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

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 [1]. 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 [2] [3]. 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 [4] [5]. 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)

• Continued problem with User:Davey2010 and others on this page. I raised this ANI some time ago and it descended into attacks on me rather than a resolution of the issue. As shown below the proposed ban of me (by an anonymous user) was opposed. As these discussions went on various editors gradually removed practically every bit of information and referencing from the article in such a way and to such an extent that it is now an absolute nonsense which is seriously lacking in context, facts, background and accuracy and which will NOT give a reader a true picture of the subject. I therefore tagged the article as such yesterday. I did not edit it, I simply tagged. User:Jytdog reverted that tag saying it was disruptive. It was not, so I reverted back to the tags and left a substantial note on the article talk page explaining exactly why as shown here [6]. User:Davey2010 has reverted these tags again stating the article is fine, factual etc..and he and another editor have left comments on the talk page below the explanation of why I tagged & stated the article is non factual, stating that nobody will read the comment and asserting that the article is fine. It absolutely and demonstrably is not, as shown in my talk page comment, and I need help in getting this issue of User:Davey2010's behaviour and the Clarawood page sorted out once and for all. If I revert the tags again it will descend into another lot of nonsense, I am not so sure it won't simply turn once again into an attack on me here, but the fact is there is a non-factual article which I tagged as such and explained as per proper process, and this editor has once again rode roughshod over this asserting things rather than looking at the evidence. I need help with this Clarawood123 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah it's not my behaviour that's the issue here .... it's yours!, I explained why I removed the tags on the talkpage so instead of running to ANI how about you discuss it like a normal human being!, Also stop pinging me as this is getting extremely boring and pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I already did discuss it in detail as you well know and have been ignored. I now am starting to understand why Wikipedia is laughed at in academic and professional circles Clarawood123 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote an unformatted wall of text. Your wall of texts does not justify your numerous tags. Surprisingly it's not been completely ignored. Changes have been made based on your comments. It has not been fully restored to your preferred version. You preferred version has numerous problems starting with the lead. The sourcing, you have general reference section for the sources you couldn't be bothered to put in the article because you found it impractical to individualize them or something of the sort. But again your wall of text has had action taken. Now if you want to help wikipedia be taken seriously in professional and academic circles you are going to need to become more familiar with it. Below, while you weren't banned, it has been suggested that you consider mentorship. You can find more information about that at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. You, in addition or as an alternative, may consider the Wikipedia:Teahouse as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While mentorship, the Teahouse and dispute resolution all seem like reasonable next steps, I don't see any need for Administrator action at present. The various parties need to calm down and use the article talk page, and may need some mediation in doing so. I would suggest they each refrain from reverting one another's edits and instead discuss anything they feel like reverting before doing so. But as far as AN/I is concerned, I propose we close this thread. WaggersTALK 12:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban/WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123

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

---

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)

• I know?........ –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose(with clarification) - I think the person needs some mentorship, as my first Article got AfD'ed and I didn't like the way it happened, but that is the lessons needed to learn how we are required to format our contributions. I agree that the person has displayed obvious recalcitrance, and am suspicious of the name's involved, but in the spirit of "good faith" think some mentoring would be good. Nuro msg me 02:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment User:CDRL102 advises that I just need to learn "how it all works". Presumeably this would include such issues as not deleting from articles established academic facts which are referenced. For example such as they did as described on the Clarawood Talk page here [7] which was the edit and revert which kicked off all this nonsense. User:Davey2010 states that I have been "problematic since March" and talks of the "amount of disruption caused". Presumeably his own listing of the article for AfD and subsequent actions in closing it after an hour, deleting comments and discussions on Talk pages, threatening me with blocking etc etc and therefore me having to raise this ANI - it was in fact me who raised this about User:Davey2010 - were not in any way disruptive. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made sweeping edits to the Clarawood page. The edit in which they left the page in breach of copyright was labelled "irrelevancy", the edit in which they adopted CDRL102's change to the opening statement was labelled "unsourced WP:OR" despite the fact that it was in fact referenced and was NOT original research as explained previously, they removed a lot of detail under the label "unsourced" despite the fact that it was not only heavily sourced but the source was the official record of the construction by those who built the estate (but of course they had already removed those references as "irrelevant"), they then removed even more stating it was a synth and also that the sources were "crap". If the offical Government record held at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland is a "crap" source then God help us in trying to find good ones. Others have made helpful edits by leaving the article completely and utterly misreferenced in other words there are references on the page - from the first line - which bear no relation to the statement or fact they supposedly back up, there is now some very bad grammar on the page including mispelling, and as I have also previously mentioned the article is factually wrong in multiple places from the outset. People need to get real here, see that my arguments on this have been driven by a desire for proper content and proper procedure; recognise that a number of those attacking me and my actions have been completely in the wrong despite their assertions to the contrary; get this article restored to the way it was before it was vandalised ie my last edit; if there are genuine problems with how it was written then raise those issues particularly in discussion on the talk page where I would be more than willing to learn or amend if appropriate; stop playing the issue as being my inexperience and understand that the actual issue is the inability of some of the above to reflect honestly on their own actions. Contrary to some people's assertions I can and have reflected on my own and as a result have not done anything else except try and defend myself - even though as I have said the page is now in breach of copyright thanks to [User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]] and others. Yours, anticipating that the above mentioned and others will reject this comment and redouble their attacks on me Clarawood123 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you anticipate that editors will start linking to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE too? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123 is taking all the WP:ROPE that other editors are offering and hanging themselves. I urge the editors voting !oppose to read the intransigence in what Clarawood123 is actually writing here, and reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Intransigence is defined as not willing to compromise; obstinately maintaining an attitude however it is invariably used in the context of someone who does so without reason or rational thought, reflection on their position or reference to accepted norms or processes. This is not what I have done. If it was I would admit so and move on. Instead my staunch position has been held with direct reference to multiple Guidelines and in the face of blank assertion without evidence. There is most definitely intransigence throughout this saga, and rational, sensible and honest minds - after investigation and reference to the full history of it on the various talk pages, AfD, Deletion Review, edit histories and this ANI (which I started about Davey2010) - will be able to distinguish what quarters it has been coming from eg I have been accused of reverting everything anyone else did to the page lots of times, the edit history shows that after a couple of mistakes by me initially over fair use images and trivia, there were only 2 or 3 reversions of edits by CDRL102 over a period of about 2 weeks and they were both explained fully on the talk page. The only other reversions were then the one after the Deletion Review restored the page and the one reverting CDRL102's removal of a referenced fact. User:Jytdog is currently going through the article as it has been left by others ie misreferenced and in breach of copyright etc highlighting references which appear to bear no relation to things mentioned and deleting sections of what little remains. I must point out that if those edits which left the article in this state had not been done then it would not be misreferenced Clarawood123 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. A site ban would be ridicusly harsh on a new editor with so few edits. If anything, a topic ban would be more than enough to check Clarawood123's intentions. Given they have not edited almost anything outside of the topic it has almost the same effect. Still, it leaves plenty of room for Clarawood123 to edit on something else. But before any ban at all, we should ask Clarawood123 to edit also on other topics, and let this one article grow mostly from other contributions for a while (it just passed a deletion discussion, it will most likely not be in any risk of deletion any time soon). And within a month or so, we either have a new editor, or we are sure that we do need a ban. Banning now would be based on a wild guess, that is not fair, nor useful, and quite BITEy. - Nabla (talk)

User:Nabla I get what you are saying in theory, but you should actually come try to improve the article. This person is completely unworkable. I am not exaggerating. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Seems like the more recent changes have gone off without a hitch. Or maybe I'm misreading things. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They have stopped reverting people, yes, but their comments on the Talk page remain 100% antagonistic and disruptive, and above all, just not helpful. Rather than discussing anything simply, every remark is full of accusation and disdain. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe the user has good intentions, I say we give some ROPE and explain the situation. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

well its pretty clear to me this will be closed "no consensus" but hopefully with a good, clear warning. Let's hope it takes. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and hopefully my final comment No matter how many times those such as User:Jytdog, User:CDRL102, User:Davey2010 or User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi state things about both me and the Clarawood page, or how plausible they sound, or how much other participants latch onto their assertions, it does not make what they are saying about me and the page true. The truth is the truth and the facts are the facts and I have now urged numerous times for sensible admins and editors to please look at this fully and take my comments on board and determine who has been telling the truth and acting appropriately through this affair by reference to the facts. No matter how many times they accuse me of being unable or incapable or unworkable it does not make it the truth. No matter how many times they plant suggestions of disruption, COI, SPA, etc etc it does not make it the truth. No matter how insulting or personally invidious they are to me it does not make their assertions true. As stated previously, multiple times, the article Clarawood is now factually wrong in multiple places, misreferenced in multiple places and in breach of copyright in multiple places. This has only got worse with each edit done by those supposedly "helping" and "fixing" it. This is because the sum total of knowledge most of them have about Clarawood was drawn from the article itself (though I have reason to suspect there are some who actually do and did have agendas to change the page from the outset to fit with their personal views of the estate). Stating this does not make me uncooperative or demonstrate that I have ownership issues, it demonstrates - as it has all along - that I am rightly concerned about the integrity of the article and of Wikipedia. What is the correct position to take here? Support someone who was attacked unjustly and was a victim of lack of process and disruption themselves and allow them to leave the article they wrote in a factual, referenced and legal state? Or support those who have wildly and blankly accused them of practically everything they could accuse them of (without evidence to back any of it up) and leave the article breaching copyright, factually wrong and misreferenced? The answer is also not to delete the article, the article was fine until the recent vandalising. I STILL hope that someone with a bit of clout and sense will look into this fully, see what has gone on here and resolve things to the satisfaction of all, with all accepting things in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration which Wikipedia is supposed to typify. I have tried to follow procedure to allow this to happen, next stage will most likely be arbitration Clarawood123 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Clarawood123, I can see why they are so frustrated with you. You are really so self - absorbed that you cannot see what is happening right here in front of your nose. No, the next step will NOT be arbitration. The next step will be your editing privileges will be permanently revoked. Arbitration is for intractable issues the community cannot solve. You are rapidly assisting the community in solving this, and the solution will be you are site banned. This isn't a court. You have no rights here. If you are site banned, which is what is on the table and seemingly ruling the day, you will never be allowed to edit here again. So just exactly who do you envision is going to file an arbitration case? John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

