken, and therefore his behavior is acceptable. "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[30]

The good news is that Wtshymanski responds well to even short blocks. A 6 or 12-hour block will cause the specific behavior that led to the block to stop for many months and even years. The other good news is that the vast majority of the time he does really good work, and we have a shortage of skilled engineers who can detect problems in highly technical engineering articles. The bad news is that every so often Wtshymanski pushes the engineering equivalent of fringe theories and pseudoscience, and in such cases he refuses to accept any feedback from the other skilled engineers who are working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of those come from before -- some long before -- the restriction was put in place. Wtshymanski technically violated his ban twice, in a benign manner that others agree with on the substance, but thee also got in fights with IP editors and new editors as four years before the ban was put in place and managed to avoid restrictions because they were right on the substance then as well. Per what the IP said above, technically it would be impossible for a dozen instances of violating the ban to have already gone unnoticed, because they've only been actively editing for a few weeks. Retroactively blocking Wtshymanski for an edit they made back in 2011, because it my have been in violation of a restriction placed in 2015, even for only a few hours, is a terrible idea. I don't know if it was your intention -- I actually doubt it was -- but I know for a fact that there are contributors on ANI who actively try to enforce restrictions ex post facto, and I can't shake the feeling that some of them get their way, so even accidentally giving them their way here would be a disastrous misstep. And fourteen threads on multiple forums (only six on ANI) over more than half a decade is pretty average, and possibly below average for someone who's made on average around 13 edits a day for over a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Where has anyone suggested that Wtshymanski be blocked for an edit made in 2011? Guy has provided some context but that is basically all. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I specifically recommended that Wtshymanski not be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but at least one IP editor is requesting thus, and taking a rather cloak-and-dagger approach to it; posting links to discussions from five years ago may not muddy the waters any further, but it hardly helps the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. My "posting links to discussions from five years ago" helps the situation a lot. This is a case of long-term behavior, and the fact that he was doing the same thing five or even ten years ago is extremely relevant. I presented the following context:

• Wtshymanski does a lot of good work and should be retained if at all possible.
• Wtshymanski is usually (but not always) right when it comes to questions involving engineering and technology.
• Wtshymanski often ends up battling IPs and newly-registered users who are pushing engineering pseudoscience, often for commercial reasons.
• Wtshymanski exhibits long-term problematic behavior and will not collaborate with other established Wikipedia editors who have technical skills.
• Wtshymanski (unlike most editors who end up at ANI) is extremely responsive to sanctions, and a very short block usually puts an end to the particular behavior being addressed.

This is context that will help any administrator who decides to deal with this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• As a sometime critic of WTS, I looked at the two WTS diffs in the original report. The first one was a straightforward vandalism revert that nobody should get worked up about. The second was more problematic but should have been discussed with WTS before bringing it here. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a recent recurring issue, the report and its followup came across as axe-grinding, as per Andy Dingley. I think an admin should leave WTS a talk message linking the second diff and asking him to be more careful, but more immediate action against WTS is not needed. The batteries/cells thing should be discussed on the article talk page. The reporting IP's style also reminds me of a certain someone but I'll leave any decisions about that to others. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove the restriction Because frankly, it's ambiguous and can be wikilawyered to death and has no teeth at all - as evidenced here. What's the use of a ban on reverting IP edits if we're not going to enforce it? Take of off, let WTS go willy nilly all over the project, and let's just look the other direction because, once again, productive editors are above community critique. Save us the ANI discussions for a worthless ban and just take it off (I'm being sarcastic and serious at the same time, get rid of it).--v/r - TP 06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the fact that no administrator seems to be willing to even caution Wtshymanski when he violates this, and the easily-verifiable fact that Wtshymanski consistently interprets administrator inaction as permission, the restriction has already been effectively removed. We might as well make it official so nobody wastes any effort reporting future violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• So today we see the return of Wtshymanski, a first post to this thread asking to have the restriction lifted, then within the hour a reversion of an IP: clearly vandalism, reverted. Yes, this is "clearly vandalism". However this restriction does not have any exclusion clause for "clearly vandalism" - rightly so, because although no-one is going to object over such clear vandalism, the problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement over what is "vandalism" has been questioned in the past.

For today though, I see that someone under an editing restriction choosing to flout it so obviously during an ANI thread is hardly encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Observation of this forum shows that for threads of this type, it requires someone to propose what action is required to be taken and for there to be community support for it. That being the case ...

Proposal 1

That Wtshymanski be formally warned of his breach of his editing restriction and that a block will be imposed for any further breach. In view of the nature of the reverts, I think a block now would be counterproductive, and with the lack of activity for a couple of weeks the admins may well consider it time served.

• Support: As proposer. I would observe that if editing restrictions are not going to be enforced then, taking Guy's point above to its logical conclusion, WP:RESTRICT might as well be deleted in toto. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have read (some) of the above.: The purpose of an editing restriction is to protect the ostensible work of the encyclopedia, not to provide fodder for Jesuitical level discussions of fine distinctions. I would agree with the above proposals to remove the ban. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course the turkey would vote to abolish Christmas! 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• support With an emphasis on "block for future infringement". See above. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose See below. Kleuske (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• If, and only if, Proposal 3 fails, then I will support this because it's better than the alternative. Otherwise, I Oppose. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I might have supported option 1, but as there has now been a further infringement as in the next section, I have to propose: that Wtshymanski be blocked from editing for a period of at least one month. This is to reflect the blatant refusal to abide by this restriction. Certainly, no consideration should now be given to lifting the restriction.

Support as OP and proposer. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, but I don't believe in mandating block lengths. That should be left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Support In view of latest revert, a warning now is pointless. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I just checked, and WP:3RRNO states that reversion of obvious vandalism (including page blanking) is not subject to sanction. If this is correct, then isn't it inappropriate to block him over it? If I've misinterpreted the policy somehow, I'm open to retracting my vote, but for now it seems like this doesn't qualify. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Retracted.

You have misinterpreted the policy (easy to do -- it isn't clear about how it interacts with bans). Let's start with an easy case. Assume that I get banned from editing Wikipedia. Am I allowed to revert obvious vandalism four times because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit. So let's assume that I get topic banned from all banana-related pages. Am I allowed to revert four times on Banana because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit to that page. The 3RRNO exception is only for those who are otherwise allowed to edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted; thank you for clarifying. I retract my vote. --Gimubrc (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - the proper policy regarding this is WP:BANEX, which allows reversions in cases in which no reasonable person could disagree - which I believe stuff like page blanking would be. ansh666 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The policy starts with the phrase, 'Unless stated otherwise...'. In this case: it is stated otherwise because the editing ban specifically states, 'Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address' (my emphasis). As I read the above, this was rendered necessary because the original problem (reverting good faith edits from IP adresses in pursuance of a campaign against such editors) was being disguised as legitimate reversions. It therefore makes sense to ban those legitimate reversions so that not only are judgement calls are avoided, but it also avoids Wtshymanski gradually eroding the boundaries. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The policy is specifically worded that way so that restrictions with the "any edit" wording may still revert obvious vandalism. The "unless stated otherwise" would be "...is banned from reverting any edit, including obvious vandalism...". ansh666 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Banning someone for edits no sane person would disagree with seems pointless and counterproductive. This ANI-case reflects the shortcomings of the ruling, not some misbehavior on the side of the subject of discussion. The proper policy is WP:IAR. Kleuske (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating my earlier Oppose for the same reason. Granted 3RRNO doesn't cover this situation, but it seems needlessly draconian to ban him over this. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued refusal to abide by restriction

Wtshymanski, in spite of clearly being aware of this discussion about his editing restriction has blatantly and in defiance of the restriction reverted yet another edit made by an IP editor. I acknowledge that the revert was of pure vandalism, but I perhaps need to remind the contributors here, that the restriction was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski, in his campaign to drive IP editors away, was deliberately disguising reversions of good faith edits as vandalism. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, good one, too.Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The ruling is amended with the words "except blatant vandalism" just after "any edit". Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. A quick look at the diff should be sufficient to determine if he's violating any policies, and I'm really loath to block someone uncomfortable with the idea of someone being blocked for reverting unambiguous vandalism, whatever the context. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity; see below)

@Gimubrc: Your response to this proposal gives the very clear impression that you are an administrator when you claim that, 'I'm really loath to block someone for reverting unambiguous vandalism'.(my emphasis) However a quick check reveals that not only are you not an administrator, but you have only had an account since the end of January this year. At the very least, you are not acting in good faith. At the worst, I have seen editors blocked in the past who have falsely claimed administrator privileges. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding; I did not mean to claim or imply I was an admin. I have edited the offending comment to make things more clear, and struck out the original wording. However, please don't be so quick to assume bad-faith deception, rather than a simple miscommunication. I simply weighed in on a matter I had an opinion on. My vote also stands. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Also support; I see an IP (surprise) grasping at straws to get a productive editor who hasn't done anything wrong punished, and removing the possible loophole which is presented would be most ideal. ansh666 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan and WP:CIR issues

This is a report concerning the user MaranoFan, whom after the emergence of several incidents on Wikipedia, I have come to determine has WP:CIR issues. Understandably, one may think that I am being unduly harsh, but here is my evidence which suggests that this is the case. Please note that I may shorten the user's name at times to "Marano" or "MF" throughout this filing.

1. At Talk That Talk (Rihanna song): MaranoFan removed content from the article which was actually present at the time it was nominated for Featured Article status in September 2013. The explanation was that the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, was an unreliable source. Had this information and its source been contentious, it would have been removed prior to achieving its high standard award. However, what Marano had failed to realise was that the Daily Mail can be used as a source for musical reviews - see here. Furthermore, this negative review, carried out by a DM journalist, is needed to achieve a balanced viewpoint on the article.
2. Following this, MF then proceeded to continue with their removal of several sources from the article Love Me Like You; difference between revisions here. The same behaviour was demonstrated here, here, and here. Another user, Snuggums, told MaranoFan later that HitFix was indeed a reliable source here.
3. The aforementioned reversions actually appear to be an attempt to WP:HOUND the user Calvin999; the sources were initially added by him. I also see passive-aggressive attempts to WP:HOUND the user Winkelvi, such as through the giving of barnstars to editors whom they had ostensibly never had interactions with before, and also who had been in disagreement with WV before here. The statement "I don't think we have ever interacted on wiki before" is incorrect, as MF had interacted with this user on their talk page previously in regards to an issue with an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Here.
4. Furthermore, this non-AGF edit summary calls Calvin999 a vandal, something which he is most definitely not; he has been on Wikipedia for over six years.
5. Finally, MaranoFan recently requested autopatrolled rights. In their reason for requesting these rights, MaranoFan said: "[It] would be REALLY helpful in creating articles." - diff here However, WP:AUTOPAT does not help one in the creation of articles. It was evident that MF had failed to read the aforementioned page on the user right, and another editor had pointed this out on the WP:PERM page - diff here.

Also note: There's also this GA nomination. MaranoFan had nominated this article for GA when they had not edited it for weeks - they also had not met the improvement criteria issued in the previous GA nom which had failed. Calvin further addressed the failed GA at User talk:Carbrera. When MaranoFan decided to notify Tomica of the situation, and even when asked by him to stop, Marano carried on - difference between revisions here.

Whilst I have time to do this, I'll add: Polemic vios by MF here and here. In one of these revisions, I am referred to as a "vandal", as MF had previously referred to Calvin. I, for one, have never vandalised Wikipedia, and this is therefore a baseless accusation, not to mention the fact that it seems they are unaware of the definition for "vandal", further demonstrating their incompetence as an editor.

Overall, I feel as if I can no longer assume that this editor is contributing in good faith in any way whatsoever. When a long-term editor fails to understand key policies, and is harassing other editors, I can only assume that there are WP:CIR issues involved. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding: MaranoFan has demonstrated serious WP:OWN issues on "Watch Me Do". It completely fails WP:NSONGS and MaranoFan reverted my redirect with the edit summary of: Advising you to not edit articles I've created. thanks.. I am being threatened to not edit any article that MaranoFan has created. That is OWN at it's absolute highest.  — Calvin999 19:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan should not had advised you not to edit an article created by MaranoFan, but otherwise, looking at the article history, you're both equally guilty of edit warring and not discussing on the article talk page. Notable or not, do you truly feel redirecting an article 4 times without any talk page discussion is proper protocol to handle this? You're really just citing more examples of how none of you seem capable of mature discussion or playing nice with one other. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Ches

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

---

Having reviewed this report (which demonstrates that Ches does not even understand WP:CIR or WP:AGF) and the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_proposal:_block_for_MaranoFan spectacular time wasting failure by Ches to get the same editor blocked above, it is evident that Ches is on a quest to drive User:MaranoFan off the project for no good reason. This behavior is harassing another editor and should not be rewarded by more attention at ANi except to look at Ches's behavior.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the background of this but the first 4 points presented seem legit and the 5th makes an off-topic point. I see no reason to ban Ches for that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I can't see how Ches should have a WP:BOOMERANG hit them here - as per QEDK, 4 valid points worthy of bringing to the community I feel, and there's no 'driving off the project' going on here I don't think - evidence please. Mike1901 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and condemn this as spurious and tendentious. As some of the complaints contained within the previous thread alluded too were equally legitimate: and it is perhaps slightly unfair to blame Chesnaught555 for that thread, when in fact it was originally proposed *BY ME*... and was supported by other editors too. This will undoubtedly be a case of that rarity in physics and wood-working... the boomerang that itself boomerangs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK also. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and recommend the proposer withdraw this absurdity. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm going to create a Bingo card for ANI. The first row will have "meritless calls for a boomerang", "accusations of bullying", "166 IP harasses Ricky81682", "Drmies", and "a close is reverted at least three times". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

---

Note I have undone Legacypac's close: if WP:INVOLVED could apply to non-Admins, this would be the money shot. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually you did not, Ches and his proxy did. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well DUH... edit conflict. That was a great close of yours though, really great. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In passing the community is empowered to reach consensus on topic, interaction or site bans but cannot impose a block. Whereas admins can unilaterally impose a block, but not a ban. Yes it's a boring technicality - only worth mentioning in that strictly speaking this division of authority invalidates the proposal in the above thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread and was appalled by Legacypc's proposal. May I remind everyone that Ches did in fact not create the idea. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi initially proposed a block for MaranoFan with Ches and I agreeing. I suggested to Ches to create a sub-section for the second proposal in MF's thread. To just blatantly assume that Ches was the initiator was just wrong. Please check your facts straight. I haven't reviewed this thread, but I will once I find the time to do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you both (Callmemirela and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) for clarifying that. Of course, I do accept responsibility for starting the official proposal as such. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So, Callmemirela, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, QEDK, Mike1901, Gamaliel, Hy Brasil, and NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input so far. I am pinging you all as you have all responded to this thread in some way - what do you think of these WP:POLEMIC violations posted after I filed this discussion here and here? As you can see by the diffs, Marano is referring to me as a "vandal" - does this demonstrate incompetence due to the fact that I do not fall under this definition? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of drama going on, and much of it doesn't have an immediately obvious instigator. Part of the problem is that I don't want to spend hours reading through a dozen old conversations to get the full picture, and ANI already has enough people who go off half-cocked. But, yes, I think MaranoFan needs to stop posting polemics and calling people vandals, which is a personal attack. Making lightly-veiled personal attacks in a rant on your user page is a bad idea. It's not going to reduce drama. I don't know what's going on in all this other drama, and I'd rather not dig deeper to find out. My advice is for everyone to just chill out and leave each other alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable. Some of his comments seem intended to illicit a negative response. If the pattern continues perhaps re-visit later. Hy Brasil (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Given how you and especially your proxy WV have attacked this editor over and over, I think you are the last editors that should be auditing his edits. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Feudin'

It might be better, in the long run, to community ban a half dozen to a dozen editors, on both sides of this feud, and see if the grownups can claw back some amount of control. Or, setting our sights a little lower, it might at least reduce the average length of ANI by about a third. A lot of the same names keep popping up, either attacking one of the editors in the other clan, or defending their own clan members who are being attacked.

It would be tricky to decide how far down the list of hangers-on to go with the bans, but a couple of good rules of thumb that someone might be a good candidate for banning might be:

• they have commented in this thread, or the Winkelvi thread further up the page, and consider more than one of the other participants a "friend" or an "enemy"
• they have said 'you are banned from my talk page' to more than one person in the last 6 months
• they communicate primarily through templates
• they seem to have an extremely tenuous grasp of the golden rule; indeed, they seem to follow its complete opposite

One approach would an ArbCom case, wherein we try to get all of them banned at once. However, I suspect that many of them would welcome that, as the drama is fun, and it would get derailed. Wide-ranging interaction bans would be too difficult to maintain where there are so many editors involved. Another approach, which I'm considering instigating unilaterally on my own, is to declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be, either directly or on their friend's talk pages, no matter how many vandals they report or edits they make or friends they have, no matter how long they've been here, I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances. Until they're all blocked, or until they all stop it. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that, with an exception for user talk pages. If they want to whine and bitch at each other about nothing much they can do so as much as they like on their own talkpages as far as I'm concerned, but when crap like this keeps cropping up on watchlists they're over the line into disruption. I'm more than willing to hand out indefs all around and let all parties compete to write the most convincing {{unblock}}; this is possibly the most ridiculously overblown dispute I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I was around for the Em Dash Wars. This page is supposed to be "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", not "for people to waste other peoples' time whining that someone disagreed with them". ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in major agreement with many of your points here, Floquenbeam and Iridescent. My watchlist has many "go away" type reverts from these "factions" on their respective talk pages on weekly basis. Lately it's been the barnstars and such for, basically, being on the same side of the argument as them. They assume bad faith of each other. They attack each other through both veiled and unveiled references. They follow each other around and act in ways that would violate WP:INVOLVED if they had admin tools. Little good is coming from this group. only (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As an observation, just looking at those who appear currently to be the three current noisiest protagonists, Chesnaught555 has more edits to ANI than to the entire Talk: and Wikipedia Talk: namespaces combined, and 10 times as many edits to his own userpage than to any actual article; Winkelvi has more edits to both ANEW and ANI than to any article, while MaranoFan has less than 100 edits to all the drama boards combined and consistently has the majority of their edits to article space. If this doesn't end in blocks all round, it may be time to consider topic bans for the former two from any AN/ANI/ANEW discussion not directly concerning them pour encourager les autres, to be extended as necessary to any further members of this particular squabbling group who continues to raise trivial complaints anywhere other than on their own talkpages. Ignore all rules cuts both ways; "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia ignore it" is sound policy, but it also means that if there's consensus that an editor or group of editors is generating more heat than light and disrupting the work of people who are actually doing something useful, it's within policy to take whatever action is necessary to shut them up, and clogging up ANI in the way this clique have been surely qualifies. (For whichever aggrieved editor wants to complain that this post is violating their Inalienable Wikipedia Right To Free Speech, arbcom is that way.) ‑ Iridescent 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a bullshit ad hominem argument. A person can participate anywhere whenever they feel like. I'm not advocating anything for anyone, just making a point having faced such arguments. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've sort of had enough of this, so if blocking me or a CBAN is in order, I bear no objection. If the community doesn't see me fit to edit, I'll do as they say. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm all up for a ceasefire, to stop the escalating drama. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just close this as withdrawn, but please consider it so. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"see if the grownups can claw back some amount of control." - We are all adults here. I'm pretty sure I'm older than most in this thread.  — Calvin999 08:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here, Calvin999. As far as a "ceasefire" - I refuse to refer to it as such because I've never considered any of this a "war". But, because at least two of us being referred to are adults, I'm fine saying I have no qualms being an adult by continuing to leave the stick on the ground (pretty sure I haven't had the stick in my hand for at least a week in this thread or the other one started by MF far above this one). Personally, I like Floquenbeam's idea: "declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be, either directly or on their friend's talk pages, no matter how many vandals they report or edits they make or friends they have, no matter how long they've been here, I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances". The only thing I disagree with is making it involuntary. I think there should be an opportunity for any/all involved to act on this voluntarily; if they do not, then make it involuntary for those not complying on a voluntary basis. I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to Floquenbeam's idea. I am fully aware of the fact that I am part of a community where most people are adults, and as such, I will behave in a mature manner and drop the stick. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So just over 48 hours after saying he's declaring a "voluntary" truce, Winkelvi nominates an article created by MaranoFan for AFD. This comes after Calvin999 redirected the article, MaranoFan reverted it, and Calvin999 restored the redirect. This set of actions truly shows how we need "involuntary" restrictions placed on these parties. only (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this comment and diff is less than forthright: Please, anyone reading this, look at the actual AfD, the wording of the nom, the reasoning behind it and see if nominating it was the right or wrong thing to do based on policy. AfD link here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I followed the link. Standing alone, the nom is policy-compliant. Which is utterly beside the point. Because it doesn't stand alone. It repeats a disruptive, destructive pattern. There's no deadline here, so there's absolutely no reason this AfD needed to be filed now and, given all the sturm und drang, every reason in the world for a person with decent judgment and a regard for the community to refrain from filing it. It's a pointy stick. It clearly has not been dropped. Floquenbeam's proposal looks better and better all the time. David in DC (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

David in DC, no there is no deadline, however, the article's existence is a policy-vio, precisely why I filed the AfD. There's no repetition of any pattern, unless you consider that I nominate non-compliant articles when possible and necessary. Further, I have plenty of regard for the community - which really has nothing to do with anything: it's an appropriate, policy-driven AfD, not edit warring, and nothing else that harms the community. As far as my judgement, I'll be the first to admit that at times, due to my Asperger's, my judgement can be "off", but it's never anything but 'decent' and always with a good result and proper intentions in mind. Last, there was absolutely no pointiness or stick wielding. Please don't judge so harshly, as far as I'm aware, we don't know each other at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Look to longevity to find where we've interacted before. I draw my conclusions based on our interactions in the longevity suite of articles and then running across the various threads here at ANI.

MF created the page. The page has no attributes requiring quick action. Gazillions of electrons across the wiki (and multiple-gazillion volunteer person-hours) are being expended trying to quell the unpleasant interactions between the two of you. Shortly after announcing that you'll voluntarily refrain from interacting with MF, you nominate the page he created for deletion. Prudence and a decent regard for the community dictate that you wait and let someone else nominate the article for deletion, in the fullness of time. I'm coming up empty in trying to imagine a countervailing reason that demands immediate action by you, other than the continued wielding of a pointy stick. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my old brain and memory, I don't recall interacting with you previously. As already stated, I freely admit that my judgement at times may be off due to how my neurology works as a result of being on the autism spectrum. That said, I cannot understand why you would need to come up with any countervailing reason at all since you already have my honest explanation above. It wasn't stick wielding or pointiness. And that's the simple, complete truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Last try. After this, please feel free to have the last word, because I'll be done. Nominating an article for deletion requires notifying the article creator that you're making a nomination. Notifying the creator is interaction. So, if there's no urgency to deleting the article (no BLP issues, no libel, no danger to children, etc.) there's no good reason to make the nomination. And plenty of good reason to leave the task to someone else. David in DC (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully support Floquenbeam's plan of declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be... I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances. Until they're all blocked, or until they all stop it. I'm so tired of all the stupid bickering, hounding, and drama amongst the core group of Winkelvi, Calvin, Ches, and MaranoFan. It's beyond ridiculous that we're still discussing their dysfunction right after a massive multi-week discussion about them. And its ridiculous that right after an iban was put in place, Winkelvi nominated Marano's article for deletion. (A valid nomination, but it was not Winkelvi's to make, nor was it an urgent situation. It's a random song article, not an attack page or BLP violation.) These four clearly are unwilling or unable to control themselves, so its time an Admin does for them. Please do this, Floquenbeam. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, you are wrong. I did NOT put up that AfD after the IBAN was put in place. Please correct/retract your claim. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I misread Only's comment above. I thought it had meant that you had agreed to the iban, and then you went and broke it almost instantly, but it seems it was merely you breaking your own commitment to stopping all this. That explains why you were you weren't blocked on the spot at least. But it still shows a complete lack of self-control or ability to stop this without intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: based on this thread, I've decided instead to put together an ArbCom case request in the next week or two, with the goal of getting them all sitebanned. No amount of cajoling has worked, and the 10,000 ANI threads is an indication the community can't handle it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm compleyely confused by your stated intentions, Floquenbeam. You all have the iban you desperately desired, what is the logic and policy behind a siteban since the iban is in place? Please don't just ignore my question like you did at your talk page. If you are talking about editors being banished forever from Wikipedia, an explanation to one of those you wish to see gone is not an unreasonable request. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with this kind of drastic baby/bathwater plan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'll gladly comment when you end up doing that. I think it would be less of a time sink if you handled it yourself with your "1 month block plan", but I don't object to either approach. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Update

Winkelvi has agreed to stop posting on ANI except to provide direct answers to any questions an administrator may pose about their behavior, and that they will totally avoid all interaction with MaranoFan and anyone else they've getting crossed up with up. (\I haven't been paying close enough attention to know who that is, exactly. Suggestions? Discussion is on their talk page. NE Ent 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to remind him that the 1RR restriction is under is still in effect until May 1. only (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, that's good, but I don't think this should stop any of Floq's proposals above. Winkelvi's not really "choosing" some of this, considering there's a formal Iban between Winkelvi and Maranofan now. And didn't Winkelvi already voluntarily agree to stop, only then to go straight into nominating MaranoFan's article for deletion? And this doesn't address the constant troubles Calvin and Ches, who are the ones who started this particular thread. I feel like a lot is left unresolved still. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Easter126

There is a massive Sockfarm around the Topic Stuart Styron.

In the Table only SUL works fine...

Ulla1956 is allready blocked on en:wp (legal threat), user Patriska2601 Helde43 Schitty666 Schmidtrach2 are bloked od de:wp ((Personal attacks or harassment))

The Easter126 was blocked infinit (Personal attacks or harassment), but the Admin reduces it to three month until jun. I suggest to set it again to infinit, cause this is a Sockpuppet / DUCK Schmitty (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Stuart Styron has come up before, Schmitty. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_.282.29 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Stuart_Styron, you might like to check these out. The Stuart Styron page itself has been salted so nothing much is going to happen there. As it happens, I have an IP on my user page today asking about Stuart Styron, I've not responded yet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2016/04/10#Benutzer:2.243.198.61_.28erl..29_2 Banned for 1day in de:wp. He is trying to stalk me in german wikipedia, look at my userpage and userdisk https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Schmitty&action=history Schmitty (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

His contribs were fully deleted: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Schmitty (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Those were my listings at COIN.
  • User:Fasterthanyou123 self disclosed as Stuart Styron, so a sock of User:Styron111 . Dormant, but both still should be blocked indef for socking/promo only IMHO, plus this widespread abuse from a big sockfarm.
  • User:Flashfox7 account name appears to be a play on my account name, and a clear sock. Dormant but should be blocked. Widefox; talk 09:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of those listed by Schmitty, four have created pages (all deleted) about Stuart Styron: Ulla1956 (blocked indefinitely), Flashfox7, Easter126 (blocked 3 months) and Nature024. Fasterthanyou123, who has as you say self-identified as Styron, also edited the Stuart Styron page. Was your conclusion that there was meatpuppetry/paid editing at play here? The others are not registered, have not edited or, in the case of Styron111, made only two edits in 2011. None are currently active on en.wiki (in the cases of Ulla1956 and Easter126, this is not voluntary). Schmitty has opened a checkuser request on de.wiki and we can see how that pans out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thought we indef blocked socks? This is quite humdrum and melodramatic but not over yet: AFAIR, one person with at least three accounts, possibly with other accounts being meats from a promo company (use of "we" is probably not a English translation artifact but may be more of a royal we than a hint at group accounts/meats). Now, add IP duck sock of Styron User:2.244.158.181 - broken English, style of choosing the good path(TM), etc. COIN can be a bit toothless, but this drama keeps giving despite it being belatedly salted... Ad hominem and legal threats towards Schmitty and disruption of my usertalk [31] Widefox; talk 08:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-mit-benutzer-schmitty-ganz-weit-vorne Stalking in a bad way, in this PR you find a link to:

http://www.amazon.de/Die-Akte-Wikipedia-Informationen-Online-Enzyklop%C3%A4die/dp/386445123X/ref=pd_cp_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=19PY5TE21NHKGG28C81B

Amazon has already deleted this "Post", stating me as a Psychopath. The other PressArtikel is also deleted now.

You find the Links in conrtibutions of de:Benutzerin:Ulla1956; en:wp already blocked for legal threats, is now blocked on de:wp

Schmitty (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an English translation of the www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com link which is a dead link today [32] .Widefox; talk 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-polizei-ermittelt-gegen-benutzer-schmitty Stalking again Stalking at its best Schmitty (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Stuart Styron has now been deleted. Seven times. Salt? (No idea who they are, but with the article gone, we don't have to do anyting at WP:COIN). John Nagle (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Longfamily417

This report is about the conduct of User:Longfamily417 concerning Draft:SageTea. This draft was submitted nine times to Articles for Creation within 36 hours by the owner of the company, who is apparently in a great hurry to obtain free advertising in Wikipedia for his company, and who has repeatedly made minor changes to the draft without addressing substantive issues. The author was repeatedly cautioned to stop resubmitting the draft tendentiously, and was advised to request comments at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, but persisted in resubmitting. Finally one of the reviewers nominated the draft for Miscellany for Deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea. At this point (and only at this point), the author stated that he would step aside from editing and resubmitting the draft, but would ask another editor, a former employee of the company, to take responsibility. That is a clear case of attempting to game the system.