.... You do realize you're digging a very big hole for yourself ..... Instead of "everyone's vandalizing this" and I'm going to Arbcom" etc etc, What you really need to be saying is something along the lines of "I've learned from my mistakes and they won't be repeated" or "I'll communicate with everyone better", To be absolutely honest I've been pondering on whether or not to oppose the siteban however you're making it extremely difficult for anyone to keep you here and it's clearly obvious you're not going to change your ways which makes the siteban all the more appropriate it, You really need to think about your actions and words from hereon in. –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban A ban is not appropriate for good faith editing. Having reviewed the disputes on the page, I am shocked that a ban would be suggested. "The next step" will be whatever it will be, and no one here can yet say what that will be until a consensus is taken, and at this point, consensus is divided. "No rights"? What strange talk this is -- All have rights until it is shown that they abused those rights. Clarawood123 (talk · contribs), please be explicit here about the copyright violations you allege. Grammar's Li'l Helper 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• WURT (Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team) has issued a press release to British newspapers about bias and bullying on Wikipedia. It refers to the Clarawood article as an example. WURT is angry about the unjust treatment of Clarawood123 but it has no connection with Clarawood123. Keep an eye on the newspapers. Ispitinyourgravy (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And you felt the need to create an account ten minutes ago to tell us that...? Cheers :) 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with WERT (Wikipedia Extraordinary Rodent Ticklers), which despite public pressure, has remained conspicuously silent on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose site ban C'mon folks, are we really serious about a site ban for a newbie (account created Feb 4th 2016). Yes they are showing signs of ownership, yes they are argumentative, yes they post irritating "walls of words". But what I am sensing here is that just a couple of editors have got extremely frustrated with this and are lashing out with a subsequent pile on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appearance of the OP at this noticeboard. It would be totally draconian to impose a site ban, especially under a boomerang. Imagine what message that sends to other newbies here. I suspect Clarawood123 has learned a lot from this experience. ( By the way user:Clarawood123, do NOT go to arbcom - you will almost certainly regret it if you do.) I suggest this is closed with no action taken. Clarawood123 would benefit from some advice, perhaps from a friendly admin, and if they transgressed again, we could easily start to think about imposing sanction then. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. Site bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not for cases such as these. Clarawood123, I recommend you be careful here and not inadvertently dig yourself deeper. Arbcom will not improve the situation, trust me. Maybe a mentorship or some advice from a more experienced editor? GAB^Hello! 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wayyyy too soon for a site ban. With only 96 edits, no block log, and only for ownership issues and promotional edits (nothing that is egregious or grossly against Wikipedia policies) - there is much that can be done before we even speak of banning someone in this situation. We could offer mentorship or assistance to this user first. If things get worse and/or it becomes necessary, blocks can/should be imposed. If, after multiple blocks and repeated consistent issues continue to occur (to where WP:NOTHERE or other guidelines can be reasonably applied), only then should a ban be considered in this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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,[8] 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.[9][10] 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".[11] Damotclese (talk · contribs) also copy/pasted a complete Scientology document (purported) into the talk page,[12] 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 do 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)[13]. 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)

I also agree that the image should be deleted under NFCC #8, and I've removed it from the article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As @Feoffer: says, this is a short excerpt of a much longer speech, and it's very clearly fair-use: it's the historical figure who created the topic of the article mentioning it in a lecture. It gives just enough of the speech for the hearer to understand clearly in what context it is being used there. Without hearing the explanation leading up to him mentioning "R2-45" you get the impression that he's just talking about shooting people, but this way you can understand that, yes, he's saying that "R2-45" means shooting someone, but here he's explaining that in his belief system, killing someone is just a very basic way of making the spirit leave the body. Saying that we can't link to an external site because it contains a 3 minute extract from a lecture that lasted an hour or more is a bit extreme. --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but let's be clear about this: this is just an excuse being made by Sfarney to remove this source from the article. It is being used in the article to discuss US government papers published by Ortega relating to the topic of the article - not as a source for the lecture in question. He has only latched on to this copyright claim after (1) attacking Ortega's personal qualities in various places on Wikipedia; (2) claiming that WP:BLP applies either to L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology as a whole - an organization that claims 6 million members, 2 million more than the entire US federal government; (3) that the lecture shouldn't be used as a source because it's paywalled; (4) that a Church of Scientology publication shouldn't be cited because it is somehow "original research"; and (5) that the recording he's claiming is a copyright violation isn't genuine anyway. (Quite a turnaround, that!) In short, this is part of an ongoing campaign of tendentious obstructionism relating to this particular article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

More personal attacks, and no diff links in support. WP:NPA. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Describing your behavior isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. The ANI bearpit isn't the appropriate place to review your behavior in detail. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) In Wikipedia, all "statements of fact" are supported with links and references; (2) ANI is not universally considered a "bearpit"; (3) This is very much an appropriate place to review my conduct; and (4) When an issue comes before the ANI, the conduct of all involved editors comes under review. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out Sfarney has been on an extended campaign to remove material originating from Ortega and has taken to many venues to complain about our usage of Ortega as a source. The claiming that Ortega is a copyright infringer is but one in a long series of allegations cited as reason to scrub his reporting from the project. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal attack to accuse me of running contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, but fail to provide the diffs to support the accusations. In this most recent case, if a diff were provided, the administrators could fairly judge whether I have accused Ortega of "infringing" on copyright, and they would find I have not. I do not know whether Ortega's recording is the genuine item. But as stated above, if it is not, it is fraud or forgery (or perhaps satire) and we should not link to it. If it is, we violate WP:ELNEVER if we link to it. Wikipedia has different rules from Ortega. We live by our rules, Ortega by his, whatever they might be. The only question before the ANI at this time is whether the R2-45 article violates Wikipedia's policies on copyright, as stated above. If you wish to broaden this question to other issues, follow the rules for discussion on this page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Journalist Tony Ortega included a 3 minute excerpt of a much longer lecture for the purposes of reporting and commentary.[14] Ortega was Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice, his usage of the audio clip is in his reporting is certainly "in a way compliant with fair use". Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's tell more than half the truth. According to the Observer, Ortega was asked to leave his position at the Voice in 2012: “He was increasingly obsessed with Scientology and had neglected almost all of his editorial duties at the paper,” the ex-staffer said. “Sometimes he wouldn’t even edit features.”[15] We would not want that obsession to spill over into Wikipedia such that we forget our own policies about copyright, neutrality, advocacy, and verifiability. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How is Ortega's job performance at the Village Voice relevant to the copyright status of the external link on this article? --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not. It does, of course, dualistically question his presence here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sfarney has been smearing Ortega in various places around Wikipedia to try to make a case that he shouldn't be used as a source. It's part of a pattern of bad editing that should earn him a topic ban under the arbitration sanctions currently in force in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But the first person to bring up Village Voice was in fact Feoffer who appeared to be trying to use it to give credence to Tony Ortega. It seems to be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either both are relevant or neither are. Which means it's difficult to criticise Sfarney for bringing it up in this particular instance as it was a resonable response to Feoffer's comment. The alternative option would be to suggest Tony Ortega's previous position at the Village Voice is irrelevant point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's irrelevant either way. None of the content we're discussing relates to the Village Voice, so there is no point bringing it up. Prioryman (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, your primary problem is with Feoffer and should have been worded and indented as such. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss all of it without personal attacks WP:PA, and we can keep it relevant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope you recognise that that includes avoiding making personal attacks on the authors of sources, too. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But there's no personal attack (as considered by wikipedia) on the authors of sources in this discussion. If the statement is true, it's as I said above, an acceptable comment in the context of this discussion. If it's not true, it's majorly wrong, but still not a personal attack. To be fair, I'm not sure if anything said on contributions is necessarily a personal attack either (although I only really read this subpart of the discussion), but it's significantly closer to one than anything said about authors of sources. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This question does not appear to have a consensus, yet. Is it still open and under consideration? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^(Discourse) 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there isn't yet a clear consensus, so let's make sure that we're aligned on a clear question: is it acceptable to link to a site which includes an embedded YouTube video of a three-minute excerpt from a lecture that is over an hour long, or does that violate WP:ELNEVER? --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping an admin will review this question and decide it one way or the other before it goes stale and gets archived. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^(Discourse) 02:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page

Discussion

I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.

Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (or already in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.

The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted your changes to the format. I doubt there's need for a poll like that in this discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left notices at WT:BLP and WP:VPP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose revdel. See my reasoning above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - any quote showing up in a reliable source, used in a discussion as evidence to your side in an argument, shouldn't be redacted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel if for no other reason doing so might cause, at some later point, the same thing to be discussed again. Having a record visible of exactly what was discussed, and, presumably, found not worthy for inclusion makes it less likely that similar discussion on the same topic will be actively initiated in the future. If the source were a more questionable or less reliable one, then, maybe, I could see some point in removing it, but I don't think that would necessarily be the case here. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  @John Carter: The first revdel removed a single word; the second a quote from an external source that was (and still is) linked in the discussion. I don't think those two removals make the discussion unclear—they simply avoid the allegations being repeated onwiki until a consensus is formed about whether it should be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what question this is a survey of. Whether or not an edit is violating BLP policy is a judgment call by an administrator and shouldn't be a matter put to a vote. If an admin believes the specific content maligns an individual's reputation and has no place in an article, they remove it. If you have a specific complaint about this particular rev-del, I'd take the issue to admin responsible for the action. If you are interested in a meta or policy discussion about whether the interpretation of BLP these days is too broad, I'd go to the policy talk page or the Village Pump, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Liz: For what it's worth, it has been brought to me. I stand by the the revdel, and will not be undoing it myself (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=715839454}). I too was a little surprised to see this at ANI—for some reason I thought revision deletion was discussed at WP:DRV—but I suppose this works too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't view the deleted revision but I looked at the Washington Post article and it seems fine to me. BLP1E is about whether to write an article about a person, not about revdelling a link on a talk page. For one thing, BLP1E deletions are usually done after a week-long community discussion at AfD with the article visible during the discussion, not unilaterally by admins at their whim before anyone sees what happened. It's hard for me to understand how this revdel is justified. I'm open to persuasion but I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation from the defenders. As someone who likes to look at page histories, I get that revdel is sometimes needed, and it doesn't bother me too much if occasional inappropriate revdels get through. But if they're being done too casually and not being restored when challenged, it contributes to a perceived tension between admins and users that sometimes gets remarked on here and that could potentially escalate various ways. It doesn't seem good. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Added: I'll have to look at some of the diffs given later. I won't be able to post again for the next few days. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The increasingly widespread belief that BLP enjoins us from ever saying anything defamatory about a living subject is a fallacy: Wikipedia has many things to say about tens of thousands of living subjects that I expect they would desperately prefer be censored, if they weren't backed up with the ironclad sourcing that is what BLP actually requires. Jehochman's airy belief about we have higher standards than most newspapers is very well and good (if both unsubstantiated and unwarranted), but we're not talking about the National Enquirer or the local supermarket free weekly. We're talking one of the half-dozen newspapers that constitute the gold standard for journalism in the hemisphere. Ravenswing 07:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping troll back?

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [16] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katie^talk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• And now 217.38.96.72 (talk · contribs). My, does this guy have nothing else to live for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal for that UK referendum guy...

...aka Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, given his long-term pattern of reckless disruption and harrassment towards editors like Favonian and the like. GeneralizationsAreBad is in favour of it, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Weak) support. It's somewhat of a formality—he's already de facto banned anyway (no admin familiar with his behaviour is going to unblock him). In theory de facto or community banned makes no difference, but in practice it's easier to have a formal ban discussion and the notice on the banned editor's userpage to point to, because recognition of a de facto ban hinges somewhat on familiarity with the case. Admittedly, in this case the SPI case page with its dozens-upon-dozens of socks serves much of the same role when it comes to having a place to point to (hence the "weak" part of my support), so the absence of the discussion-and-tag isn't a big deal in this case. Nonetheless, having them wouldn't hurt the 'pedia any. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Struck the "weak" part of my support, as he's by now becoming prolific enough that already de-facto banned or no, mile-long SPI-record or no, there's no doubt left at all that a formal ban is welcome. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support for the reasons mentioned above. The socks can just be blocked as vandalism-only accounts, since the edits are either harassment or disruption and will be reverted anyhow. For a case like Nsmutte, a ban is more helpful, because their edits are not blatant vandalism. Still, I see no reason not to slap another notice onto the userpage. Note also that the stated master is definitely not the original master. (I have now switched to full support, considering it would help get them blocked on sight based on their usernames before they cause too much damage.) GAB^Hello! 02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support although their names are constantly ridiculous enough that they just get blocked on site. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly would make no sense to block them off-site. EEng 22:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

EEng#s I meant "blocked on sight" i.e. as soon as someone sees them on here, they block them anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, duh! EEng 01:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support don't see why not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the user space vandalism is getting out of hand. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support The behavior is unacceptable. Causing damage at an unacceptable level. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I think it makes sense to have this down as a formality...TJH2018 talk 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a formality. User is here to do nothing but disrupt the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per RickinBaltimore. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per OP. Linguist 111^talk 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's clear that this user intends to be disruptive and blatantly so. A formal ban will make administrative actions easier as far as blocks and enforcement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User deliberately disrupting WP as a school assignment

Taylorxfrankel has severely disrupted the article Cornish language five times in the last days [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. By their own admission, Taylorxfrankel "has" to do this as part of a school assignment and intends to continue "I have to edit the wikipage for Cornish for a class I am taking this semester. Our assignment will be over by May 17th, so after that I will revert the changes" [22]. That's as big a WP:NOTHERE as it gets, so I suggest blocking this user who clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think he is clearly here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but has no idea how - which will not be solved by blocking or banning. The edit warring has to stop, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems he admits he's here just for an assignment. Jeppiz (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears it is part of this class instructed by Chuck Haberl. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk and Adam (Wiki Ed): Just advising you of this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Left a note for the student. I'll email the instructor. Our emphatic guidance for instructors is that they not grade on "what sticks" to avoid this exact scenario, but it's not uncommon for students to get flustered when they see material disappear. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for the Wiki-Ed projects, we need to be more careful how the editors and such are treated because we want to help them learn. Really, this applies to all editors, but there it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the instructor (me) is well aware of this advice, and the student has registered along with her classmates through the Wiki Education Foundation portal, so the Content Experts there are also on top of the issue. I have written the student to remind her that I can see her past contributions as easily as anyone else can, and that I'm not necessarily grading her on the current iteration of the article but solely on her contributions to it. Not sure what else I can say at this point.Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, perhaps it might be nice to make a note on the talk page of articles you are using so that the rest of us know what's going on? DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have added a link to this discussion from the article talkpage. I have also asked for the page protection template to be added to the article, as it has now been fully protected. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Coule I say, with all due respect, that I find Nihonjoe's call to only allow administrator to edit the article to be a very bad call. I see no reason why serious users' should not be able to edit the article just because a new WP:SPA has edit warred on the article. Blocking all users from editing an article just because it's targeted by one single troublesome account is (fortunately) not the way we usually solve things here. Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  I have to agree. I'm not going to unprotect and start a wheel war, but I think blocks are a much better way to get the attention of someone who has to edit to pass a class. Katie^talk 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  I agree. I think the most prudent solution probably would have been to create a separate draft properly attributed based off the diff just before the class started and to let the student work off that. Even that could be done now with the proper attribution. When the term is over (or while it's going on), we can evaluate the content and merge it in with the proper attribution and redirect it later. It's no different than anyone else proposing a major restructuring of an article and making a temporary draft. Our policies probably differ from what the class requires but as Katie said, there's no need to wheel war on it. On the plus side, some fairly obscure topics are being improved at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Due to several admins agreeing here, and the fact that the professor has now left the student a message about this, I doubt protection is needed anymore, so I've unprotected. It seemed a reasonable alternative to blocking a new editor to me, but isn't needed anymore (I hope). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's still weeks to go in the assignment so we'll be here again in mid-May when all the articles in Category:Articles in class projects/Rutgers suddenly get actively worked on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• You're welcome to disagree, Jeppiz, but it seemed appropriate due to the way the editor was acting. I'm perfectly fine with it being unprotected, too, now that the instructor and Adam have addressed the issue. I don't think blocking was warranted (though it was definitely close) in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Nihonjoe, you have my full support. Blocking her would just be a fuck-all solution with no upsides. What happened to when people actually gave a damn about newbies? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User page and actions, User:SheriffIsInTown

User page clearly intended to offend, most notably the section "Weapons of Mass Production" with link to image of human penis, a clear reference to rape. This person states that they are a Pakistani national acting as law enforcement (police-car lights and user name, and user boxes) while carrying on a deletionist campaign on pages to do with Bangladesh. The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight, a campaign of murder carried out in the name of law enforcement by Pakistani military, with the aim of exterminating Bangladesh intellectuals and Bengali culture. This person surely doesn't belong in a project to build an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a nice hypothesis drawn by the complainant but let me explain to whoever is looking at his complaint. My user page is nothing more than a fun. I definitely did not mean "rape" by "Weapons of Mass Production", its the imagination drawn out by the complainant. I like to categorize the pages that i work on in different sections in police terminology and i did not find any better and fun terminology than this to describe the article Human penis on my user page. There is no deletionist campaign by me on Bangladesh pages. If any content was removed from Bangladesh pages then there must have been a policy reason to do that, for example "content not properly sourced" etc. Here is an example (Removed 5,555 bytes from "Bahawalnagar" for reason "Revert unsourced additions") where i removed content from Pakistan pages which was not sourced and there can be many more examples given like this. "The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight" is a hypothesis drawn by the complainant which is a BS to put it mildly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown is harassing me continuously from many days. He is supposed to cooperate with newcomers but rather he is involve in WP:BITE. He also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, he reported me at WP:AE in sheer bad faith presenting me there as an nationalist edit warrior (which I am clearly not) by distorting and mispresenting edit diffs. ([23]) He also tried to connect me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page. ([24], not just this, one should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of offensive personal attack he did to those users who are opposing him on talk page-rfc).