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASageTea&type=revision&diff=714487940&oldid=714486700 the author included text of a granted patent that was copyrighted by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Longfamily417 may have a valid argument for notability, which doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem. The problem is not so much the company or the draft or the notability issue. The problem is a disruptive single-purpose account who will stop at nothing to get his free advertising. It is clear now that the real answer is not whether to delete the draft, but whether to delete (or sanction) the editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The following edit was made to my talk page, only after the eighth submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=714535620&oldid=714477850 I may be cynical (or WP:AGF really may be a suicide pact that I am not honoring), but I can't accept the good faith of a statement that my advice is appreciated, when my advice to ask for advice at the Teahouse was ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad Topic-Ban

I propose that User:Longfamily417 be topic-banned from SageTea, broadly construed, and from any other topic in which the editor has any sort of conflict of interest. COI editing in draft space is not normally considered forbidden by policy because the draft is not outward-facing, is subject to review, and may be edited to neutralize it by reviewers and other editors. However, in this case, Longfamily417 is pursuing a COI agenda so aggressively that only a topic-ban will prevent further disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The nominator obviously supports his nomination, and is already counted in. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unnecessary point, actually! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the problem. They've removed the offending content, they've made a COI statement, they've tried to get outside help in good faith. They've agreed with removals of content. They're trying to comply with our policies; and they've tried to comply with everything being said to them. I don't see what has made you rush over to ANI on this topic. What, exactly, are they doing that is disruptive?--v/r - TP 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Comment - In view of the fact that they did harm by wasting the time of the AFC reviewers by tendentious resubmission, what harm to them is there in handing them a topic-ban from an article that they shouldn't be pushing anyway? It is very common for an editor to say that they won't edit on a topic in order to get a topic-ban quashed, and then wait a few months and resume. Since this editor (although now cooperative) was stubborn and tendentious, why not just topic-ban them?: Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support They're clearly only here to advertise, so topic ban seems okay. However, I think indefinitely blocking as not here to contribute positively would be more appropriate. Also, he's said he's getting someone else to write the article for him, so I guess the topic ban should cover that too? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I propose we topic ban Dweepsteeple too, since they created SageTea in main space, and are clearly the person that the above CEO said he was going to get to work on the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The above is presumably intended to refer to DweepSteeple rather than the non-existant Dweepsteeple. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the characterization of myself as "aggressive", I don't share that view. I work very hard on everything I do, and usually put in a 16 hour day, including looking after my 3 kids and running a business with 22 employees. I have been on Wikipedia for all of 2 days, and felt I was putting my time in last weekend, to make the article as best I could. Naturally, being the first submission, I had a lot of feedback, and responded quickly out of respect for the time given by the editors. My intention was not to be aggressive - it was about being timely.

I have done my best to take a step back from being involved in the article. As a CEO, I certainly understand the dangers of conflict of interest. That said, once disclosed, the problem becomes manageable, as long as it is done carefully. I fully recognize this take the guidance of others. I am refraining from comment or involvement in the article, unless asked.

In terms of the statement "getting someone else to write the article for him" I would not say that is how I communicated with the current submitter. Factually, he was a former employee of SageTea, a temporary student who is no longer with the company and left on good terms. He is also bright, and someone I don't talk with very often. What I did say is that he is free to put the article into his own words, and write about the topic however he wants. That said, his comment back to me was that the folks on Wikipedia were very aggressive. So I actually had to apologize to him for that. I think the point here is that I communicated with him about the idea. What I did not do is force him or make any other demand, just passed on the idea. Where it goes after this is out of my hands.

I am the inventor of the patent and the CEO of the company. If anyone wants to ask me about that one topic, I am the expert and willing to answer any questions. If I am not asked, then at this point I have nothing to say. I think that is best with respect to the COI question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have admin glasses to see the deleted article in mainspace. Does it read almost the same as the current version in draft space? If so, quack, quack. Does it pass the duck test, in which case we are not just dealing with tendentious and disruptive editing, but sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I has the admin glasses and the two articles have most of the same content. The deleted article has some additional technical jargon but the puffery is identical. If DweepSteeple isn't a sock, he's a meatpuppet. The claims of 'I just passed on the idea' are disingenous at best. Katie^talk 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie: Reasonably sure they are different users, because User:Longfamily417 has been adamant that he'll get someone else to write it, although I explained that that would be a COI and meatpuppetry. :ike most of their responses, they didn't listen. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I'm not opposed to a block but I'm not convinced there is need. The topic ban seems sufficiently broad. Most likely it'll just means the editor stops editing or is blocked because they don't stop and continue to make COI edits. There is a small chance they'll edit other articles, hopefully productively. While there is also a small chance their editing won't be productive or they'll test the boundaries, the highly narrow focus of their editing thus far suggests to me this is fairly unlikely and we can probably easily deal with it if it does happen. Based on the above comments of meat at a minimum, I suggest DweepSteeple also be topic banned. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support six-month topic ban for Longfamily417 and DweepSteeple as necessary at this point; the aggressiveness in trying to ram this article into the encyclopedia is inappropriate. Miniapolis 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

SageTea article

A point noted above: there is a draft, Draft:SageTea, which is at Mfd, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea, as promotion of a non-notable topic. The mainspace article appears to have been created as an end-run around that. Since the bar for inclusion in mainspace is higher than that in Draft and the mainspace article had all the same issues identified in the Draft (it was a copy-paste, in fact), I have removed the main space article pending outcome of the Draft MfD. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that I have been on Wikipedia for all of 4 days now. Give a guy a break. I can learn fast, but am still learning the interface. I hear what everyone is saying. Really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - If you are multiply cautioned to ask for help rather than resubmitting, having been on Wikipedia for only 4 days is a flimsy excuse. Most regular Wikipedia editors try to explain to new editors what they should do differently. It is true that we are not always patient with editors who keep repeating the behavior that they are advised not to repeat. How many warnings do you think are needed to a tendentious editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian IP disruption in music articles

There's a persistent person from Sicily who is making lots of unreferenced changes to music articles, mixed with a few obvious falsehoods. The most recent involved IPs are as follows:

• 82.51.32.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.53.4.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.30.91.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.56.98.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.27.106.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy persists in changing to wrong credits in a few song articles, for instance "Go Away Little Girl"[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and "To Love A Child."[40][41]

A previous notice about this guy was archived without any discussion: Sicilian IPs pushing Durium Records, Nikka Costa, inserting falsehoods globally. That discussion had a lot more detail about the person's disruption. KrakatoaKatie blocked 82.61.34.110 shortly after the March 19 notice. Can we do something stronger to stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He has been warned, and blocked, multiple times so I will block the latest IP. However, he is using Telecom Italia dynamic IPs so will simply pop up on another. A range block is out of the question, the IP addresses are too scattered. We do have the option of semi-protection or pc1. As "Go Away Little Girl" has been suffering since the first week of March and the disruption has continued after a one-week protection, I'll semi-protect it for a longer period. I am not sure if an edit filter would help, perhaps others might comment? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've created a page to start bringing together reports, IPs, article affected and action taken at User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian_IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish we could globally block this guy. I've been going around to different language wikis to try and counter him, and I've contacted the most effective admin who is quick to recognize, revert and block this guy on Italian-language Wikipedia.[42] Let's see what K'n-yan says about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly prolific. There are a few articles that he edits more than others, "Go Away Little Girl", United Artists Records and "Sleep Walk", for example. If he pops up at those, I'll semi-protect them (or you can request s-p at RfPP). Being quick to recognize him will be key, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He's popped up again as 95.238.111.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), this time he is block evading. Added to User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian_IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood

User:Davey2010 has posted to my user talk page accusing me of disruptive editing and stating that I will be blocked if I do it again [43]. The issue stems from a reversion I did of an edit to the page by User:CDRL102 in which they said that a statement was an opinion. In reality the statement was referenced and was a matter of established fact. I explained my reversion substantially on the Clarawood talk page however this page was changed by Davey2010 and the sections deleted [44] [45]. Instead of taking my comment and explanation on board the immediate reaction from Davey2010 and CDRL102 was to accuse me of ownership and inexperience. Davey2010 has previously stated to me that there are Guidelines and Policies on Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow them and anything I have done has been referenced to such. Davey2010 however, admin or not, seems to have the attitude that he can do anything he wants. This is demonstrated by the original AfD he and CDRL102 raised for Clarawood which was closed after approx 1 hour and which was reinstated after a Deletion Review [46] [47]. In other words he has a pattern of what could be termed disruptive behaviour himself and deliberate ignorance of Guidelines and Policies. I am being accused of not being willing to work collaboratively and unreasonable "ownership" style behaviour concerning the page Clarawood. As I have previously argued in the AfD, talk pages and the Deletion Review this is not the case and there are very substantial references on the page and I have encouraged and asked for any problems others have with it to discuss them particularly on the talk page. The edit by CDRL102 demonstrates the importance of this as they were factually wrong. I have also been accused of reverting every edit anyone makes. This is also quite simply not true, but I have reverted non-constructive edits and explained why I did so. I have followed process in anything I have done here, I have not deleted other people's comments or blankly edited fully referenced material and I have not acted outside normal process and policy. Davey2010 however has done these things and I feel that it would be pointless and impossible to have a rational discussion with him on his talk page which is why I am raising this ANI instead. I have no problem with constructive edits to any page, that is what a collaborative encyclopaedia is about, however I think I am entirely correct when I say that edits must actually be constructive and based on fact and if they are not then it is fair to revert them. I think I am also entirely correct to say that Davey2010's behaviour has not been perfect and I hope this can be looked into Clarawood123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If he tried to do anything to improve that article, then more power to him! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Yep I gave them a strong warning as they've heavily been trying to "promote" the article and clearly do have OWNership issues with it,

Yep I've wiped their article talkpage posts as it was more or less moans over reverts and some were unrelated to the article - I never ever do this however in this case filling the talkpage up with crap isn't ideal either -Most of it belonged on a user talkpage,

Yep I did move the article to a sandbox as CDRL was more than happy to work on it although it was reverted by Sandstein as there wasn't really any consensus at DRV for my actions,

So all in all I believe my actions overall have been okay and the only person that should be blocked is Clarawood123 for their huge amounts of disruption not only on the article but also on the DRV and the AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh and I'm not an admin ..... thank the lord , –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to edit this page, most of my edits were reverted. It was then userfied to me to improve the quality, once it was put back into Clarawood, User:Clarawood123 deleted my revision and copied and pasted his last edited revision before it was userfied. Since then, I didn't try to restore some of my improvements as I'm not going to waste my time and have it reverted again, although I did try to edit the opening paragraph, which surprise surprise was reverted. So User:Clarawood123 seems to have an Ownership Issue. CDRL102 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban/WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123

It's pretty obvious that User:Clarawood123 has an WP:Ownership problem (I'd also point out that they're a WP:SPA and most probably have a WP:COI). I suggest this be boomeranged back to them with either a straight ban or at least a topic ban with a forced name change.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or ban as proposer. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support either, as per the WP:OWN issue- also noting the sheer amount of different editors' time and effort that s/he has wasted, which could have been spent doing better things. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Many editors are trying to improve the article and they're simply reverting everyone and everything, Personally I don't think even a long block would change their ways so personally think they should be indeffed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - ownership and competence issues are transparent. Not welcome here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I think going right to site ban is over the top. Perhaps a 6 month topic ban, to give this editor an opportunity to demonstrate they can learn the site's editing guidelines and contribute effectively to other areas of the project. Either we gain a productive editor, or they blow it and then they get a site ban. - ^theWOLFchild 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, on this wiki please log in for a support/oppose-statement, it simplifies the evaluation for counters (of course it's anyway no vote.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

*Support a Topicban I notice the article is named Clarawood and that the user is named Clarawood123. With the ownership issue this is rather striking. While I can't say there's exactly a COI but their connection to Clarawood does seems likely to be apart of the reason for their disruption.With an indef topic ban they can build up other contributions outside of their single purpose and in 6 months they can appeal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

oppose as @HyperGaruda: points out Clarawood123 does seem to be mindful of the ownership issue and can be expected to take that into account in the future. They are a new user and should be given the opportunity to correct course. In the event they do not they can be banned accordingly later. As opposed to banning her some more experienced editors can step in and assist in the article such as by fixing the article or tagging an issue with it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose on the following grounds: a site ban is overkill; this proposal is brought forth by someone who either doesn't want to take responsibility for their Wikipedia edits and activity by registering an account or they are a sockpuppet. I'm very uncomfortable giving this proposal any credence based on the fact that the IP proposer could be anyone who has edited here previously under an account or another IP and is currently blocked or are IP hopping or just playing games. And just for the record: the account we being discussed here for some kind of sanction/ban is way too new for anyone to be calling for a site ban, topic ban, and saying they aren't welcome in Wikipedia. WP:BITE immediately comes to mind. Clarawood123 HAS less than 80 edits at this writing. Some folks just don't get Wikipedia at first and mistake it for something other than an encyclopedia project that has extensive rules, guidelines, policies, and the like. To some, it's just an online site where they can add some stuff rather than actually seeing the bigger, more serious picture. What should happen is someone very experienced and/or very patient needs to volunteer to mentor this individual, put them in the right direction, give them sound advice, and get them editing productively, not set them up to create another account and get into the sockpuppet death-spiral. Which is what will happen if they are site-banned or topic-banned. This is a bad proposal and it's a bad precedent to allow an anon-IP to suggest such a strong move and editors going along with this should seriously rethink their agreement with the proposal, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I share your concern with this IP. The major thing really is that the ownership issues cease.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith, guys. If you had checked my contribs, you'd have seen that I've been on this IP for a while. As for my proposal: here we have a blatant promotional account who is trying to force their own POV on an article, without and against consensus, and you're proposing we treat them like any other account 142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been here with this current IP only since January 2016, from what I can see. My concerns are well spelled out and I don't think they are unreasonable. And yes, I do think we should treat them like "any other account" -- something they are and something you are not. If you want to be taken seriously in situations such as this, my suggestion is you also get an account. I'm sure there are admins and other editors who will disagree, however, I am just as certain there are admins and other editors who would agree. It's no big deal to have an account, after all. Why not create one? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Because... it's none of your our business? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this point be forced? No. Is it our business as a community when an IP is looking to have a newbie permanently banned from editing? I think it is. I've said what I had to say, and am fine dropping the issue of this IP not having an account from here on. But I won't keep silent over a permaban proposal when I don't think it's warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those. At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123, if you have identified material currently on the page that is a copyright violation, it's pretty important that you identify that content, because it needs to be removed.

Otherwise, some general comments:

• Although multiple people have been involved in edit skirmishes on the article, as well as the AfD, attempts to have any discussion at all on the article talk have been weak sauce at best, and not always been done with the best tone, on multiple sides. For example, CDRL102's remark "you're incabable, that's all", is sure to lead to productive discourse, and not at all escalate tensions.
• Davey2010's behavior also leaves much to be desired, such as not blanking discussion on the article talk with such helpful summaries as "Stop filling the talkpage with moans" (please see WP:NPA and WP:TPO), not to mention giving a final warning as a first warning on Clarawood123's user talk, and threatening indef, which is clearly not a thinly veiled "fuck you".
• I am very suspicious of a ban proposal by an IP, especially after four comments, three of which were made by the two above referenced editors.
• To their credit HyperGaruda has made a commendable effort and others should follow their example.

So overall, oppose ban, support not WP:BITEing, recommend certain editors take a few moments of serious self-examination. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I admit I could've discussed it better with them but overall my behaviour was absolutely fine, They deserved a warning months ago however I left off the warnings in the hope they'd get the hint .... which they didnt hence the final...., I stated above on why I removed their talkpage comments and my edit summaries wasn't a personal attack, Ofcourse because you're absolutely perfect and haven't ever made a mistake in your life have you ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly six minutes wasn't enough personal reflection time. Your actions have not been absolutely fine, and saying that they were is not a justification. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I called the User 'incapable' after they again reverted one of my edits, which has been fixed by another editor since. CDRL102 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I find in my travels through life, that insulting people is generally not an effective communication technique. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. Well, that escalated quickly. Taking into account how new Clarawood123 is, you could be a little more considerate. From their comment above, it appears that the you do not own Wikipedia pages message has finally sunk in. Perhaps it is best if someone experienced in the Wiki-MoS checks and old version of Clarawood, such as this one, tagging problems as they go through the page (don't forget to save it to a sandbox), like I did in one section. That way, Clarawood123 can learn what exactly is wrong/unwikipedic, instead of being flooded by vague comments that the article has problems somewhere at an unspecified location. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban - I tried to talk with this user and they are 100% committed to the view everything they have done is fine and everyone else has done wrong, and cannot see their COI. They have resisted all efforts at dialogue to reach consensus (not just with me, but from day 1); this stance toward the community has been and is disruptive and won't stop being disruptive; they have no place here. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - per JYT, and actions smack of WP:TEND. Clearly not here to contribute cooperatively. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - editor has demonstrated an incapability to talk about their editing stances without some way incorporating their commentary/opinion of an editor to it. This is not a battleground. Based on the information that's relayed, Ciarawood123's condescending and ownership attitudes isn't helping anything to resolve anything. Proceeding to start massive discussions so to talk about another editor rather than just make the discussion about what it is about the article they have a problem with is not how to start an article talk page discussion or otherwise seek consensus. It also doesn't help that he edit wars and fights when others challenge him and only trying to get his way. I am not familiar with the subject area and do not make an opinion on anyone's edits at hand, but we don't always have to know which is the right version of an article to know whether an editors perception of collaboration is the correct one. Its about working with others to achieve the one goal to build an encyclopedia, not treating others as opponents when they disagree with you. Its detracting from our goals when we have people on this project that don't seem to know what collaboration and working with others truly means. —Mythdon 07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Response In reply to the last few commenters - a simple search through and perusal of the entire correspondence relating to the page Clarawood, including those comments and talk page sections which have been deleted by other editors - in my view deliberately as part of their campaign to portray me as something I am not - will demonstrate fully that my focus has been on the content of the page and the quality of the information and referencing on it. When some editors have stated that they tried to improve the page but I just reverted as usual, this portays me as a disruptive and non-collaborative editor with ownership issues. But this is not the truth as I have been saying for some time now and which is the reason I raised this ANI. I will offer an analogy. If any of the editors above had created and written a page and then I came on and made edits which left it demonstrably factually wrong would they be justified in reverting those edits? I think they would. Further, if, despite having explained exactly why they reverted, they were then accused of ownership, bias and disruption would this be true? The answer is it would not. As I have previously urged people to do, please do not participate in this without fully looking at the facts and without being completely and utterly honest. The reality is that a number of those involved have not been honest, are guilty themselves of the things they are accusing me of - and worse - and when others with more rational minds have tried to highlight this to them they have blanked it and indeed acted arrogantly and rudely. I have attempted to keep my arguments and comments civil and rational and on key. I have had to defend myself against other editors which is why I have had to mention them. It was me who was the person focussing on content in the first place. As I stated above the article is now in breach of copyright, seriously misreferenced from the first line and factually wrong from the first line. This is because in their haste to make me out to be a fool and defend their friends the editors concerned have acted irrationally and rashly and frankly do not have knowledge of the subject they were dealing with. Pointing this out does not make me disruptive, it does not mean I am moaning, it does not mean I am unwilling to collaborate, it does not mean I cannot self reflect or that I have a conflict of interest - it means that an article which was factual and fully referenced has been vandalised in a way which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. By those who are accusing others ie me of the same actions. I am getting rather sick of this ongoing nonsense myself and sick of constantly having to defend myself from people jumping on the bandwagon without checking their facts Clarawood123 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123, not a word you wrote there acknowledges that you have done anything wrong. As long as you maintain that stance, you are, in my view, going to be an endless source of disruption. Everyone is new, but most new editors do not cause this level of disruption, and most new editors are willing to listen and to learn. If you were self-aware and willing to learn, and not focused solely on blaming others, I would not be supporting a site ban. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Jytdog it does not acknowledge I did anything wrong because I did not. The only thing I appear to have done wrong here - aside from some minor mistakes at the very start - is have a username which some have assumed means I am an SPA. It doesn't, but I haven't had the chance yet to get into Wikipedia and my first article was written about something I am an expert on. Nobody knows what other potential articles I might write or what contributions I may make. As I tried to point out to you, but you were unwilling to reflect on your own actions and words, if an article is fully factual and referenced and someone claims it is not and makes a sweeping edit which then actually does leave it innaccurate and unreferenced, then an editor would not only be within their rights but expected to revert to the original. This does not make them disruptive, but it would highlight the other editor who has left the article in a bad state as disruptive. Me not agreeing with you does not mean I cannot look at myself, it means I do not agree with your analysis, and my disagreement is based on facts and evidence not blind assertion. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You have made so many mistakes. None of them fatal or unusual. The unusual, fatal mistake - the reason this thread is here - is your inability to be flexible, dialogue and learn. You are profoundly unfit for Wikipedia, where the bedrock policy is consensus. I am wrong sometimes, btw. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban for now. Other editors' attempts to deal with the content and ownership issues have been as significant a cause of this situation. This discussion has brought it to a wider audience; the response from Clarawood123 has is not ideal but is understandable. More time is needed. Peter James (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly? Provide evidence Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been, both here and at the AfD. Indeed, some might argue that you were contributory to presenting the evidence yourself. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ban but they just need to learn how to write, I understand what it's like to be a young editor - and so I can see the frustration of why others weren't happy with me - and take it from me, Clarawood just needs to wise up and bit and learn how it all works, move on to a project maybe and help out there. But with a ban they won't learn so it's not a good method. CDRL102 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• To be fair they've been problematic since March and nearly a month later and nothing's changed in terms of their behaviour, How do you know they're young ? ... They could be 85 all for you know ...., Don't get me wrong I would absolutely love to give the editor a chance however with the amount of disruption caused here I honestly can't them ever changing their ways here .... There's only so much WP:ROPE you can give.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion is the first time Clarawood123 (or the article, or the AFD) has been mentioned on any noticeboard. Peter James (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User black washing the articles

The user 92.106.216.139 is continuously black washing the Kurdish women article. Edits of this user:
Diff [48]: This edit was a clearly against WP:POV.
Diff [49]: Wordpress --> [WP:FAKE].
Diff [50]: Reversed or edited 6 cherry pickings. Check the sources.
Diff [51]: The user changed Sorani speaking Kurds to all Kurds, Iraqi Arabs to all Arabs (Black washing).
A 2014 survey from UNICEF found a 58.5% prevalence of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan.--> The source doesn't mention anything like that. The source is related to the small survey about two cities, not all Iraqi Kurdistan (Black washing).
Diff [52]: Read the source, it's clearly cherry picking.

The user has added only FGM, honor killing and other negative things to the article. The article is related to the Kurdish women but ~80% is about FGM, honor killing and other crimes. Also, according to another user, this users has involved in mass deletions of sourced contents, offensive edit summaries, disruptive editing and meatpuppetting.-->[53]Ferakp (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The disruptive behaviour of this user Ferakp has been reported previously: see this discussion at ANI and this conclusion

To summarize, just some of the many issues with this user

He deletes, removes and reverts information and sources that do not comply with his nationalist POV. Such deletions include well sourced information

He in particular does not tolerate that articles mention the women's rights situation and the violence against (Kurdish women). He also wants articles on LGBT Kurds and on Kurdish feminists deleted.

When information is added that goes against his nationalist POV, and he can't delete it, he very often editorializes it until it gives a completely different spin than the original

In these cases, he made many source misrepresentations, including some gross ones, which hurts the reputation of wikipedia, like modifying direct quotes from books

His excuses when challenged are that some random news articles contradict the information, or that is blackwashing, or Turkish propaganda

Because of his disruptive behaviour it has been impossible to write in these articles

Besides, his claim that violence against women is overrepresented at the Kurdish women article is baseless. Just two examples: Female Genital mutilation is nowhere else outside of Africa as widely practiced as in Iraqi Kurdistan, and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) has characterized "honor killings as a serious concern in Iraq, particularly in Iraqi Kurdistan". @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:@GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:@SlimVirgin:@Shawn in Montreal:@ThePlatypusofDoom:@Snow Rise:@Shadow4dark:

PS. I won't have time to comment further until late Wednesday. --92.106.216.139 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just point out that Ferakp has stated on his user page that he has stopped editing Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Above Ferakp claims I was cherry picking because of this:

The original source reads: More or less silent on women an non-princely classes, it makes references to the women of the ruling landowning class, and their exclusion from public life and the exercise of state power. According to this source, the Kurds, following the Islamic tradition, took four wives and, if the could afford it, four maids or slave girls (jariyya). […] Daughters and sisters were given or exchanded in marriage as a means of settling wars and blood feuds. When one side was defeated, the victor took over the women of the enemy as booty and as proof of the humiliating defeat of the adversary. Although state power was execised only by males, Bidlisi mentions three women who, after losing their husbands, aussumed the reins of power in order to transfer it to their sons upon their adulthood.

Out of this, in the wikipedia article it only read until I corrected it: Sharaf ad-Din Bitlisi's 1597 Sharafnama mentions three Kurdish women assuming power in Kurdish principalities.

If THIS was not cherry picking, then what is?? --92.106.216.139 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Besides, the roughly 58% percentage of FGM in Erbil is correct, and there are sources to it that Ferakp also deleted, see this article Female genital mutilation, from which article he wasn't able to delete the information, even though he tried. I could go on and on.--92.106.216.139 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no knowledge or particular interest in this area. I had noticed Ferakp before editing exclusively in the Kurdish/Turkish area. I only became involved because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houzan Mahmoud struck me somewhat suspect. Anyway, if he's truly resigned I suppose this discussion can be closed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I bet that the user 92.106.216.139 is involved in meatpuppeting. I am 100% sure he is banned before because of his behavior and so fast response and just check the users he tagged, they are all pro-Turkish editors who I have warned about their WP:POV, WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL edits. As I said, check his edits and the sources, they are clearly against WP rules. I have edited maybe thousands of times and it is normal that some are not happy because I found them black washing the article. Show one my edit and prove it that it is not allowed or wrong. I have explained them all using WP rules. Ferakp (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see that I have been notified. Ferakp has been involved in POV editing. I was patrolling pages marked as "Controversial" for vandalism, and I came across Ferakp. People have told him many times to not continue, but he just accused other editors of being pro-turkish, as he just did. I really don't have any bias on the subject, but it seems to me that Ferakp has been editing in an unhelpful way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Ferakp

The conclusion of one of the last discussions was that this is getting close to a topic ban, and since then other veteran editors have reported his behaviour as WP:NOTHERE. This has been going on for too long, and he won't stop. I propose a topic ban for Ferakp. --92.106.216.139 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

oppose From my experience, I would agree that Ferakp is not the easiest editor to deal with, however also from my experience, I have found that he is looking for neutrality and respects the ideas of discussion and compromise. At the end of the day, we had a few too many reverts (each) and then we found neutral ground, based on reliable sources and discussion. Yeah, I'm sure he has political feelings (as do many editors) and these feelings are reflected in his edits (same for most editors), but when treated with the respect and good faith than we all deserve, he was not disruptive and our discussions certainly resulted in an improved article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Although I agree that Ferakp does try to have discussions and not be a troll, he has been disruptive. He has caused many editors to continuously edit the articles in question because of his POV editing. I think that a topic ban for a year or two would help the encyclopedia, and is what is needed for Ferakp. Even though he has stopped editing Wikipedia for now, It's probably a good idea to have this in place in case he decides to start editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Well, apparently Ferakp's resignation lasted all of 24 hours. I certainly have no opinion on whether he should be topic banned -- I don't know enough about his editing history, nor do I care to. I only became involved when I spotted this Afd, which didn't seem to me to be policy based and seemed more motivated by a battlefield mentality about any content related to mistreatment of women by Kurds. That's really why I waded in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I should also point -- to state the obvious -- that 92.106.216.139 and Ferakp have been embroiled in an editing dispute for some time: indeed Ferakp had tried to get the Kurdish women article page protected to stop 92.106.216.139's edits. So again while I don't know enough to pick sides, what we may have at this ANI is yet another installment in a dispute between two editors, and WP:Forum shopping across multiple pages in an attempt to lock in each one's preferred version of reality. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You are all welcome to check my edit history word by word. Thousands of edits and only 8 disputes and in many of them I have reached consensus. You can clearly check all my disputes and you will realize that I never start any kind of "war" before I am 100% sure that my changes clearly removed or edited something which weren't true or against WP rules. I always use the talk page and explain my changes if another user is not happy with my changes. However, some users are not trying to reach consensus at all. I improved many 92.106.216.139 edits, I edited them to according to their sources even though it was clear that he was cherry picking. However, he didn't stop it, he still continues it. That's why I wanted administrator or admin to lock the article. @ThePlatypusofDoom:: If you think I am disruptive editor, prove it. Whether I get topic ban or permanent ban, I don't care because I am not editing anymore: Only fixing and adding sources and of course I am just trying to stop disruptive editors. Ferakp (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think you are trying to do the right thing, but personally, I agree with 92.106.16.139. Kurdish women are treated terribly, and it is still a very major problem in the world today. It is very, very widespread, and the reason that a good 70% of the article is devoted to this is because of that. You shouldn't let this stop you from editing, but you may want to back off. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I do think that this ANI should be closed. This is not to be the forum to resolve this, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing of this incident report

As Shawn in Montreal and I feel, this should be closed or moved to a different page. I propose a move or a close of this report. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Adequately protecting articles from the kind of Israel supporters who threaten to rape and kill

A number of requests for article protection were submitted yesterday. They were declined with what I think was questionable advice for the requesting editor, @Huldra:, to warn the IP. The various editors who receive death threats and threats of physical or sexual violence from Israel supporters should probably not be advised to contact their abusers, but that's another story. I have requested protection again here because in the WP:ARBPIA topic area inadequate protection has predictable consequences e.g. [54][55] (threats suppressed). I'm posting at ANI in the hope it gets the attention it deserves so that at least some articles+editors receive better protection. In ARBPIA, the 30/500 rule is and will continue to be enforced, regardless of whether an article has extended confirmed protection. If the 30/500 rule is not enforced by the server, then it will be enforced by people spending time performing a task that can be more efficiently and effectively performed by a machine. Editors who enforce the 30/500 rule are exposed to the worst Wikipedia has to offer. The ARBCOM authorized 30/500 rule is going to be enforced in ARBPIA either way so please let the server deal with the crazies. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If we don't allow legal threats, why do we not treat physical threats similarly? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They are treated similarly in terms of blocking despite their very profound differences. This something that perhaps Hulda is more likely to have an informed opinion about than me, having had discussions with the legal people I believe. Threats are normally interleaved with the usual ethno-nationalist POV pushing disruption that is common in ARBPIA for accounts/IPs that do not meet the 30/500 requirement. Admins do a good job blocking IPs and suppressing threats. But again, the server can already make that unnecessary via extended confirmed protection. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For everyone else's ease of access, the pages in question are:

• Mobile, Alabama - which only connects to the issue in a single line (sister cities), but was previously protected for a year over this issue.
• Ariel University - which was previously protected for a year because of vandalism (which I get the impression has to do with this), and which has a notice on its talk page regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Hamat Gader - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Canada Park - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Two-state solution - which I've already protected, because that should've been protected the second ARBPIA was passed.

I was hesitant to protect them (and am still arguing with myself about shortening the Mobile AL one, or just putting a hidden note explaining ARBPIA3 between every single letter of the one line related to the conflict), and have italicized my reasons for protecting them. If someone shortens or undoes the protection, I'm not going to wheel war.