The above user is accusing others including me of being nationalist and just because *I don't share his POV*. A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong pro- Pakistan Army bias and battleground mentality (as also noted by other users on talk page). He is repeatedly removing mass contents from Bangladesh related pages (that he doesn't like). [25], [26] large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

Administrators also please note that he is harassing other users including me by dropping a 3RR template on user's talk pages when they hardly make two reverts [27], [28] but he is edit warring on these pages for what, many months now (just check the revision history of Bangladesh related pages like this) as noted by other users [29] [30]. Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from *Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here [31]. Actually he violated 3RR straight up.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016

administrators please note the time and date these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [32], [33] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead [34]. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [35].

Let me also explain RFC case from the starting.

First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and convert an NPOV article into a POV article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (as noted by other users [36], [37], [38]) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding.

Then he will go and start a premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, [User:Kautilya3]] and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him at talk page.

Then he will do personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page ([39])

He has no fear of admins. He is strongly here to push a specific pro-Pakistan Army POV on Bangladesh-India-Pakistan related articles. This user has a clear battleground mentality. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrators Spartaz.... to quote;[40] SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again].ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I will reply to his WP:WALLOFTEXT later but right now I am just pointing out his broken links drama, he posted this comment before he posted his statements with broken links at AE and ANI. @ArghyaIndian What do you think all other editors are stupid here? Only you are the smartest! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have two individuals with strong feelings on this issue, also, note this arbitration request made by SherrifIsInTown against ArghyaIndian. He makes a strong case, however, his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here. This may require admin assistance.

If I may suggest, both of you should edit articles away from Bangladesh Genocide or any individuals or groups associated with it and allow this dispute to cool down. If not both of you may wind up with some sort of restrictions or blocks, neither of you have particularity clean hands in this issue. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KoshVorlon:, your comment is much appreciated but i did not understand the piece "his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here". Can you please explain who were you referring to? If you were referring to me, can you please further explain what do you mean by that. As i can understand i followed the proper procedures on 1971 Bangladesh genocide , i participated in talk sessions when the matter could not be resolved otherwise, when talk could not bring a consensus, i started an RfC. I do not think there was anything bad about it. Yes, it might be a poor RfC as it had multiple disputed pieces of content in it, not to mention it was my first RfC. I have yet to see if i violated any policies. Otherwise this is just a frivolous ANI request based on imagination and hypothesis of one editor about my userpage and the other is just joining with him because of recent conflicts which i had with him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @KoshVorlon:. Some topic ban(s) and/or blocks would be a big help here, and the offensive user page also needs to be cleaned up or deleted entirely. The bickering and flaming using petty interpretations of wikipedia policies and "the matter could not be resolved otherwise" as weapons, has been tiresomely proceeding on several talk pages, and, as has been so well demonstrated above, seems unlikely to become subdued any time soon. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh needs a chance to repair the pages that have been damaged by this warfare, and the project risks losing those level-headed participants who have managed to stomach this mayhem so far. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything offensive or mean spirited on their talk page. The implication of "rape" is simply not made, this is something you are seeing that is not there. I have not looked enough to comment on the other allegations, but I have to question your interpretation of the user page. HighInBC 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I too have just looked at the user page and can see nothing at all offensive about it. The link to human penis is to our WP page Human penis, not just any random image of a penis. If the OP is arguing this is offensive, then it is our article that is offensive. The reference to "Weapons of mass production" is clearly a bit of fun and totally unrelated to rape. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Er, the suggestion on the user page is that the human penis and its use for "mass reproduction" is a tool available "law enforcement". Surely that is offensive to law enforcement officers everywhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

lol, no it's not what you mean, i suggest, you put your mind to something useful. There is plenty to do on Wikipedia. Remember, you were looking for some sources for Mukti Bahini. Did you add them yet or not? This was really a very bad way to take out that frustration! You went out on witch-hunting and look what you found out and you reported whatever you thought you found bad about me and then made up a fine story. I mean, i commend you for that. That is why WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia because people's minds can make up stories and add them to Wikipedia articles, then it's not encyclopedia. That's why i ask people to back their content with sources and people get upset like you did! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

But...bits of fun are my trigger. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken links and all that..... Ugh that should not be your concern. Your attempt of harassing and WP:BITE is pretty clear now. You should rather explain that why you mispresented edit diffs and reported me at AE when I have less then 10 edits in combined talk page and page of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. You do not wanted to reply, that's ok but I will reply to all of your accusations. (administrators note that he is directly attacking me personally right here by using words like "drama", stupid"... so on). I only participated in talk page discussion, voted in RFC, and raised objections at talk. Many uninvolved and experienced users also agreed with my objections. Unfortunately I initially made mistakes while restoring the old stable NPOV lead (in accordance with talk page discussion [41] but I did asked for the help on talk page (you can ask other users like User:My very best wishes to confirm) and user SheriffIsInTown distorted/mis presented those edit diffs and dragged my name there at WP:AE in sheer bad faith (in his attempt of wp:bite.

As noted by other uninvolved users [42] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=715887046&oldid=715882718 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=716232027&oldid=716201835 (please see the page revision history to get a better understanding) there is an ongoing attempt by him to hijack an NPOV article and convert it into POV COATRACK article (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this).

[43] [44] Mass removal of content (even after being warned by many users [45], [46], [47]), large scale POV pushing on all Bangladesh related articles (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, promoting fringe and preposterous theories on these articles from long time now (as noted by other users on talk pages). Irony here is that he was distribution 3RR templates on other users pages when they hardly make 2 reverts and he violated 3RR yesterday just to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini page that he doesn't like. Here are diffs.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016 I have already explained in depth all this on AE noticeboard. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided in my statement at AE).ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry and know how to produce diffs each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. His accusation of me violating 3RR is not correct as he is counting consecutive edits. Also the Mujibnagar edit to which he is referring as large scale removal was the removal of unsourced content and all sections of that page were refimprove tagged since April 2009, these are like 7 years if someone wants to add the sources. The matter with Spartaz was resolved on his talk page so there is no point in referring it here again. I don't think there is anything else worth replying but i will do so if an admin directs me to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am sorry, but this report actually made my day. Thankyou —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang against ArghyaIndian for obvious meatpuppetry

There is a clear evidence that ArghyaIndian acted on behalf of another user when he came to vote in Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#‎RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped and made this comment on 19 April 2016. This was his first edit after a break of 17 days when he made his last edit on 2 April 2016. The reason why I believe that he is involved in meatpuppetry is this edit where he made the mistake of adding the instructions given by another user alongside the actual content, please note the piece in this edit which says "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?". These are clear instructions given by another editor to this editor which means "Go edit this page and replace the text starting from this point to the end with the version being provided". Even his summary lines are being provided by another editor.

I am requesting that this editor be indeffed based on this evidence, all of his comments be stricken at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide.

Hopefully after providing this evidence, I do not need to respond to his WP:WALLOFTEXT in above section but an admin can let me know if I still need to do that.

Please do not close this thread after blocking ArghyaIndian indefinitely as we need to find the other partner in this meatpuppetry. Although, it is quite clear by the edit history of 1971 Bangladesh genocide who that was but I would not name that editor. If admins themselves can identify the other editor then please go ahead and indef the other partner too. That must be an experienced editor who wanted to avoid replacing content along nationalistic lines to avoid discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. That edit completely changed the meaning of article from one side to the other. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Synthesising and picking one editing mistake and presenting it here with different meanings won't help you. After reporting me twice, it's clear that you are not going to stop harassing me further.

Why don't you just report me again to its relevant noticeboard if you think that my account is being used by someone else or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? If you can report me for vague reasons and for false accusations, you can report me at its relevant noticeboard also. I will consider it odious personal attack if you cannot prove **whatever you have said right now** at its relevant noticeboard. I already replied to your further concerns at my statement at AE and on my talk page. You are going off topic to change the direction of all this started by you when you see that it may hit **you** only. And my edit restored the original lead, but you tried to hijack that article and change the meaning from one side to another (as other users pointed out). And why my comments should be stricken? I have all the rights to comment and you do not own WikipediaArghyaIndian (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that there was a relevant noticeboard. Which noticeboard you are talking about "newcomer"? Also how about you explain what the following text meant in that edit and who gave you those instructions: "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?" Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

uhm. You are trying to play smart here. For a user who is here from two years, it is not possible that they don't know about different noticeboards. You think that you can instil fear in me by making accusations like this but you will only hurt from it. I see how long you try to dodge replying to me. right top at this page (section; Meatpuppet investigations) it says, Meatpuppet investigations are handled together with sockpuppet investigations. Any suspected meat puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet­ investigations. So that is the relevant noticeboard. If you failed to prove, then your should either apology otherwise I will seek admins about your repeated attempts of [[WP:BITE|harrasing]­] me and mass removal of contents from Bangladesh related pages. You first tried to harass me by dropping 3RR and other sort of warning templates, and then reported me directly at WP:AE (when I have less then 6-7 edits on that page/talk page combined) and now here at ANI. You know very well that when you report someone at AE, then your own behaviour is examined as well and you may be sanctioned for it (and you are likely to).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, as I said in my statement at AE and on my talk page, this was nothing but a editing mistake. I was trying to restore old lead but I accidently messed up my notepad and messenger stuffs. If you see the link "en.m." Yes that's mobile web link and that link I copy/pasted in my notepad (I make my edits from mobile only) and copy/pasted old version lead in notepad and pasted there but some that sort of stuffs also got pasted. I was about to do self revert but a patrolling user already reverted me. You see my next edit was absolutely correct (which you intentionally reverted [well you got reverted by VM, yourself because I was correct] under some vague reasons of consensus-- when those recent additions were not even discussed on talk).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, i am not playing smart, i am honest about it when i say that i did not know that you report meatpuppets at the same place where you report sockpuppets and neither did i know about WP:BITE and WP:BATTLEGROUND until very recently. On the contrary, you know a lot for a newcomer. I agree it was a mistake for you to include the instructions in the content but that mistake gave away your meatpuppetry. I am not denying that you made a mistake. People only expose themselves by mistakes. Nobody purposefully exposes themselves. You have given your statement and i have given mine. I think we need to let admins judge whether that is a clear evidence of meatpuppetry or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Umm.... You are clearly lying here. As I said, you are trying to play smart but you are only going to hurt now. Please note that this user only copy and pasted their comment from AE to ANI again (to further harass me) which I have already replied on AE [48] (so I won't do copy/paste again like this user). I will however, reply to his further comments in which he said that they did not edit warred and whatever they did was correct.