I was on the fence, and rather than post about how I sympathize, I figured it'd be better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There is apparently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended_confirmed_protection_and_arbitration_enforcement that I haven't read yet but assume is relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I've glanced it over before. An' holuh shi', wuz Ah realluh thuh one da applah tha' pertecshun ta "Two-state solution"? Ah'm ol fer cuttin' admins slack ol thuh tahm, b'cos we gaht laves 'n' stuff, bud'if tha' ball 'ad bin drop't inee 'arder it'd'a wip't aht thuh dinasores. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Southern American English sounds like a contradiction in terms _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The scary thing is the Bard's actors would've spoken something similar. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the Great Vowel Shift, of course? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an Israel supporter. It's Grawp. 172.56.36.137 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The edits are indistinguishable from those of an racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporter. They are also characteristic of Grawp or a Grawp-like sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like you, yourself are pretty racist.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to believe that, go ahead. I don't care and it won't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not "our old friend", this is the Telstra, Australia-sock, which I first became aware of at AN/I, August/Sept., 2015. User:Drmies asked me to collect some of the IPs in order to see if he "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page. I did that here: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks. Besides Telstra, Australia-IPs, I believe the same user uses Optus, Australia-IPs, like here. And they typically stand for opinions which are to the right of the Israeli government; typically they say that places on the occupied West Bank are "in Israel", a view which is not supported by the Israeli government, only by the extreme right-wing Israel supporters. For a start: I believe Ariel (city), (on the occupied West Bank) and its University, and its "sister-cities", all have to be permanently protected: they have been favourite targets for years. Huldra (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not yet read ANI this afternoon when I took two of these RFPP reports, the two for the talk pages of Canada Park and Two-state solution. I increased Ian's regular semi-protection to extended-confirmed protection. I have not looked at the other three pages but I'll say right now that I don't believe the Mobile article qualifies for it. If someone wants to take the protection back down, I won't object. Katie^talk 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll ask the obvious question: What does Mobile, Alabama have to do with Arab-Israeli conflict? Why would this level and kind of protection even apply to an Alabaman city? I can see there is edit-warring going on in the article but it is ridiculous to argue that Mobile, Alabama is an article that is concerned with the Arab-Israeli conflict and covered by 30/500. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz....because Mobile, Alabama is sister city with Ariel (city)...an Israeli settlement on the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Certain editors have tried for years to have it say that Ariel (city) is in "Israel". It is the same problem for Heredia, Costa Rica; also a sister city of Ariel. (Yeah, I know: it is crazy to protect a 140 K article just because of -one- sentence, but heck, what else its there to do?) Huldra (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that Mobile had an Israeli sister city but that one note in a long article doesn't justify saying that the article involves the Arab-Israeli conflict. If there is edit-warring or vandalism going on, semi-protect the article. Same goes for Heredia, Costa Rica.

Given that invoking 30/500 usually results in a permanent state of protection that prevents any editing by IP accounts, I think we should be conservative when applying it, only when the articles/pages are clearly covered by the stated topic area mentioned by ArbCom or admins at AE. We can't have every edit-war over an sentence concerning Israel result in 30/500 protection when the article is clearly not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that semi-protecting also stopped IP-editing? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Observation: Eh...regardless of the edit-summary attached to the protection, I'm fairly sure it's actually just plain semi-protected. "12:39, 12 April 2016 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) changed protection level for Mobile, Alabama [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)". That, or the difference between semi-protection and extended-confirmed protection can't be seen from the logs (if so, that's something that should be fixed...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, extended-confirmed protection is visible in the logs. The Mobile article is only semi-protected; look at the protection log for Talk:Canada Park and you'll see the difference. Katie^talk 22:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I´m fine with having "only" semi-protection on most of these articles. Most bad "new" editors, *if* they can edit semi-protected pages, then they do not go for any articles. Instead they go for one of the editors who edits in the area, and who have their user-pages semi-protected (like both Sean.hoyland and myself, and virtually everyone else who is not considered pro-Israeli enough). Apparently it is even more fun, telling us how we will be murdered, than making edits like "Ariel is in Israel"..... Huldra (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You will never stop us. Ariel, Israel is a city you can never take! 49.188.4.238 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please block the above Optus, Australia-IP ASAP; thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Huldra, the account has been blocked. The difference I see between 30/500 and semi-protection is that I haven't seen an article with 30/500 protection had that protection lifted. It seems to be a permanent state. Theoretically, it doesn't need to be indefinite but in practice I don't see expiration dates. With most pages with semi-protection, it is only applied for a few days, a week or a month. It is not usually indefinite. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad on semi- instead of 30/500. Meant to do the latter. Been a touch sick the past couple of days (still don't have my voice back). Ian.thomson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh you will never stop us! Blah blah blah. Yes, that's a lot of words over Mobile, and rather than argue that this troll has made Mobile, Alabama, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I applied regular semi-protection. Because the troll is still also just a troll, so semi-protection is valid to begin with. I'm not a big fan of this 30/500 thing but hey, it's there, and it's templated, so why not. I just applied 30/500 protection to an article for six months. Protection needs to be applied to articles that need protection for as long as they need protection, which isn't necessarily indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, if you check my request, I requested indefinite semi-protection for the Mobile article rather than 30/500 in an attempt to avoid this kind of discussion about that article. While it's true that this is also just a troll, it is a troll engaged what is, in principal at least, criminal behavior with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years in Victoria state facilitated by the Wikimedia Foundation's infrastructure and a failure to protect content and editors from racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporters like this one. Since far-right racism+ultra-nationalism are almost mainstream in Israel nowadays the situation is likely to get worse rather than better in terms of exposure to and abuse by this kind of pro-Israel, pro-settlement extremist. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a legal threat. I don't think it actually counts as one, but it's definitely meant to have a chilling effect on this.

I'd also like to address your problematic language. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I don't think you should be editing Israel-related articles.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I posted this thread and several reasons why I use the entirely accurate language I use to describe this person as a racist, ultra-nationalist Israel supporter who by issuing threats of physical and sexual violence is, in principal, breaking the law in Victoria and could go to prison for 10 years. Naturally a reliable assessment of accuracy requires the ability to see or have seen the threats that have been suppressed, threats that this person has been issuing for over a year now I believe, perhaps more. For example, perhaps you didn't see that in this particular instance this Israel supporter threatened to rape an editor and their daughters, included racist abuse and a celebration of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian men, woman and children in the Gaza Strip by Israelis as part of their combat operations against Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip and oddly threatened to rape my 'whore mother' despite the fact that my mother died many years ago. Of course I could go on at length so that you and others gain a better understanding of the nature of this particular pro-Israel extremist. But as I have already told you, you may think whatever you like, I don't care, and it won't change anything. Threads like this are multi-purpose. While the priority is to ensure that editors and articles receive adequate protection, something that I think is very important indeed and a very serious matter, it can also help to flush out people who have a compulsion to defend/excuse/deny absolutely indefensible behavior and are stupid enough to break cover when it comes to defending/excusing/denying the behavior of editors who are supportive of Israel and their occupation of Palestine. This generates useful data. So feel free to continue to communicate with me but it is not you who benefits. As for whether I "have an axe to grind", that is not something I can reliably assess or necessarily even transform into things that I can measure in an evidence based way. But anyone is free and welcome to examine and evaluate the evidence in my ~30k edits, and take the appropriate action if they see fit. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Creating an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities simply to prevent the IPs particular additions would be a fairly trivial task? The articles could be unprotected then. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 49.188.4.238, however 121.219.241.132 just continued. Some of the articles that IP touched also needs protection, I suspect. Deir Yassin massacre is already protected, but the others are not.

Also, is User:Huldra/Telstra-socks soon "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page? It would help when reporting vandalism, I suspect. (Hopefully they will grow up...eventually....)

And I have no idea if it is possible just to create an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities, and if that would work. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Despite multiple warnings, 97.95.12.163 refuses to stop making disruptive edits. The user is an obvious sock puppet of 96.35.115.44. The user pretty much just changed his or her IP addresses after getting blocked multiple times just so they could continue doing what they were doing.

The user's disruptive editing includes unsourced changes, no edit summaries, no attempt to discuss, unexplained reversions, POV content about "stand-alone sequels", incorrect titles, listing poster taglines as the title, and more. The user has been warned repeatedly and knows exactly what (s)he is doing at this point. DarkKnight2149 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you requesting a range block? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't think the situation has escalated to the point where a range block is necessary. The user stopped using the other IP after previously getting blocked, just so (s)he could do the same at the current IP (97.95.12.163). As far as I'm aware, there aren't any others (at least, not yet).

I think that the blocking of both IPs may suffice (as there's no telling if the user will evade their hypothetical block by going back to their previous IP, assuming they can). DarkKnight2149 00:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IP-Hopper troll

86.187.165.84 is the latest IP of the troll in my entry further up on this page. Eik Corell (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie has applied a rangeblock for a week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

86.187.185.109‎ (talk · contribs) just now edited Rossiya Airlines in typical fashion here, so something still needs to be tightened up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he's skipped outside the rangeblock. I've blocked the IP and will keep an eye out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

132.177.197.98 : persistent BLP-violating edit-warring

Reporting 132.177.197.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent BLP-violating edits to AnnaSophia Robb. This started with wildly unencyclopedic comments ([56] and [57]). IP then switched to an unreferenced claim about "internet memes" referring to the same thing, in an attempt to get the comment into the article. IP has continued despite multiple reversions by multiple editors and a series of escalating requests-to-desist on IP's talk page. IP's few responses (e.g. [58]) have been basically "F you, I'm going to do what I want" (one of them to ClueBot!). Suggest IP block for NOTHERE, BLP, DIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. Jeh (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A report like this should start by going to WP:AIV, as that's the page that handles vandal issues. Adding a note there might be overkill, as this is a heavily watched page by admins, but in the future, repeatedly warned editors that continue to vandalize should go to WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll move it if that's what you're recommending. Jeh (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to post it there either. Just a friendly tip for if you catch this in the future too :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism/Advertising at Game_of_Silence_(U.S._TV_series)

My apologizes if I'm doing this wrong, however I noticed the following edit from user named SierracrawfordmpD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom is possibly advertising malware on wikipedia, or at the very least advertising his own site. I have, however, already reverted the change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_of_Silence_%28U.S._TV_series%29&oldid=714954592

My apologizes if I didn't link it properly, I just thought I'd step in. 50.186.26.192 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I sent a note over to WP:AIV about it. The link came up as possibly malware on my system, and was blocked as such. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You. It's his only edit, so I'm questioning if there are Socks or not.50.186.26.192 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution.

The IP-hopper that I posted an ANI on ten days ago [59] is still at it. He has been vandalizing Talk:Social work for two months straight.

• Blatant lying: [60], [61], [62], [63]
• Altering others' posts: [64]
• Deleting others' posts: [65], [66], [67], [68]

• Vandalizing others' posts: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]

• Archive/format vandalizing: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

• Trolling: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93],

• Time-wasting: [94]

Need a permanent solution. Since Talk:Social work is a talk page, I'd like to request indefinite pending changes. Indefinite so it's permanent (he quickly returns after protections expire), and pending changes so that any legitimate posts by non-trolling IPs can get through. (There are a number of people watching the page who can "accept" legitimate non-autoconfirmed posts.)

Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(PS: The last non-troll-IP post to that talk page was six months ago, and before that, years apart. So if indefinite pending-changes doesn't sound ideal, I suggest six months of semi-protection.) Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd do it but the PD2 button seems to have fallen out of my Protect menu. I applied regular semi-protection for a week so that some other admin can do what I seem incapable of doing. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pending changes does not seem to be an available option for talk pages. — Diannaa (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Then can we apply plan B -- six months semi-protection? He's an IP-hopper with dozens of IPs used so far. This guy has been around steadily for over two months straight. If he wants to contribute, he can register. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that anon ips's shouldn't contribute and only registered members should. Blocking talk page is kind of annoying. Blocking article page for personal reasons are understandable.117.241.21.127 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Whatever you attempted didn't take -- it's not in your contributions log or the page log. Also, one week isn't going to help; he returns immediately after protection expires -- see the edit-history of Social work. Can we please therefore apply plan B above -- six months semi-protection? He's an IP-hopper with dozens of IPs used so far. He has been around steadily for over two months straight. If he wants to contribute, he can register. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As an editor consider helping other newbies. Consider an editor as an editor not as an he or she. Accusing all those IPs as one IP-hopper doesn't match with the talk page posts. If ip editors are editing and they are sourced, your claims are........I don't know. Well learn to team player in a community effort.117.241.21.127 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, looks like Drmies went to bed without doing anything at all. Can an admin please semi-protect Talk:Social work for six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected for one month to start. — Diannaa (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Before going for blocks kindly look into what is really happening. Editors like Softlavender and Jim1138 actions are synonymous to persistent vandalism. They edit out elements. They edit out sourced content. They are not willing to engage in a meaningful discussion. There objective is harmful to the the article. I am not sure and not going into research of there past activities. But to restrict access to talk page or article page is an extension of there need to close any good contribution. Many of those links are just labeled for personal interests and in scaling system highly dangerous when it comes to biting and harassment. There are some genuine ones, but looking at the talk page one could find them resolved. Kindly look through thoroughly before granting these editors there wishes.61.2.171.197 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors like softlavender and jim1138 Activities are presistent to vandalism and trolling with reverts. There primary way of dispute resolution is reverting posting warning then giving requests for blocks. These are all understandable from a through search. Also if one has to assume the reason for the current block initiaton, what would be the reason. There is nothing valid in the talk page or the article to initiate such a block. Only active duscussion. If this is an issue we have to look whether these blocks are a therapeutic need for burnouts. If so taking leave might be more beneficial than using wikipedia to find confident by dissing and name calling others. Furthermore if the recent activities of these editirs looked in the specific talk oage one could see deletion of posts from an op editor, even after the continuos warnings these efitors engaged in such activities without an orooer explaination. Who shoild be really blocked for a permanent solution ? 106.208.158.137 (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced that this person can't be turned into a productive editor in time. Some of this seems to have stemmed from a lack of understanding that talk functions more like a message board than a collaborative product. They seemed fairly receptive to this when it was explained...patiently.

Regardless, I don't think it's too much to ask for this person to register an account. Assuming they're open to constructive feedback, this would certainly make the process much easier. TimothyJosephWood 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

I have had an SPI report against Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on their latest IP 69.178.193.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) open for five days since they sent several password reset requests my way with no action, though understandably so because there was no en.wiki activity from 69.178.193.128 until this morning when they began their usual anti-Facebook edits and North Dakota media topic edits anew. I added to the sock report but didn't send a report to AIV because I figured somebody would be on it.

This afternoon the IP used an email I never have made public and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account to post their rants on (I can provide the email proof on request). They didn't have the password but I still got the verification email about it, which I obviously turned down. This continues Hypocritepedia's past behavior of attempts to compromise my email and social accounts (which are all protected by two-factor so I'm not really worried about losing them). Please immediately block this IP and take action on the SPI; I understand there's not much that can be done for off-wiki harassment but they definitely have no intentions for positive contribs here ever (I am refusing to inform the IP for obvious reasons). Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Why did you "create a Twitter account to post their rants on"? Sounds like the "off-wiki harassment" is going both ways .... Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender--you may want to re-read the above and consider whether bedtime is here? John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There should probably be a coma between the 'only' and the 'to'; viz, 'and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 

Drdaviddukesucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked this morning making the same edits. Never mind criticizing my grammar, can someone look at the open SPI and block the IP, please? Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue at Collective narcissism

User:Horacewcrosby1 is persistently trashing collective narcissism applying off the wall original research totally contrary to any perceived wisdom or reliable sources. He also sometimes trashes the formatting at the same time eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective_narcissism&oldid=715049830 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective_narcissism&oldid=709624868 --Penbat (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't discussed this with User:Horacewcrosby1 on his or her talk page? Brianga (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalist clearly WP:NOTHERE

The user Bolter21 is repeatedly showing that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. After a long discussion resulted in an overwhelming consensus [95] after two months, Bolter21 immediately went against the consensus by twice editing State of Palestine completely contrary to the strong consensus [96], [97]. As Bolter21's attitude to other users is to declare that others aren't worth answering [98] and openly declaring they won't respect WP:CONSENSUS [99]. The whole edit history of this user suggests WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE. I'd suggest a topic ban from everything related to WP:ARBPIA as the user clearly cannot edit constructively in that topic area. Jeppiz (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bolter21 is also quick to invoke 1RR policy against others in a way that is, frankly, intimidation: [100]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You simply blame me for WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, there is no problem in quetioning a poorly sourced consensus, even if a million people agree about it. I did not violate the consensus in any way, I only stated that there's a discussion about the definition in the lead section and I said I don't have any respect for this consensus. What is this? Soviet Russia? are you not allowed to say you don't agree with a consensus?

Of course I will go against the consensus! -(some of you understood it as if I am going to violate the consensus, but I meant I will continue the argument)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Me and another user, presented over 15 reliable sources who contradict the consensus.

I have placed the "Dubious" template on the article becuase a user changed the content of the lead section and while he was backed with a consensus, there is still an ongoing discussion about it.

And I told OpenFuture he doesn't worth the answer becuase he continued to avoid the problem. If he was deeply hurt by this, I am sorry, but that doesn't justify a topic ban. You are saying that my whole edit history suggest I am not here to make an encyclopedia.. You clearly havent seen my edit history. That's, in my opinion, worse than saying to someone "you don't worth the answer" in a ridiculous conversation.

Isambard Kingdom, the law in WP:ARBPIA says that who ever violates the 1RR rule is subjected to a ban, so I warned you so you won't quetion it. I didn't knew who you were and what is your background so I talked to you as if you were a day old user, to make sure you will self-revert it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems Bolter21 has been having this argument for almost a year now, when they quite cautiously and conservatively called a name change a "crime against humanity". Per their user page, item one on their to do list is "Remove the claim the PNA was transformed to SoP in 2013." So seems an awful lot like they don't care about the consensus because they've already made up their mind, not because they have better sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This "crime against humanity" statement was made when I had less than 100 edits on Wikipedia, so I'll ask you to ignore it. About the the PNA subject, it's already over, I "won" simply because there were no sources to support the claims of the opposing users while I brought over 40, so I don't see the relevance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to be admin action is urgently required here. Bolter21 is openly admitting he intends to continue to disrupt the project by editing against consensus by stating blatantly "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus". This editor is very clearly here for advocacy and as they so openly admit on their own userpage, to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. At the very least a total topic ban from this area is required. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where did he say that "I will go against consensus" as far as editing against the consensus, and not just commenting about it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please read before commenting. It's there in black and white. "Of course I will go against the consensus!" Ctrl-F is your friend. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason you deleted my comments? And again, you can't bring someone to ANI for commenting about how the consensus is wrong and he will comment against it. Did he edit the page in violation of the (non) consensus? Again, since you deleted my comment, the RFC was on how to describe the recognition of Palestine, not on if it's a state or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I didn't delete your comment. Check the history. Please strike that false allegation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment I said I don't respect, but I didn't violate it nor did I had any intention of changing the content of the article without a consensus although I cant allow it to remain as a "state" when clearly I and another two editors presented sources who contradict the consensus, so insteed of editing by reliable sources, I just added a template implying this is debatable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you say then "Of course I will go against the consensus!" above? AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Because in my retarded semitic language, the literal translation of "go against" is "to speak against". As I said, you misunderstood me and you have no proof to claim I had an intention to violate the consensus since I didn't nor I said I will. Although now I discovered I was mislead and the consensus wasn't even about the topic we talked about--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (ec) I guess one issue here is what to do when consensus of the masses is wrong. This is the inherent problem of a democracy. In this case, Palestine is not a state, the same way all other countries are states. So I do agree that there has to be some notation or citation to clarify what is meant when you write Palestine- State. It is not a de facto state and we should not be writing as such no matter our biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: B21, you noted that there is no problem with equating your fellow editors' problem that you "don't have any respect for the consensus", with the censorship of Soviet-era Russia. First of all, that is hyperbole, and I think you know that. There are two problems I see here. First is your apparent willingness to argue forever against the consensus. While you don't have to agree with consensus, once its formed, you do have to accept it until new information comes to light sufficient to challenge it; its part of the social contract we agree to when editing Wikipedia. If you choose not to accept viewpoints that are different than your own, you do not have to edit here. It's not like you are getting paid or receiving college credit for being a contributor.

Secondly, you should address how you deal with your fellow editors. Reminding them of violating 1RR is a bit disingenuous. The way you are proceeding is a sure path to topic ban. Ease up, give it a rest, and use that time to construct a better argument for change. The ones you are presenting aren't gaining traction here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did I violate the consensus?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You stated your clear intention to do so, Bolter21. If someone shouts in a crowded theater that 'of course they will shoot everyone in the theater', people are going to presume that you are going to act on that and act preventively. To me, stating that 'of course you don't agree with consensus' would have been a better tack to take.

Something that just occurred to me - are you a native speaker of English? I've noted some grammar issues that tend to suggest that you aren't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I am a native Hebrew speaker.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• More filer is also misleading us with regards to the consensus. The consensus through a RFC was not how to call Palestine, it was whether or not to say Palestine is partially recognized or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 4:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• Comment Please note Bolter21 edited his initial "Of course I will go against the consensus!" comment, in violation of WP:REDACT in this edit AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Bolter21 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 6-months from any edit that relates to Israel and Palestine statehood or the legitimacy of Israel and Palestine.--v/r - TP 19:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose and you might want to spell Israel correctly when you're trying to ban someone from talking about Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: No idea how someone can !vote "snow oppose" as the very first !vote AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a grain of salt to be had here somewhere, given the user's personal connection to the topic per their user page. No accusations. No salt trucks. Just a single lonely grain. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also Oppose - I get that y'all are pissed at B21 for his behavior; the good lord knows I've dealt enough with that sort of behavior before, and wanting to toss the editor in question into a box with nails on the inside and toss the box off a cliff can seem extremely attractive. But its wrong. If we don't start rehabilitating these editors, we lose the ability to define what is and isn't acceptable. Guide Boltor21 into being a better editor; that way, if they choose not to accept the help, its all on them. Topic bans aren't helpful, as you are still left with an intransigent editor who will just muck something else up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A 6-month topic-ban from a very narrowly defined topic is just about as easy as it gets while also ending the disruption. And frankly, if the editor goes and mucks something else up, then perhaps this isn't the project for them. Also, FYI, I'm not "pissed". I'm not involved in the topic area.--v/r - TP 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: six months? for what? What have I done? Disagree with you while bringing dozens of sources? I did not violate any consensus and I did not start an edit war. I only said I don't support the consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You are misleading other editors. You didn't "only say" you don't support the consensus. You stated above in this very section that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Restoring my comment removed by Bolter21 AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't say I will go against the consensus, I "stated". Did I violated the consensus? I"ll explain for the observers again: What I meant is that I do not agree with the consensus, but not that I will violate it. I am here for almost a year so I do understand the consiquences of violating a consensus (although the consensus was about the adjective "Partially-recognized" while the conversation was about "de-jure" status). I didn't violate the consensus, I only said what I said and you interpreted as if I have an "intention" to violate it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're unequivocally stating here that you will abide by the consensus of the RfC when editing the article, then there is little need for this proposal and I retract my support for it. But, you really were not as clear as you think you are. A reasonable person would interpret that as your intention to disregard the consensus when editing the article.--v/r - TP 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen. There was a consensus not to use the statement "partially recognized" in the lead section of the article. The discussion was about "de-jure" status.

I have no problem saying "I will not call Palestine a "partially recognized state as the consensus in the RFD says", because the argument in the State of Palestine's talk page wasn't even about this subject. I can also say "I have sources that call the State of Palestine a "de-jure state" and therefore I am trying to seek for a consensus for that". You see that there is a difference between what I tried to achieve and what was agreed on the consensus? I honestly say I fully disagree with the other users opinions about what should be written in the status and also with the consensus, but I did not violate it and belive me or not, I did not have the intention to add the statement "partially recognzied" to the article while knowing there's a consensus against it. I don't remember even mentioning it in the talkpage.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems the answer to me. The statements by Bolter21 that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" bodes very badly for me. It shows a refusal to respect the community and proper consensus building. I don't agree with Jack Sebastian when they state topic bans result in an "intransigent editor who will just muck something else up" given that the editing of Bolter21 is problematic in this area because they are openly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding Palestine's statehood. Immediately after the RfC, Bolter21 disrespected and disregarded that result as shown above. This editor can use the period of a topic-ban to demonstrate competence outside of this single topic area AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you misunderstood my statement, because never have I ever violate this specific, not-100% related consensus. I meant is that I want to argue about it. And the consensus was about "partially recognized", not about "de jure" which is what we were debating--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• As the subject of a couple of topic bans myself, I disagree with the claim that topic bans "don't work." They do work, IF the subject of the ban understands the issues and cares about Wikipedia as a whole. Of course, if the subject is a single-purpose account, a topic ban is less likely to work for the subject, but it will work for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 13 April 2016
• Oppose: Wikipedia:Mentorship Give B21 to me for three months, if User:Bolter21 is amenable. Strongly agree with Jack Sebastian here. There is much WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on both sides, if we are all honest. B21 just needs to learn to temper his POV and learn the steps to the elaborate I/P dance, and stick to the rules. Consensus can change, Bolter 21. Irondome (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Bolter21, please do not remove other peoples comment as you did here AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at the diff a bit more closely, AusLondonder; you both posted at approximately the same time. I've accidentally tagged out someone else's post in EditConflict before. How about a little AGF, eh? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment More seriously problematic behaviour by Bolter21. Now inappropriately WP:CANVASSING an editor they believe will support them. AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that ""Of course I will go against the consensus!" was followed by the statement "(-(some of you understood it as if I am going to violate the consensus, but I meant I will continue the argument) To continue to quote it here without the qualifying phrase does not seem fair. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) .

@DGG: This "qualifying phrase" was added at a later date in this edit which per WP:REDACT is not entirely proper or fair as it makes the replies of other editors look misleading AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I"ll be honest, I added it after I realised the language barrier. Even if I did meant to violate a consensus, I didn't do it nor did I say "I want to violate a consensus" so the statement "I will go against the consensus" (Which literally means in my language to "speak against") can be interpreted in many ways and AusLondoner of course decided "I want to violate a consensus".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I interpreted your statement as stating you will go against the consensus. That was what you stated. I think you do have some things to learn. For example - don't edit your comments, don't delete others comments, don't engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding a topic you are obviously emotional about. If you learn those things you could be a great, productive editor AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove your comment on purpose, I now made my edit of my comment clear that it is a note I added after I posted the comment, and I don't think what happened in the talk there was a battleground. I was involved on WP:battlegrounds in the past and I am not willing to do it again. My arguments in the talk page of the State of Palestine were backed only by sources and the argument was not about something existing in any consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonable reply. I do personally think, as someone who edits relatively little in this topic area, that you are engaging in battleground behaviour on Israel-Palestine issues. This is evidenced by the statements on your userpage. The most obviously problematic statements for me are the ones, including the ones in diffs posted by the OP, that show disregard of consensus. Finally, what about the WP:CANVASSING of another editor you assume will agree with you and support you here? AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Who was supposedly canvassed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't really thought about the consiquences when I asked WarKosign. I didn't take this conversation seriously becuase I was blaimed for talking and it felt like it's just an extention of the original argument but in an ANI.. So I really have nothing to say about that "votestacking", if you want to call it by this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:CANVASSING applies to content disputes. This page deals with user conduct, and consensus is achieved by admins, not by obviously involved editors. “WarKosign” 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I said this above. Here is the diff AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Obvious, really. Since the ANI report, Bolter21 has continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA, and showed no inclination to even listen to others or admit any wrongdoing. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just lying, or I am drunk and I don't know. Can you prove it please?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, apparently my computer and phone show different times for edits. That part struck, the reminder stays. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to topic ban a normative editor for a rather small issue like this. From my interactions with him, he is fully capable of reason. Which is what I think will solve this issue as well. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a proof that this whole issue is people who take advantage of the complexity of the topic to ban me. All the editors who are slightly to the Israel side have oppsed sanctions against me, one of them even mentioned here that my statements on the State of Palestine talkpage were right, while those who are on the Palestinian side (AusLondoner and Jeppiz) want to topic ban me. This is just a POV debate, not a debate on a problematic user, regardless of me being problematic or not.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

B21 has just noted that English isn't his/her first language, so I think it beneficial to Assume Good Faith that the editor, in stating that they would 'go against consensus' might be a translation error when what they meant to say is that they would speak out against consensus - a completely different thing.
This is how I see it:

1. This article has a lot of overtones involving nationalism and the legitimacy of such - opinions are going to be very strongly endorsed.
2. We have one editor with a substantially different viewpoint than that of the consensus.
3. That editor has stated that he has brought numerous references in support of their position, but they haven't convinced the consensus.
4. The editor's stated intention in disagreement with the consensus has been (innocently) misinterpreted as tendentious editing.
5. The editor doesn't have the experience necessary to understand how consensus works in consensus, or communal editing. This is a critical skill necessary in all aspects of editing within Wikipedia.

With the above in mind, I would suggest the following:

• If reliable, well-supported and mainstream sources exist, an RfC should be created to consider the weight of those sources (or, of course, via RSN).
• Bolter21 is in critical need of mentorship. This should be a condition of his moving forward from here. If he's not just ranting and spouting propaganda but instead bringing sources, that should be interpreted as being useful to the project.
• Bolter should voluntarily avoid this topic during the period of mentorship. If he can do so, it will only help him as an editor, and his realization of this would only help the Project. If he agrees to this and violates it anyway, I'd fully support an indef topic ban (not temporary).
• Consider that sometimes the consensus is wrong, as per Biggleswiki. This is why we rely heavily upon sourced material from outside Wikipedia and not opinions from within it. Neutrality os key here.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all the above points. We are looking at at primarily a confusion of semantics, and minor behavioural issues which can be fixed by mentorship. I believe this editor has excellent potential to be a great editor (Palestinian workers in Israel is an example of the editor's ability to create good content) and I further believe that Bolter21 will be a net plus to the project after some additional guidance. Irondome (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I always appriciate a good word.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not willing to avoid this topic, since I havent done anything wrong in the topic in the past few months. I still have things to do such as expanding the history section of the PA article and update new information about the Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process which no one seem to do. I still don't see something I did wrong in the topic, since the last time I was blocked for violating 1RR which was in last [User_talk:Bolter21#1RR_violation_again september] and I"ve "grownup alittle" since. About mentorship I have no problem. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• well are you ok to accept mentorship while editing this area for a few months, so you can co-operate more effectively with other eds? Hint. The correct answer to that is yes. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I already use some degree of mentorship from another user whom I have contact outside Wikipedia. The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic, and as long as mentroship doesn't prevent me from extracting basic information from reliable sources and placing it in a lead section to prevent a POV and/or misleading statement in an article visited by 50,000 people in a month, I have no problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you should absolutely take a little time to consider this proposal; your stated unwillingness to avoid this topic during mentorship gives credence to the RIGHTGREATWRONGS arguments being put forth in advocacy of your being banned from editing there at all. I'd urge you to consider displaying some discipline here; it will count greatly. Consider the alternative to taking a short break from the article to taking a permanent one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume by the "topic" you mean the State of Palestine article? Because I don't really have an intention editing it beyond that lead section issue. Cuase I don't have a problem avoiding what I bearly edit anyway. But I can't avoid the whole conflict topic becuase this is my main focus in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic" - these remarks are not remarks from someone planning to drop the stick and contribute constructively to the project. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You again take my statements and use them as arguments to determinate I am "NOTHERE", go look at my contributions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I think it's interesting and concerning that Jack Sebastian seems very keen to criticise and undermine consensus. I also see no reason why the interpretation of most editors of those remarks by Bolter21 critical of the consensus is "incorrect". We now see editors conceding more ground and Bolter21 openly stating they will continue on this crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not much progress is being made here. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with withholding judgement, as long as you don't withhold WP:ROPE.TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I will not participate in this conversation until tommorow becuase I really got to sleep.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment & Explanatory - I have just read the entirety of the Talk Page and this discussion here. It is quite clear that there is a VERY serious language barrier in terminology. It is also quite clear that some of the 'commemorators' have used this to further their own POV. The status of Israel and Palestine are very emotive subjects, as is known, and obvious, to any person that is up to date on the subject. I see a lot of POV being masked behind 'source material' as well. The primary status of Neutrality on WP is not being accurately, and I would say intentionally, adhered to by some. I support Option 1 for the record (as a military and political historian). AusLondonder has repeatedly used the Language issues as an example of Bolter21 having a recalcitrant attitude. I find this to be problematic and not coming from an UN-emotive state, but I do support some of hers/his comments on the issues raised. Various commentators have tried to bring the topic back to the issue at hand, but this has been ignored by multiple participants, including Bolter21.
  