1. This user is not replying but is blatantly lying. If one see the revision history of the Mukti Bahini page [49] then this user made around 6-7 reverts within 1½ day (4 reverts well within 24 hours) just to remove mass contents from lead (that was absolutely sourced in text) which is still there. Here are diffs of 3RR violation;

• 18:16, 20 April 2016
• 18:20, 20 April 2016
• 17:31, 21 April 2016
• 17:50, 21 April 2016 and I am not distorting/mispresenting diffs/evidences like you! Three uninvolved users asking him to stop and told him in their edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [50], [51], [52] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [53].

1. A quick look at revision history of these Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War, Rape During the Bangladesh Liberation War, etc) shows that this user is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, fringe theories from many months (as almost all the uninvolved user pointed out at article's talk page).

1. This user almost emptied Mujibnagar article by removing mass contents (that he doesn't like) and then edit war against uninvolved user here. Here is the edit diffs in which he emptied the Mujibnagar article [54]

As pointed out by an uninvolved user [55] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.

1. Also, no your matter with administrator Spartaz was not resolved on their talk page. Infact spartaz further warned you that not to comment on AE otherwise he is strongly minded to impose T-ban for your edits. He did not replied you further because he said that they are on Wikibreak [56], [57].

1. And you are even further lying when you say that you do not no those policies and etc stuff as you can be clearly seen here [58] saying as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior (as I pointed out, you are here on Wikipedia from two years, so stop fooling others).

1. If no administrator take actions against this user, then it is clear that users like him have a free license to harass inexperienced users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing his nationalistic point of view (in an global source of knowledge-- Wikipedia) from half a decade atleast. I have said what I need to say here.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are just posing here as such, otherwise as I pointed out, you are blatantly lying and distorting diffs. And just to further clarify this. Umm.... You think that someone is using my account or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? So why I did self-revert within a minute? I made one edit on 13:25, 21 April 2016 (I did a editing mistake), self reverted within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016), made another edit (16:30, 21 April 2016) but again did a editing mistake by messing up my notepad stuffs as said earlier but a patrolling user reverted me within few seconds [16:31, 21 April 2016 Dcirovic (talk | contribs) . . (111,377 bytes) (+1,908) . . (Reverted edits by ArghyaIndian (talk) (HG) (3.1.20)) (Tag: Huggle)] otherwise I was doing self revert myself, my next edit was correct! I did these edits, self reverts, asking help on talk page in barely few minutes, myself and you are saying that no no I was receiving instructions/my account was hijack by someone. Lol! As I said, you are free to report me anywhere you want to clear your suspicion but I bet, you will be forced to apology to me for these personal attacks.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Report a IP-user

Hello there. I want to report an IP-user 86.58.36.235 (talk) who recently removed some neccessary contents at Valon Ahmedi. I re-added contents without reverting his entire edits (some edits were useful) but he reverted my entire edit. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Eni.Sukthi.Durres - This IP has edited this page quite a bit. I am a bit confused by part of his/her edit summary here when the user states that "his position is wrong", but I'm not seeing any obvious or big red flags so far. Are there any specific diffs you can provide that can help me see your exact concerns here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan

Crosswiki self-promotional only (and write-only) account with 2 indef-blocked sockpuppets: Chillax96 (April 10), Mohamed Rayazan (April 20). 2 weeks ago was blocked for the creation of Rayazan, a curriculum article about himself, created again half an hour later. Same content was in the articles User:Rayazan, User:Chillax96 and User:Chillax96/sandbox. Now I found that the 2nd sock created Mohamed Rayazan (twice) and User:Rayazan (again). On April 10, when he seemed to stop after the first notices, I assumed good faith but, noob or not, user continued to create articles about himself despite any warning, explainations and blocks. Now, after the 2nd evasion, he was blocked again (2 weeks). User is IMHO clearly NOTHERE, and his scope appears to be the self-promo: he created his curriculum 8 times (also using different NS), used 2 sp and, btw, was indef blocked on Commons too. For this reasons, I request the indef block. For further details: my 1st and 2nd report. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're after, Rayazan is already blocked. Do you want to open a sockpuppet investigation? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan is blocked 2 weeks, not indef (which is what the OP is requesting). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan is blocked for two weeks, having previously blocked for one week, the others are blocked indefinitely. Two admins have already looked at this issue and handed out blocks, their actions are within the purview of administrator's discretion so I see nothing more to do here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan has been pretty disruptive in his attempts to promote himself. I've deleted many of his pages (which are essentially all one page, about himself), have blocked him for a week (Randykitty later went to two weeks), and have tried to talk to him on his page, which went nowhere. Still, he's young as well as new (yes, I know all his essential details, as I have read his autobio so many times) and I can't shake the feeling that he might become a real editor, provided we don't indef him. Also (sigh) he can just create socks in any case. What, philosophically, is actually the point of blocks? If people want to edit, they'll edit. Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: When used properly and appropriately, a block can compel an editor to communicate with an administrator -- and you lament that Rayazan has so far avoided that. When and if Rayazan agrees to communicate, the block will be serving a second purpose. Until then, the block may serve the primary purpose of reducing the burden of cleaning up after him. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammar's Li'l Helper: there's something with your signature, I'm not able to click through to your user page or user talk page. Can you fix that please? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, both Mohamed Rayazan and Rayazan have been protected against recreation. I say, let's see what he chooses to work on when his block is over, if he decides to return to editing. I'm a strong believer in WP:ROPE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: uhm, this solution is ok for me. Anyway, I'll watch user. I would just suggest to protect the title Mohamed rayazan too (never created). Thanks to all users above for participation. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph again

User:Sir Joseph, who was recently topic-banned[59] from Bernie Sanders over Jewish religion in infoboxes, (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#American politics 2) is repeating his behavior at Talk:Stanley Milgram#"No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult". As before, I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. As before, he refuses to provide a citation and is implying that those who ask for such citations are somehow anti-Jewish.[60][61][62][63] As before, he is exhibiting "battleground demeanour and repeated indications that he intends to continue the same behavior because he was right all along."[64] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article seems to have been under active sanctions. Milligram article does not seem to be. He needs to tone down his rhetoric certainly but I'm not really seeing anything wrong. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how "wrong" his behavior is, but it certainly is very poor approach to discussion. He refuses to get the point and drop the stick long after an issue has been settled, even after two editors have asked him to do so. Then there are his suggestions (very close to accusations) that editors are anti-Jewish ("The fact that you are taking away someone's Jewishness is troubling and disgusting") and other inappropriate personal comments directed at editors (referring to an editor as "owner", among others). If you look at this in the context of several previous blocks and his long history of the "battleground" attitude on articles related to Jews and Judaism, it adds up to an editor who will not listen to reason (or learn from blocks) on certain topics. It makes discussion on these topics very difficult for other editors. I don't know what should be done, but I think at the very least he needs to be monitored. Thanks for listening to my frustration in this situation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why behavior that is not okay at one article would be okay at another just because the two articles are about people in different arbitrary (pardon the pun) categories. ansh666 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ansh666—I would say that the categories pertaining to Jews at the Bernie Sanders and Stanley Milgram articles are anything but "arbitrary". Can you please tell me what you find "arbitrary" about them? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - I wasn't talking about WP:categories but more broadly (and note also not the unintentional pun, arbitrary vs ArbCom); above it's noted that Sir Joseph was topic banned because Bernie Sanders falls under WP:ARBAP2 as (obviously) an American politician, whereas Stanley Milgram does not seem to be under the umbrella of any ARBCOM case. My point is that just because this is true does not excuse the behavior. ansh666 01:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article, of course, got a lot more heat from a lot more editors due to the connection to the current US presidential campaign, but the behavior is exactly the same and the same Great Wrongs are being Righted by the same editor. On the Bernie Sanders page I myself erred in that, when faced with an editor who keeps repeating the same false claim, I fell into repeatedly responding, That was dumb on my part. On the Stanley Milgram page, having learned my lesson, I simply quoted the exact policies that govern whether or not we allow "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox and asked for citations showing that those criteria have been met. Sir Joseph's WP:IDHT behavioral problem lies in ignoring that request, referring to my call for citations as "taking away someone's Jewishness", and referring to my quoting the exact wording of WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R as "making up a new policy [that only applies to] Jewish people". This is the exact same behavior that resulted in a topic ban last time. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Sundayclose's description of the discussion ("long after the issue has been settled... ) is not accurate. In fact, there was and is no consensus on the talk page of whether Milgram is Jewish or not. There were four active participants in the discussion - an anonymous IP who raised the issue, User:Sir Joseph, Sundayclose and Guy Macon. Two other participants - User:Debresser and myself - did not really express an opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness, but agreed for other reasons that the "Religion" parameter should not be included in the infobox. So there was no consensus and the issue could not be considered settled.