The Israeli Lobby and the Palestinian Sympathisers are clearly present and accounted for also. I very strongly don't consider the consensus to have been Appropriately reached either. Quite specifically, 2 of the options given (3 & 4) were completely ignorant of the historical facts; though I'm not condemning the person who attempted to make a compromise, in their efforts of finding a consensus, it is just a perfect example of the side of the fence certain parties, with a vested interest, are going to promote, hence my wording. I also consider Option 2 to be supportive of one side more so than than the other, which is not a neutral stance.

I feel this needs some very serious, large scale efforts by people that do NOT have any Israeli or Palestinian backgrounds. It also, the article in general (IMO), needs to reflect the literal, actual position held by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the issue as a whole, which is not flattering for either side at all.

I've avoided the Israel/Palestine topic so far, because neither side get away with the publicly aired views from their respective propaganda machines, as being true, accurate (or even factual a lot of the time, IE propaganda), when it is scrutinised against the Purely Militarily Historical Evidence of Mandatory Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the historically proven way 'it all went down' from the fall out of WWI and then again after the effects of WWII.

As a very neutral party I am willing to participate in any such discussion. I also realise I slightly strayed form the ANI, but I felt some context was required. Nuro msg me 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. Conciseness. Gotta work on that. TimothyJosephWood 02:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that was very concise for the topic being presented.--v/r - TP 03:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TParis, and Timothy I don't do 'small talk', as what ever it is by Concise that your looking for, sounds to me like using 'little words' and not much substance, which I find abhorrent and disrespectful to the reasons behind commenting on anything in the first place. Make a defined and factual statement is the only way to go. If/when that an be achieved with few words, I will do so. Nuro msg me 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Voluntarily avoiding the topic during the period of mentorship and no restrictions are not the only solutions. We could allow the edits but require pre-approval from the mentor. Or require that edits be in the form of proposals on the article talk page which anyone (including the mentor) can implement. The goal is to lift any restrictions as soon as possible, and this would help to make the case for removal. I think that Bolter21 can do a lot of good in these topic areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Language issues aside, I fear nothing Bolter21 has written does anything to disperse my WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE concerns. Quite the contrary, all well-meaning suggestions above that would hinder his activities in the WP:ARBPIA area are rejected. Jeppiz (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, but I find your statement confusing. Are you supporting his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from the page, or are you saying that he/she should be banned from the topic permanently. Nuro msg me 12:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Either. I'm not interesting in "punishing" anyone, just to make Wikipedia work. If his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from ARBPIA subjects work, then all the better. If he does not accept that, or if it does not, then a topic ban from ARBPIA. Given his behavior, and his attitude towards others (see RolandR's comment below, I fear he is WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that, in a comment on my talk page[101], Bolter21 has very strongly implied that I am an antisemite. I question this editor's ability to interact collegially with other editors who do not share her/his viewpoint, and suggest that they are advised and warned that such comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you are anti-semitic (which will be wierd since you are a Jew), I said it seems you share ideologies with anti-semites, I didn't spsify which. I am not stupid enough to call a man who calls himself a Jew an "anti-semitic".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been my suspicion. That it would come down to this level; Pro- or Atni- Israeli, or more importantly the accusation of, which I consider a pointless attitude and alters my opinion. Nuro msg me 13:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted my response at the same time as Bolter21 - to which I will add that this has become the 'argument' that I feared. I think Bolter21 is acting like an Ultra-Nationalist, and this is not acceptable. The rationale used a moment ago is a condemning example; "shares the views of an anti-semite, even though they are a Jew". This is quite extraordinary, and is clearly the opinions of someone not accepting the facts, that many parts of the world, with large Jewish communities in them, like here in Australia, are not supportive of the Zionist attitudes towards the Palestinian question. This does not make someone an anti-semite. Bolter21 I don't know your age or education or background professionally, but I would advise you undergo some mentorship if you want to contribute to the debate, because you come across very one sided; this may be unacceptable to you, and you may feel aggrieved, but it is my advice. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist...... Wow. Now that's a title I never got from anyone. I am not sure how to react to someone who called me an ultranationalist to be honest. You clearly distort the words I said to RolandR in an ugly and dirty way, becuase I didn't even talked about his opinions on the conflict or critisized him for not being Zionist. You now assuming things about my political opinions on Jews oppsing Zionism. I live in Tel Aviv, I am serounded by anti-Zionist Jews who generally vote for Hadash and funny enough most of them are my friends. All the users who critisize me, do it becuase of statements I made in talks, while it was a pretty long time since I made disputed POV statements in articles whilie dispiting other peoples opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support - WP:ARBPIA volantary hiatus with mentorship, or if unwilling or unable to accept, total topic ban. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now completely disruptive. Admin action needed

In the "best" possible display of his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, Bolter21 waited barely 24 hours before going back to his edit war, even writing "24 hours passed" to show how he's gaming the system [102]. This renders moot all the concerns above that it was about Bolter21's language skills; Bolter21 claimed he would respect no consensus and by returning to edit warring, he shows that he ignores the consensus. So what we have here is an aggressive WP:SPA who openly declares he respects no consensus that doesn't suit him, accuses people who disagree of being like anti-semites, and despite this ongoing discussion, he still continues his edit war against a clear consensus. I respect those who assumed good faith but now more than enough WP:ROPE has been given. By blatantly continuing the edit war in an area under heavy discretionary sanctions, Bolter21 shows he will not listen to anyone else. I move the user be either topic banned or indeffed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This user brings nothing positive to the project. Jeppiz (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I made this revert. The template says "This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts", and this is the reality, I presented reliable sources with contradicting facts. So until the dispute is settled, this statement needs to have the template. Now could you leave me alone already?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You knew the consensus was against it, but of course did it anyway to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are lying about me accusing people of being Anti-Semitic just like when you claimed yesterday I "continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA". I did not violate a consensus and a consensus is always subjected to conversation. Just find someone else to harras for moses' sake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the consensus, there are new sources, that were not presented during the conversation of the consensus that are presented now. According to WP:TALKEDABOUTIT I did nothing wrong.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You also claim I bring nothing positive to the project.

I created this article, and in the article Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) I made edits like this, this, this. In the article Palestinian National Authority I made this section, this. On the article State of Palestine I rearanged this section. So please, can you leave me alone with you stupid accusation cause I am really starting to loose it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel you are starting to lose your cool, you might want to sit back and read WP:TEA. Editing while frustrated or angry has never - in the entire history of Wikipedia - ended well for the person unable to stay calm. Take a break. It's Spring - go and smell some flowers or listen to kids play. Seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a short 48-72 hour article ban might help cool heads a little. Is too much WP:SANCTIONGAME. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Will an article ban prevent me from participating in the talk? cause that's the main problem..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I'm not an admin, but my understanding is that the two pages are specific. Maybe someone with more rights can clarify. Regardless, I think at this point, the responsible thing to do would to be to let someone else make the change to the article that you are pushing for. It's always a good tactic to avoid the appearance of impropriety in matters like this. TimothyJosephWood 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy has given some good advice Bolter21 and as I have now read all the articles that you've been editing, to clarify myself further with the situation, I strongly suggested you take it. Your continued Recalcitrance on the advice and the suggestions that have been given to you is not helping your cause. Living in Tel Aviv doesn't change anything. You continuously maintain a Nationalist attitude (yes I used the term Ultra-Nationalist for a reason) towards the entire affair. Look at some of the Eastern European WP articles for some insight as to what is expected of a contributor about conflict zones, IE Crimea, and the required Neutral Stance expected of an editor. Citing new source material doesn't mean that you've 'proven' your point of view is the correct one. Look, I've been in trouble for reacting badly to article debates and issues involving myself since reaturning to WP. I'm a very Heavy person in general and in my daily existence, but in the written word I'm a ******* nuclear weapon in responding to criticisms made against me in a 'perceived attack' or if I consider someone as being 'disrespectful', when they may not be. I've learned some hard lessons. You need to also, mate. Your not correct about everything. Seriously 'eh. Nuro msg me 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy, for now I was engaged in a talkpage discussion, so I really don't see what a page block will do and since I barely edit the SoP article, it would really do nothing if you"ll block me from that page and I don't see any reason to block me from other articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the "ah ha! 24 hours have passed and so I'm technically not violating 3RR" edit. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Condemn - And now you dare edit my own User Page? Are you for real!? I advocate total ban for being such an obvious WP:VANDAL Nuro msg me 01:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a misktae you know, I self reverted a minute after, spesifyig it was a mistke.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And it is clear mistakes like this that have fostered a lot of people's unwillingness to offer you the benefit of the doubt, Bolter21. I urge to you to agree to mentorship and voluntarily withdrawing from these contentious articles until you can learn how to interact more cooperatively with your fellow editors. If you are convinced that your actions neither require mentorship or self-restraint, I am afraid your next misstep will result in you not only topic-banned, but blocked as well. Towards that end, I will state this as such: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: Recommendations

Recommend: I recommend a two-pronged course of action as well as its more draconian alternative. First, Bolter21 is in dire need of mentorship; the contributor is unaware how their missteps with actions both on and off the pages in contention are shredding the Assumption of Good Faith that other editors are obliged to offer the contributor. If (s)he continues on his/her current trajectory, it will see the user expelled from the Project.

Secondly, Bolter has clearly noted a RIGHTGREATWRONGS viewpoint that is 100% counter to the efforts of editing within Wikipedia, especially within the article in contention. Therefore, he should voluntarily withdraw from this (and related) articles for a period to be determined by the community, Bolter21 and his/her mentor.

Alternatively, should Bolter21 refuse to accept either of these suggestions, a topic ban as well as a 1RR editing modifier. If (s)he is unwilling to address how their behavior is currently a net negative to the Project. I realize this is harsh, but we've debated this topic for almost a week, without any discernible relenting by Bolter21.

Arguments in support or objection should be addressed below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I agree to withdraw from the State of Palestine debate (although this is pretty much killing one side of the argument and leaving WarKosign to ask users to go by reliable sources) and remain on low profile in regard to extremely debatable subjects? I still need to work on the Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation process as well as continue my work as mainly someone who include current affairs over outdated topics. Remaining outside of "related" topics seems a bit vague to me and I would to have an explaination. I don't want to agree to something that will cut off pretty much 90% of my work on Wikipedia, cause I will just quit.

Just explain what I"ll have to avoide, becuase this is a single incident, in which I was engaged in a debate on a talk page and it is still absurd to me that people want to topic ban me for it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't about a single incident, or a few articles, Bolter21. It is about how you approach these articles (and to some extent Wikipedia). You've edited another user's talk page - a move that never ever has them turn around and say, 'gee, thanks. I didn't know what I was saying, and now you've shown me the error of my ways.' Your approach to editing seems more confrontational than collaborative - hence the recommendation for mentoring.

As well, i recommended a voluntary stepping away from these contention-riddled articles because of your approach to them. You just stated that, if you were not around, no one would oppose the wrecking of the article. This is - by any measure - the absolute worst way to approach editing. There are millions of users within Wikipedia, and you are but one. There are over 330 editors watching the article in question, and four score editors actively working in it. At the risk of sounding rude, it is arrogant to the point of stupidity to assume that only you cares about the neutrality of the article. Might some of these editors be biased? Sure. But you need to trust that the rest of us are going to see through that nonsense. Nothing will ever work for you here without exercising the assumption of good faith; it is the essence of communal, collaborative editing.

This is why, imho, that you need mentorship, and why you need to stop shredding your credibility in articles you enjoy editing in. I'm guess your new mentor (if you so choose the best path and get one) would have you edit articles you don't know a lot about, so you can pick up on that joy that most of us feel when editing an article about something we know nothing about. There is no internal drive to push an agenda or to right great wrongs. It's about retraining yourself to write articles and collaborate with your fellow editors, despite their personal viewpoints. It will make you a better and more focused editor, in my opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This editor is either the most recalcitrant person I've ever come across or the most belligerent, I can't decide. They have no respect for the views of others, hence my Ultra-Nationalist comment. Editing another persons Personal User Page is not an innocent mistake, as any editor who knows anything at all about using this website will know. The continued Refusal to even understand the facts put before them by various others is also indicative of the Mind Set they hold, which is utter contempt, or complete ignorance, of the community at large who don't share their POV. Nuro msg me 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I find that Bolter21 has been unnecessarily aggressive in his/her edits, as per: [103] and [104]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't know that a TBAN is appropriate since it seems the issue has to do with one or two articles in particular. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a decision to let a family member change my password until I"ll feel like returning to Wikipedia. This whole issue begins to interfere with my personal life as I already screwed up a day in work and didn't do other important stuff.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user states that they have lost direct control of their account, and given the password to a third party. If this is true, then it becomes a de facto compromised account. The account should be blocked for this reason. It "interferes" only when they get taken to AN/I. This whole thing looks like just one more case of an editor in hot water retiring just in time to stay out of trouble. Scr★pIron^IV 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Calm down, that sounds like you're gaming to system to get your desired result out of this. If he's asked someone to help him take a break, then let it be.--v/r - TP 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block - per ScrapIron, this is a self-admitted, compromised account. Time to move on. Jusdafax 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - indef blocks are a clear stigma, but the user is new enough to not be aware know that they shouldn't have given access of their password to anyone else. I think the user was trying to indicate that they were handing over the keys so they wouldn't drive angry. That doesn't mean that we should penalize them by totaling their car. A block is indicative of wrongdoing, as well as a protective measure for the wiki. I don't know what the stats are about whether blocked editors return, but issuing an indef block here will only be seen as punitive. Is there a less stringent solution? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block or topic ban from ALL WP:ARBPIA articles There's a limit to good faith as well, and Bolter21 has long sinced passed it. I should point out that even if the acount Bolter21 is blocked, the person behind the account should be topic banned, either indef or for six months. As several users have pointed out above, it's clear this user cannot contribute constructively. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO and possible COI

This issue was initially raised at WP:BLPN here, but bringing it here for more eyes and possibly admin action. Two single purpose accounts were recently created, HARRYCRAIG and Vacariu.bucharest. HARRYCRAIG has only edited two articles - Markus Gabriel and yesterday created Gabriel Vacariu, the editor Vacariu.bucharest has only edited the Vacariu article (probably a WP:COI) and the Vacariu article has WP:COPVIO issues. This section in the article appears to have been copied verbatim from here. It would appear these two users are here to right great wrongs and push a POV that Gabriel plagiarized Vacariu, which apparently has already been addressed, but maybe not to his satisfaction - there are no plausible grounds to believe that Prof. Gabriel violated the standards of good scientific practice by making improper use of the ideas expressed in your published texts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Logically speaking, if an editor is adding copyright violations to an article, they do not have a conflict of interest - COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. I don't see any reasons to accuse this editor of a COI, because their username doesn't seem to give much away in respect to this. Simply speaking, if the information can be accessed on the Internet or through a book, there is no conflict of interest. I completely agree with the WP:COPYVIO observation, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. The way I interpret WP:COI is - "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." The editor's username is Vacariu.bucharest and the only article they have edited is Gabriel Vacariu, who also happens to be with the University of Bucharest, which is why I said probably a COI, if the editor doesn't have a conflict of interest in editing the Vacariu article, then they can simply declare that they don't have a conflict of interest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Isaidnoway - I completely misread and thought that Vacariu.bucharest was the name of one of the articles. That'll teach me. Of course, a COI editor is someone who edits about someone they know well, but if there is a copyright violation present, that means the violating material comes from somewhere else (i.e. a website) and therefore it isn't original research or own knowledge. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ches, no disrespect intended, but I didn't mention anything about "original research or own knowledge", I clearly stated above that the copyvio originated from this website. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, I know you mean well but please don't comment on policy unless you understand it, as it has to potential to confuse good-faith new editors who assume people making confident pronouncements on ANI are speaking from authority. The existence of a COI has no relationship to whether the author knows the article subject (although the latter can sometimes be an indicator of the former). Whether something is a copyvio or not has no relevance to whether a COI exists. Inter alia, it's perfectly possible to violate the copyright of a work of which you're the creator—in most legal systems copyright belongs to the body commissioning the work, not the author, and thus a writer contributing a piece to a newspaper or magazine will rarely have the right to upload the piece to Wikipedia even though it's 100% their own work. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent, I do mean well, and I thank you for your good faith assumption. I simply do not see a conflict of interest, only a copyright violation. Of course, as you said, I am not speaking from authority, I am simply making a non-administrator observation. My apologies for any confusion I have caused. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Returning to Isaidnoway (talk · contribs)'s original complaint, there's clearly a bit of COPYVIO going on and possibly the owners of these two accounts haven't quite got to grips with Wikipedia policies yet. That said, they seem to be fairly new here and haven't had anything like a level 3 or level 4 warning for their actions, so I'm not convinced that any admin action is required at this stage. If we get to the stage where they've been adequately warned about their behaviour and are continuing to be disruptive, then obviously a block would be in order - but I don't think we're there (yet). WaggersTALK 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway (talk · contribs) first thing i wanna make clear is your COI request is fully wrong now on COPYVIO . I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY COPYRIGHT DISTURBANCE I KNOW ABOUT Gabriel Vacariu WORK AND HAD ACCESSED HIS ALL INFORMATION BEFORE WRITING AT WIKIPEDIA . NOW THERE IS PROBLEM ON IT CAN YOU ALL PLEASE HELP ME TO SORT OUT IT SO THAT I CAN PROTECT HIS ARTICLE FROM BEING DELETED.--HARRYCRAIG (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 {utc)

WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response here. (1) it's not necessary to type in all caps. (2) As a new editor here, you should familiarize yourself with some of our editing policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:COI and you can always ask questions about editing at the WP:HELPDESK or me when I happen to be online. (4) Do you have a conflict of interest with editing either one of these two articles - Markus Gabriel or Gabriel Vacariu, in other words, do you know either one of these individuals, are you associated with either one of them, friends of either one of them, employed by either one of them? The reason I ask is because your very first edit to the encyclopedia was to insert an allegation of plagiarism to the Markus Gabriel article using this source - why did you do that? And then you jumped to the newly created article about Gabriel Vacariu and have started editing it now, so your editing behavior has come under scrutiny and is being discussed here. If you do have a conflict of interest with either one of these individuals, let us know now, so we can proceed to guide you on how to continue to edit the encyclopedia, especially if these two articles are the only ones you are interested in editing. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User :RaffiKojian on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

This report is about user User:RaffiKojian vandalizing page 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and using the page's talk for personal attacks against me. Several times he changed [105] the background section of the article without discussing it on talk page. In two different sections [106][107] on talk page I clarified myself. However he did not respond me in each case instead he accused me of editwarring and calling other users to take action against me. He continuously deletes my other contributions to article without discussing on talk.

My arguments were followings:

The main reason for clashes stem from continuing Armenian occupation and 600.000 Azeris displaced because of the Armenian Agression as it stated in the refernces from UN. I see some users just call all refernced information as propaganda and remove it.

The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is distantly relevant to Azeris from Karabakh expelled by Armenian forces. And it does not overlap with the pervious sentences in the paragraph. So I suggest mention Azeri refugges only. Otherwise we need to take Azeris from Armenia as well. Thanks.

No respond given by the user on talk page. Thanks Abbatai 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two nationalists POV pushing against each other. Lovely.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I take that back. Abbatai is a nationalist pushing his POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This may call for a boomerang. Abbatai has displayed a reluctance of taking into consideration the overwhelming disapproval of his edits at the talk page. He has continued to edit-war incessantly and this is a cause for concern. The thread below highlights many of these reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:81.103.184.187

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

---

This editor has commented on my talk page attacking me because I made a revert that may of been vandalism (Ill have to check my contribs). I suggest a ban from interacting with me because I believe s/he has only the intent of vandalizing and/or attacking editors. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A single message such as this is not even close to meriting the need for any sort of ban on block. Please don't make posts on this board until you better understand what actually constitutes vandalism and disruption. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Abbatai

Please look into user Abbatai (talk · contribs)'s edits. Seems to be a single-purpose distuptive (for example, these edits [108][109][110]) user who was warned for his reverts at 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) several times [111][112][113], but no results (for example, this edit he reverted 13 times since April 6 - [114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]). Previously he was blocked 3 times for disruptive editing and editwarring [127]. OptimusView (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello in each case I invited the users to discuss it on talk before changing however I had no respond on talk page. See [128][129] it is absurd those users report me now instead of discussing the issue with me at talk in two different sections. Plus some pro-Armenian users remove referenced information the page needs some action by admins. Thanks Abbatai 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Block Review: 92.19.170.43

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

---

92.19.170.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP was blocked indefinitely as another ref-desk troll. Though the block was clearly justified, IP's are never blocked indefinitely (unless occasional Proxy IP servers). Usually Vote (X) for Change IP's first blocks are 36 hours. Can an admin take a look into this, please?

2607:FB90:A502:88F9:0:3C:D175:F701 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One of yours? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, no...? I just saw the block and was curious as to why it was indef-ed. My contributions are clearly not from the same user. 2607:FB90:A502:88F9:0:3C:D175:F701 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What brought it to your attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, stop poking. Helpful IP 2607, thank you for noting the discrepancy in the block length. I adjusted it to 48 hours assuming the indef was an unintentional error by Jayron32, one I've done myself a number of times.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a fair question to ask of any user raising this type of issue. It's a question I would expect you to ask me if I had been the OP. Except you wouldn't have had to ask, because I would have already stated what brought it to my attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The IPs observation of the block was completely valid, and a review of their edits show they were doing vandal patrolling prior to their edit here. Your comment ("one of yours?") was unhelpful, rude, showed bad faith, and served no purpose other than to cast aspersions on someone who was pointing out a likely error. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Krisreeder10

Krisreeder10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have my concerns about the editing of Krisreeder10. He seems to be almost only editing an article about himself in a promotional way. I have also found hime to be gaming the AFC system by creating and submitting drafts while logged out and logging in shortly afterwards to immediately accept the draft, as seen for instance here, here and here. Tvx1 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I have started having a heavy-handed go at weeding this garden. I have a lot of real-life stuff to do in the interim and so I may not be finished in one sitting. I could cut lots more information given the utter absence of third-party sources, but I will leave that for someone else, not to be lazy but so the author(s) can potentially recognize that I'm not on a one-human vendetta against Mr. Reeder (and that, at some level, I'm trying to help him out by making the article less off-putting for AFD reviewers). It will be interesting to see who reverts my changes. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Is User:Krisgrayer10 the same editor? Dbfirs 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely. But I think it would need a SPI to confirm that. Nevertheless, these users don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia but only to promote him/themsel(f)(ves)Tvx1 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Tvx1 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on a situation re: Anmccaff

Could an uninvolved admin please have a look at a situation for me? Recently I've been working on Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) and it seems that User:Anmccaff has rather taken a dislike to the article in its present form, since its recent promotion to GA status by User:Keilana. I won't go into the arguments he's made, they're all available to see on the talk page and in the edit history, but I will say they are largely petty and/or obtuse. This, however, isn't my problem.

Anmccaff's attitude has made it very difficult to find consensus, if not impossible. He has insulted every editor on the talk page, even User:Bradv who appeared completely uninvolved to mediate. I'd be quite happy to list the insults if it helped, but I think anyone who pops to Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) will see what I'm talking about. He's also been tagging other unrelated articles I've written in an apparent attempt to bring the fight there too. This is despite the fact I've kept almost completely out of the discussion.

I nearly brought this here a few days ago due to the legally charged statements he made, "... are you refuting your borderline libel ..." and "made assertions about one of the cited authors that, in another context, might be actionable", creating a chilling effect, but my comments on his talk page appear to have stopped that. Whilst there, however, I found a long list of similar issues where the individual worked in a manner that discouraged collaboration, this isn't new behaviour.

Any eyes on the situation or suggestions for ways to move forward would be much appreciated. Worm^TT(talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll check it out.--v/r - TP 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you like a response to this now, or do you want to look over the interaction history unfettered a bit first?

Just keep in mind as you do that I'd disagree with most of the assertions Worm That Turned has made above. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Well, that was a lot of reading. I'll be frank with you, WormTT, I'm not seeing the actionable item. I saw you say you'd take action if you weren't involved, but I don't see to what. I'd definitely agree that Anmccaff's participation has been aggressive and confrontational and I'd strongly urge them to adapt a more collaborative editing behavior. But, I think this is largely a content issue. I think Anmccaff brings up enough of a concern to warrant questioning the GA status. But, I also think the dispute comes down to a difference in perception where I believe Anmccaff is simply wrong. Anmccaff appears to be approaching the article from something of a historical relativism point of view. What were Elizabeth Alexander's contributions at the time, how have they persisted, and what were her intentions at the time? To be honest, I don't think that matters in the context of an encyclopedia article about her. If you wanted to write about whether she has the moral right to claim the accomplishments that historians grant her, well, then we can discuss that. But, Wikipedia's point of view should be about what happened, and how did it have an impact on history. That's it. Whether she intended to be a radio-astronomer at all is immaterial. So, I'd agree with you on those points. Anmccaff spends a lot of time arguing about the meta-properties of this article and not much time discussing actual changes they'd like to make (short of repeated rants about the GA status). The comment on Headbomb recanting "libel" is purely disruptive and nonsense. It's not libel to consider the reliability of a source. That's some serious POV pushing and Anmccaff should be well warned to steer clear of that sort of rubbish argument. Another instance can and should be seen as making veiled legal threats to win a content dispute. But, short of that specific case - nothing actionable springs to mind. Sorry, bud. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for you.

(edit conflict)@Anmccaff: Based on your argumentative approach to the article talk space, I suspect that any response you have to this is going to hurt your case rather than help it. You'd be wise to accept my outside perspective and take the advice I've made above.--v/r - TP 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking over it TParis. Perhaps a bit jaded and have read a little too much into things. I'll defer to your judgement, for the time being at least. Worm^TT(talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 copyright policy violations

The article R2-45 links directly to an external web source (tonyortega.org) that (according to the text on that page) carries a unauthorized 3-minute excerpt from a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard, copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. My understanding is that this violates WP:ELNEVER. That article also links to a shorter recording on Wikileaks. The local editors accept that copyright is claimed on the material,[130] but they revert my edit when I remove the links. They argue, under various theories, that the Church of Scientology cannot enforce copyright on the materials.[131][132] They also argue that linking is OK if it is for a different purpose.[ibid:"for the purposes of commentary"] The editors involved are Damotclese (talk · contribs), Slashme (talk · contribs), Feoffer (talk · contribs), and Prioryman (talk · contribs). When I removed the link, I was "warned" by an opposing editor that my insistence on following WP:POLICY on this and other issues is "continued tendentious editing".[133] Damotclese (talk · contribs) also copy/pasted a complete Scientology document (purported) into the talk page,[134] in disregard of WP:COPYVIO, to support some point of argument with another editor. These actions suggest some or all of these editors are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to promote a particular view of the subject. NB: I not represent Scientology, and I have no personal knowledge of the genuineness of those recordings. They may be false (in which case they are fraud or forgery) and they may be true (in which case they violate WP policy on copyright). Whether false or true, the content is inappropriate and against WP policy for external links. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed article now includes a "non-free" scanned image from a copyright Scientology magazine uploaded by Feoffer (talk · contribs)[135]. This should be considered a separate but related issue -- that is, each instance of suspected copyvio should be considered separately. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the Church of Scientology is an organization, they have the ability to claim copyrights on documents and restrict their reference or use by others. If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER. This also applies to the wikileaks source (and honestly, I wouldn't reference anything from Wikileaks if I were writing an article). I wouldn't think that the removal of a reference that potentially violates Wikipedia's external links and copyright policies would constitute as a violation of any discretionary sanctions on an article. However, if articles under the subject of Scientology are under 1RR restrictions, then removing and restoring the sources back-and-fourth is a very bad idea. The question I have is... are these documents actually under a copyright that restricts the use of those sources? My first thought is yes and these sources should be removed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright isn't a black and white argument. There is WP:NFCC and WP:Fair use to consider. If the material provides the best context for the education of the reader, it can be used. I haven't read the article or the diffs, I'm simply pointing out that "It's copyrighted" it's the end-all to this question.--v/r - TP 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I just reviewed WP:NFCC and I'm looking at WP:F now. Striking out my "first thought" from the previous response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Just speaking about the image, File:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png. WP:NFCCP #8 is at issue here. Also, it definitely fails WP:NFC#UUI #15. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree (regarding the image). Still looking into the concerns regarding the sources. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: WP:NFCC #8 is the most subjective criteria of them all. Needs a discussion regarding it on the talk page. Although, I tend to agree with you. NFCC #8 is met when the article is about the NFC and the context of the NFC cannot be described in a suitable way without the NFC.--v/r - TP 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Ignoring NFCC #8 it still runs afoul of NFC#UUI #15 (a pretty clear cut unacceptable use). I'm going to put it to FFD as soon as I'm done with one other thing (if someone else doesn't get to it first). --Majora (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to follow up. I started a FFD discussion on the image. As for the external links, unless we can prove for certain that the person has permission to post that video it is pretty much like posting a potentially pirated YouTube video. As such, it is my opinion that the link should be removed citing WP:ELNEVER. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)