I don't want to get into the specific content dispute of the talk page, but I do want to point out that the distinction that Guy and Sunday make between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism is by no means cut and dry; many Jews (like many people of other religions) have no religious feeling but participate in religious ceremonies, while others might be deeply religious but in fact participate in no outward practices. These are also matters which most people don't discuss, and, therefore, there are no published quotes which could prove the religious identification of the subject. It is therefore not at all surprising that Sir Joseph is offended by this distinction, and argues with great vigor - and some level of justification - against it.

All of which is to say that it is important that the decision (here) to remove the religion parameter from the infobox altogether be implemented as soon as possible. That would obviate these rancorous and superfluous discussions.

Sorry this post was so long. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I also have expressed no opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness. All I care about is whether the requirements of the policies i quoted are met. If you believe that there is "some level of justification" for violating those policies, you are free to go to the talk pages of the policies in question and attempt to gain a consensus to change them. But until that happens we are all required to follow Wikipedia's policies.

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules) Wikipedia's rules are:

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.

Show me a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy, and the issue is settled: religion stays in the infobox. Fail to show me that citation and the issue is also settled: religion stays out of the infobox. Nothing else matters. Either there is a citation or there isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your argument is this: there is a distinction between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism, a distinction that is clear to you, and that when a person says "I am a Jew", without qualifying whether he means "ethnic" or "religious", that statement cannot be considered verification of his religious belief.

What I am saying is that the distinction between "ethnic" and "religious" is not clear at all; that people who say "I am a Jew" are not making this distinction, and that your rejection of such a statement as verification of a person's religious identification is unjustified and, to some, offensive; nor is there anything in the policies you cite to support making this distinction in the case of Jews.

But here we are arguing about content. The real point is that your posts in this matter are no less passionate, and no less aggressive, than those of Sir Joseph. The issue raises intense feelings on both sides, and that is why removal of the parameter from the infobox altogether is so important. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the above content dispiute argument here, but I will post some citations to your talk page in case you wish to study this further. Do you have the citation showing self-identification through direct speech I have been asking for? If so, post it., If not, this issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—when a person says "I am a Jew" or "I am proud to be a Jew" that is an affirmation in words that their religion is probably Jewish. Exceptions can perhaps be found but you've blown this way out of proportion. You initiated an RfC containing the language ("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.) I disagree that a source must "specify the Jewish religion". That is an unreasonable demand. You have seized upon one point to the exclusion of all other points. As intelligent editors we weigh the totality of sources. And we don't require of Jews that they make unlikely utterances. A person is unlikely to say "I am proud of my Jewish religion". People do not normally speak that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and post an RfC for replacing our WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT policies with your new "totality of sources" policy. Until you get that change approved, you are required to follow Wikipedia's existing policies. Be advised that ANI is a really bad place to respond with your usual WP:IDHT refusal to acknowledge that Wikipedia has policies that you are required to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this point, at least, is fairly clear; as a very small sample of the distinction, we have List of converts to Christianity from Judaism, all of whom are people who are ethnically Jewish but not adherents to the Jewish religion. I'm not sure how many of them would be offended by the suggestion that their Jewish ethnicity implies that they hold to the Jewish religion, but it's at least obviously inaccurate. So I think requiring clear sources identifying someone as religiously Jewish in BLPs makes sense. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing—Stanley Milgram is not a convert to Christianity. Stanley Milgram has not renounced Judaism. No source even remotely suggests Milgram might not be Jewish. It is reliably sourced that he was born to a Jewish mother. This may not be important to membership in the Christian religion but it is important to membership in the Jewish religion. You are pointing to a group of people (converts to Christianity from Judaism) for whom there is very good reason not to to complete the parameter in the Infobox with Religion: Jewish. But what about Stanley Milgram? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I don't know enough about Milgram to say either way. My point was just that there is most definitely a distinction between Jewish ethnicity and adherence to Judaism, since there are a fair number of people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish but adhere to other religions. So the two should not be conflated. It seems to me that most of the problem here is that both sides see a statement, "I am Jewish." One side considers that a definite statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically repudiated Judaism, while the other considers that it couldn't possibly be a statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically stated so. Neither is logically correct, of course. But, AFAICT, Wikipedia's policies mean that, where there is doubt, we don't put it in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• CommentAbove, ansh666, suggests what happens with one page should happen with another page where administrative action takes place. However this again is not the case Sanders Article is under discretionary sanctions while Milligram's is not. You Can read about them and their purpose at WP:ACDS. While the rhetoric Sir Joseph employs, I find distasteful, as Ravpapa points out, there's two sides to this dance, and both sides are shimmying at each other. I'm not really seeing that this has risen to the level of Admin intervention. This seems very much a content dispute that both passionate sides could escalate to require admin intervention. I'd recommend using dispute resolution to settle this which can read about at WP:DISPUTE. I'm looking and I notice that the conversation in question is rather long and clear consensus may have been established, not sure if WP:DISPUTE mentions this, but you can go over to WP:ANRFC and request a closure by an uninvolved Admin or an uninvolved experienced editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• The issue regards what label should or should not be included in an infobox. If needed (and due) an article can spend ten paragraphs discussing what has been said about a person's ethnic or religious background. Guy Macon has described consensus regarding the simple one-word label in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the article's talk page, but I'm only seeing that here. Sir Joseph, should either drop the stick or open an RFC at the appropriate location. Sir Joseph take note of WP:CONLIMITED.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed it (easy to do - it's a long discussion). I posted our policies on this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Coming here from the talk page that points here. Reliable footnotes in that article make clear that Milgram -

1. Milgram and his parents were Jewish.
2. His Bar Mitzvah speech was on the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. He said, upon becoming a man under Jewish law: "As I ... find happiness in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews ... makes this ... an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people--which now becomes mine. ... I shall try to understand my people and do my best to share the responsibilities which history has placed upon all of us."
3. He later wrote to a friend from childhood: "I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I’ll never quite understand."
4. Milgram married his wife in a ceremony at the Brotherhood Synagogue.
5. Milgram's interest in the Holocaust had its basis in what his biographer, Professor Thomas Blass, referred to as Milgram's "lifelong identification with the Jewish people."
6. Author Kirsten Fermaglich wrote that Milgram as an adult had "a personal conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi destruction, and as an insider, as scientist ...."
7. His wife Alexandra stated that Milgram's Jewish identity led to his focus on the Holocaust and his obedience-to-authority research.
8. He shared this as well with Herbert Winer, one of his obedience study subjects, who noted after speaking to Milgram about the experiment that "Milgram was very Jewish. I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research."

Almost all of this was already in the article when Guy started this thread saying there were not citations. That's crazy. Did Guy not read the article? Just look at it. What's Guy up to?

Also, Guy knows (because the article says it, and it was discussed on the talk page Guy points to) that this guy has been dead. For decades. But Guy comes after Sir Joseph speaking about a Biography of Living Persons standard (echoing another editor who carelessly somehow made the same dramatic mistake). Seriously? He's dead. That's a policy for living people. Not dead people. And you are coming after Sir Joseph on that basis? Something wrong here.

Sundayclose says that there was no evidence Milgram was Jewish as an adult. More than once. What? It's just the opposite!! Also-Where is the "as an adult" rule? Where is the "practicing" rule? And did Sunday even bother to read all the above, and the cites, about his lifelong identification with the Jewish people, having his wedding in a Jewish synagogue, speaking to his subject about his being Jewish, at the time he became a man in Judaism speaking (we have quotes) of "my fellow Jews" and "my people" etc? All with good footnotes.

Sir Joseph was totally right here. Guy and Sundayclose have somehow -- stunningly -- missed all the statements and citations to Milgram being Jewish, being Bar Mitzvahed (becoming a Jewish man), saying he was Jewish in his speech, getting married in a synagogue, having a "lifelong identification with the Jewish people" that was the basis for his interest that led to his fame, being a Jewish man, his wife noting that his being Jewish led to his research, and his subject saying Milgram talked to him and was "very Jewish" and talked about it. Seriously. Amazing that Guy and Sunday didn't read this and the sources. And started a witch hunt based on a BLP policy ... for an article on a man dead for three decades. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Anon 199, ANI is not the proper venue for a consensus discussion. This is not the place to make your arguments about Milgram's religion. That belongs on the Milgram talk page. Read the banner at the top of this page. ANI is for discussing grievances about editors' behaviors. Forum shopping is not the appropriate way to develop consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sunday -- my grievance with your behavior here is that you accused another editor, while it was you who were in your behavior saying citations and backup do not exist when they in fact do exist. (You are the one who starts this conversation above writing by the way "I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R.") And when it was your behavior in also saying over and over "BLP, BLP" about a guy dead 30 years. That's disruptive behavior. And ANI should focus on your behavior. And then add to it your behavior in after saying things that are not true, and focusing on live people rules for dead people, use that as the basis to for some reason (I dont know any of you before this) attack someone who called you out for your behavior. So great, let's focus on your behavior, and the absurdity of you with this as the basis for your complaining criticizing the guy who called you out. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I am purposely not responding to the arguments above about article content -- they belong on the article talk page, not here. The user behavior I am concerned about is simple: when I asked Sir Joseph to post a link to a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy he could not find one, yet insisted that we put religion in the infobox anyway. That's a behavior issue.

I find it to be an amazing coincidence that 199.102.168.8 (the IP belongs to the Brooklyn Law School), Sir Joseph and Bus Stop all hold the same fringe view -- a view that is so unusual that I don't think you could find a thousand people in the US that share it. That fringe view is that the word "Jew" always means Judaism and thus anyone who says "I am a Jew" is self-identifying as a member of Judaism. I do not think that there is any sockpuppetry going on, but rather I suspect that that all three belong to the same small religious group (perhaps something related to Chabad-Lubavitch?) and thus naturally have similar beliefs. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

IP edits to Frenchie (rapper) and lack of resolution

There has been a recent influx of edits from multiple IPs on the article "Frenchie (rapper)". Up until January it was a redirect page to a separate article, before i opted to dedicate an article for itself coupled with sources & citations. The issue that's arisen recently: while the influx of edits have been largely cosmetic, at this point I've come in dispute with some of the choices of edits. Since there has been a back & forth in edits/reverts, i dont want to engage in an edit war. Most of the discussion has taken place on the 'View History' page in addition to my PMs to these IPs 'Talk pages', where i elaborate on my reasoning. but i can't come to a resolution.

The IP(s) have routinely re-edited "New York rappers" as mentioned in the intro to "East Coast rappers", despite me telling him/her that choice of phrase is not suitable, since East Coast is overly generalized and could refer to any of the states (CT, NJ, PA) when the rappers in question are specifically NY based and can be left at that.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:C7D:14A4:9A00:25B3:A4DC:8271:133

There was no reply to my PM, and another edit was made reverting my revert, and this time around the subject's name (Greg Hogan) was changed to his stage name (Frenchie) in the section titled "Early Life". I reverted the edit, pointing out its appropriate to start off referring to him by his real name when it specifically involves his Early Life & birth.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frenchie_(rapper)&action=history ( 03:25, 23 April 2016‎ | DA1 )

In addition to leaving my previous PM on the Talk Page of the newer IP address, hoping to spark a discussion and come to a resolution.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.71.187.187

Once again no response or resolution, and my revert was reverted. This time around an edit was made adding "Born" tag to the bio/infobox, which is identical to the "Origin" tag. Format precedence requires that we have one or the other, and only both if the two differ. Such as an artist being 'born' in Kenya and moving to Chicago (which becomes his 'origin'/hometown). So now the biobox has redundant lines. Since i cannot get any responses on the IPs' talk pages, i certainly cannot incite a discussion on the article Talk page. I'm hoping an administrator can help out on the matter. DA1 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

On a sidenote, now I'm noticing someone has changed the intro to 1017 Records (the article to which "Frenchie (rapper)" originally redirected to) as "Eric money records" and have deleted the infobox altogether. I'm unsure whether this IP is related or not, but this seems to be a clear act of vandalism. No source was provided for the name change, and there's no reason why the infobox is deleted. DA1 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You should move this discussion to Talk:Frenchie (rapper) so it can draw in more editors. I've found that often editors who use IPs don't even realize they have a talk page, much less check it for messages. Discussion about editing the article should begin on the article talk page so it becomes less about you vs. them and brings in more editors who might be familiar with the subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you recommend I revert his/her edit and point towards discussion at the Talk page? How do I go about getting their attention, since leaving a message on their IP talk pages isn't doing anything. Liz, I'm somewhat skeptical whether we'll be getting input from third parties. The article subject is somewhat underground, and as stated I 'recently' made the article. I'm unsure who's editing but its largely non-constructive & cosmetic, replacing one synonym with another, now he/she is duplicating the citation links when I already put a <ref name="EME"/> tag in the relevant lines, so forth. DA1 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Recruiting matter needing admin attention; no crisis

This arises from a case posted at COIN here that is a big mess and related to the topic of "transhumanism" which has been difficult across the encyclopedia lately, with all kinds of advocacy editing going on, but that is a bigger ball of wax that again I don't want to get into. Just providing context.

I believe admin intervention is needed for a specific piece of this, namely a WP:MEAT violation via off-wiki recruitment centered around this AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics), which was largely about the work of one person, David Pearce (philosopher), who is also a Wikipedia editor, User:Davidcpearce who edits here under their real name.

In the course of the AfD playing out, that user posted this on a transhumanist facebook page (changed from the original, which I can no longer link); another user who commented on that thread then posted this more strident call to yet another transhumanist facebook page.

In my view Davidcpearce has clearly violated MEAT. When I called that to their attention at COIN, their reponse was "Sigh, sometimes I wonder... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html".

This to me shows disdain for the integrity of the process here. Not sure what is the appropriate action, but this to me calls for admin attention. There is no crisis as the AfD has finished and closed "delete" but the ongoing roil over transhumanist topics continues. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This does need dealing with. The original facebook post is at archive.is/GGtOF - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion continues on the FB thread, since they're apparently unaware that it's being seen. You'll be seeing more of these people in the future, unfortunately. "We ought to crowd-write an H+Pedia article about the issues, processes, and advice for defending the presence of pro-transhumanist material on Wikipedia" "That crowd, in the longer run, could have potential as a transhumanist media presence with expertise in Wikipedia entries." David Pearce: "Perhaps in future the abolitionist bioethics entry can be restored" Lrieber (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (aka User:Pawg14)

People are free to talk about Wikipedia offwiki. I focused this ANI on the behavior of a Wikipedia editor who has clearly recruited off-wiki which is a violation of WP:MEAT. Please do not broaden this in an unfocused manner. Please also be careful of WP:OUTING; my OP doesn't violate OUTING as davidcpearce is transparent about his RW identity. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You were the one asking me about off-wiki discussion. Lrieber (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not here. ANIs very easily de-rail, and that is what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, no admins are weighing in, so this is unlikely to go anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help undoing changes to Bill Kramer and related articles by User:63009kb

User:63009kb (possibly associated with User:166.172.62.216) decided to change the subject of the article Bill Kramer from a Wisconsin state legislator to a fundraising and PR expert with the Rhode Island School of Design. User:RFD reverted the article back (and THANK YOU!!), but I've notice that 63009kb has also gone on a delinking spree. Is there a way to quickly revert a set of changes to multiple articles from a user's contribution list, or is it a one-by-one matter? If one-by-one, I'll get started on doing it. Anyways, thanks. (I will notify 63009kb immediately after posting this.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed the delinking spree and have manually changed the mainspace articles affected. I think I got them all. There are still a bunch of obscure talk pages etc that were also delinked that I have not bothered to address. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already left a message about usurping articles and why it is not generally considered a good thing. Awaiting any sort of a response. Most of the delinking has already been undone. This might be genuine ignorance about an area where, I must admit I'm surprised, there isn't a policy or even essay more than WP:USURPTITLE so for now I'd say AGF and let's see what happens. Nthep (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks everyone-I also reverted the changes made in the obscure talk pages also-RFD (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• They have continued to remove links, and as such, I have given them a final warning. I also asked them to explain what they expect to accomplish so that we can help them. I do hope they respond. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes list of Indian billionaires

Look I know this really isn't the right place for this, but I'm not sure what is. This is a very visible place, so I'm here asking for eyes on the above train wreck of an article. Its POV top to bottom and getting worse daily. My inclination would be to just nuke it and start over. As it stands now it has little to do with any Forbes list. Thanks. Not asking for any action against specific editors altho it appears some may be appropriate, so I've made no notifications. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given the table there as much care as I can, but the rest needs help. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The topic could have been raised at WT:INB initially. But anyways.... Currently List of Indians by net worth redirects to the subject list. I would suggest doing it the other way round and keeping only the well sourced entries in it; be it Forbes or any other source. The list would fall well along with other entries at Category:Lists of people by wealth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 20:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is just a reprint of this Forbes list. I'd send it to AfD as articles shouldn't just reproduce content that is available elsewhere on the internet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the generous portion of WP:COAT material...and yeah...it is now literally is just a reprint. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We now have an IP adding a link to a draft into the article. This is too far out of my ken to take any further, but perhaps a bit of page protection might be in order? John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably no. One edit. One IP. Seems like a user who just doesn't understand WP:COAT yet. To their credit, the draft, with some revisions, could probably work as something like Inequality in India. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone reading this feels like writing content, I suggest taking in hand these sources that actually have analysis of (specifically) the Forbes statistics, how its membership has changed in recent years, and what that might represent about Indian society and economy.

• Himanshu (2013). "Some aspects of inequality in india". In Miklian, Jason; Kolas, Ashild (eds.). India's Human Security: Lost Debates, Forgotten People, Intractable Challenges. Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics. Vol. 4. Routledge. pp. 217–219. ISBN 9781136022401. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vaddiraju, Anil Kumar (2016). "Indian State and its capitalist growth: Success of a democracy with multiple challenges". In Yin-wah, Chu (ed.). The Asian Developmental State: Reexaminations and New Departures. Springer. p. 238. ISBN 9781137476128. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lalvani, Kartar (2016). "The Argument: Balance and perspective". The Making of India: The Untold Story of British Enterprise. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 40–41. ISBN 9781472924841. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jain, Anil Kumar; Gupta, Parul (2008-02-14). "Globalisation: The Indian Experience". Mainstream. 46 (8): 13–16. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Milbert, Isabelle (2015). "Mapping territories of Luxury: Spatial and symbolic reassertion of inequality in Indian cities". In Basile, Elisabetta; Harriss-White, Barbara; Lutringer, Christine (eds.). Mapping India’s Capitalism: Old and New Regions. EADI Global Development Series. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137536358. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Karmali, Naznees (2009-03-11). "India's Billionaire Dropoffs". Forbes.

Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lowersace signabot III is malfunctioning

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

---

The bot just removed my talk page, I had to undo the action Victor Grigas (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It was not a bot, and the situation has been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is it a legit bot? The bot who does this talk page archiving job regularly and properly is User:lowercase sigmabot III; note the minor differences in the name. Someone spamming? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this is the second time this has happened recently (the other case was a similarly slightly misspelled variation on "Lowercase sigmabot III" – Special:Contributions/Lowercase signabot III) so there is almost certainly Socking involved here too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I originally closed the discussion but was unaware of the whole socking thing so have reopened, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 05:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an "Opinion polling for the United Kingdom..." sock. GAB^Hello! 13:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Lithopsian on WR31a

I am experiencing trouble with User:Lithopsian who refuses to engage in seeking consensus on Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), even in light to resolve this on article talk page: [65] Under this recent edit [66], saying in the comments "My last word." I have tried to engage Lithopsian in discussion on the edits of this page [67], which was made on 11th March 2016. Lithopsian has not tried to resolve these issues at all. So I reverted the Lithopsian whole edit here [68], which Lithopsian now has reverted twice, then continues editing. His only reply has been "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." [69] and this [70].

Evidence on this page suggests there is no abuse been made by me at all, and this is deliberate avoidance of consensus. I am left without being able to edit this page without violating procedures, and the problem issues still [71] still exist. I have advised Lithopsian of further issues with his unjustifiable claims of "abuse" here.[72]

Further evidence of this kind of behaviour of not being willing to reach consensus appears here Talk:Supernova [73], especially the edits on Supernova [74] and [75]

Note: I thought this deemed as edit warring, Ymblanter states this is not the case[76], and referred me to "Please follow the dispute resulotion avenues..". This is why I've come here.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent addition of original research, copyright violations to Suite: Judy Blue Eyes

• Gmkoganwiki (talk · contribs)
• Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reported this to AIV, to no avail. User is a single purpose account, adding original research and copyright violations (song lyrics) to article. Has ignored suggestions and warnings, and won't discuss. I've suggested the necessity of WP:RELIABLE sources. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This user appears to have stopped readding the material. Could revdelling be required for the copyright violations in the page history? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

RD1 completed and user given final warning for copyright violations. Katie^talk 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: revision 716826707 is still readable. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 15:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Eep! Thanks, good catch. Gone. Katie^talk 16:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and to Malerooster as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse

I found these socks used by Bertrand101, and Lpkids2006 but those IPs I found are 180.191.103.1, and 180.190.103.20 Can you please block both of these socks? Comments are greatly welcome here. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• The one is blocked already by MusikAnimal (thanks); the other is not actively warring, or the IP may have already been given up. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Hello. I updated real and accurate numbers of the current delegate tracker, from the Associated Press. The numbers there were a bit not accurate, and I don't know why. But, I fixed it. So I don't get why a rude guy named User:JFG abruptly reverted my edits. He should be warned. Archway (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the user reverted only once going here appears to be s bit rash. You should try discussing this with the user or try discussing on the talkpage first.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason for my revert was that Archway introduced information from a different source against the longstanding consensus on this sensitive issue; I just reverted a second time and advised him to turn to the talk page if he wants consensus changed. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Then talk with JFG and try to understand their positioning. Posting here about such a little thing is inappropriate, as AN/I is generally for when action is needed. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Oncenawhile

User:Oncenawhile has been waging a campaign against the regional name Southern Levant for several years now, doing anything and everything to disrupt pages using the term and making personal attacks/being consistently WP:Battleground along the way.

In today's example, User:Oncenawhile deleted two valid sources added and replaced them with "Citation needed" tags. User:Oncenawhile erroneously claimed that the sources didn't include the term Southern Levant and that they were describing something else. This was incorrect, and it was clear that he hadn't read the sources, and yet, the edits were made anyway. User:Oncenawhile then began personal attacks on the talk page. "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." And after I brought up the fact that there were multiple editors disagreeing with the edits, User:Oncenawhile replied "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." User:Oncenawhile's editing style on the talk page appears to be disruptive by design, rather than continuing a single thread, User:Oncenawhile makes a new section for every point, rendering the talk page cluttered and difficult to read/follow. After being shown that the term Southern Levant is in the source, User:Oncenawhile claimed that this was WP:Synth because the author wrote "southern Levant" rather than "Southern Levant". Now this stuff from today in and of itself wouldn't be cause for me to bring it to the noticeboard, but it's part of a several year long campaign this user has waged against the term across all of wikipedia.

Several months ago User:Oncenawhile removed the category Southern Levant from 25 articles, many of which were WP:ARBPIA within the span of a few minutes 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. In fact, this was done twice (mass deletions) within a span of several months. 1 2 3 21:20, 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Throughout all of this, there are constant personal attacks, for example here where User:Oncenawhile passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where User:Oncenawhile accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries".

User:Oncenawhile has also taken to arbitrarily going through wikipedia and deleting references to the Southern Levant. For example, here User:Oncenawhile replaces all references to "southern levant" with "the region".

What I'm posting now is just from the past few months, he's been making disruptive edits towards the article/region for about five years now. Given that he described the term Southern Levant as "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose" and "a neologism which began to become popular following Israel's capture of the remaining 22% of Palestine" and given that he's been attempting to disrupt the article and articles that reference it for about five years, it seems unlikely that he will change on his own. Drsmoo (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the edit earlier today which caused a reaction from the editor above, it has since been agreed at Talk:Southern Levant, that two of the three components of the edit were wholly valid (the first sentence still has no source, and the second has been amended to fit a source brought from later in the article), whilst the third component is still being discussed on talk as to whether it constitutes synth.

The category question has been discussed in great detail on the category talk page. The Southern Levant category still contains more content than the guidelines suggest it should - it still has more than Category:China...

The alleged personal attacks the editor points to appear to have been misunderstood. The not a polemicist comment, for example, was the opposite of an attack - it was my perhaps convoluted attempt to show that I assumed good faith. Trust appears to have broken down between us, so I recognize that I need to take even more care. I have tried to rebuild this trust on numerous occasions, but we continue to find our editing relationship to be difficult.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Previous discussions (also begun by Drsmoo):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Disruptive_editing_from_User:Oncenawhile_on_Southern_Levant_categories Fences&Windows 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. This has been a long-term issue. Regarding Oncenawhile's reply, it's simply inaccurate. Oncenawhile arbitrarily deleted two reliable sources and replaced them with "citation needed" tags. Oncenawhile's reasons for deleting the sources were incorrect, the editor claimed that they didn't reference the subject, but even a cursory glance reveals that they do. Oncenawhile then went to the talk page and immediately started four discussion threads, all on the same subject, while throwing strong personal attacks (calling me a dishonest, saying I have bad judgements, etc). It's the wikipedia equivalent of stomping all over a carpet with muddy shoes, seemingly designed solely to annoy (ie, claiming that the article which references the "southern Levant" is not applicable because Southern isn't capitalized, etc). This has been going on for five years now, and over this time, Oncenawhile has been the sole party making personal attacks. Oncenawhile has a clear obsession with this topic based on what appears to be a conspiratorial view, "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose", and the editor either harasses the article page to annoy other editors away from being involved, or arbitrarily rummages through wikipedia deleting links to the article. Recently, when a wide consensus approved changing Syro-Palestinian Archaeology to the academic standard Levantine Archaeology, Oncenawhile immediately declared the intention to start a new move discussion within a few months unless the page was changed to Oncenawhile's specifications (other editors responded negatively and the editor hasn't done anything yet but I'm sure it will start it up again at some point soon). This nonsense has been going on for five years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I don't see a case against Oncenawhile here. All the alleged "last months" diffs appear to be from 2015 or even 2014. I did not click on all, but none that I clicked of was from 2016. I also don't see any personal attacks. If there is a case to be made, I encourage Drsmoo to open a subthread below with only the problematic diffs and personal attacks from April 2016 and a short description. All I see here is a wall of words and diffs from long ago. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, your post is incorrect. The first six diffs I posted were all from 2016. Your post seems to have no relation to mine in fact. Would you mind explaining how "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." and "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." are not personal attacks? Or how deleting reliable sources is not disruptive? Drsmoo (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did say I did not click on the all the more than 50 diffs you provided, especially not after so many turned out to be irrelevant. That is why I encouraged you to post a better argument for your case, if you think there is one. WP:TEXTWALLs are always a bad idea, focus on the essential instead. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute more than anything needing admin action. Mass removal of Category:Southern Levant is cited as disruption, but that category is now heading for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Category:Southern Levant, so that seems to be a moot point. The recent edits to assert that "southern Levant" is quite different from "Southern Levant" seem overly pedantic (as noted by another user on the talk page), but I don't see evidence of anything requiring a block or restriction. I don't read those comments linked to above as personal attacks, though some of the comments are less than the ideal for WP:CIVIL. I suggest using an RfC to try to resolve any outstanding issues that are at dispute. Fences&Windows 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Fences, it's more than just deleting articles from the category, Oncenawhile makes mass edit runs throughout wikipedia deleting links to Southern Levant articles or replacing them with links to other articles (these were never reflected in the edit summary) I detailed this in my first submission to disruptive editing but it was ignored. Disruptive behavior towards Southern Levant articles has continued for five years now. The "southern Levant/Southern Levant" edits are more than pedantic, just as creating four talk page sections within a few minutes, all essentially discussing the same thing is more than being overly specific, these all serve to disrupt the article and annoy/harass the editors working on it. Drsmoo (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issue

• Kingo7672 (talk · contribs)

Competence issue--one bad random edit after another, mostly to bios and movie articles. Has racked up an impressive number of warnings in a short time, and the majority of their contributions have been reverted. I reported the user to AIV a few weeks back, and was advised to take it here. After waiting to see if there would be an improvement, I've opted to file this report. Requires either a permanent chaperone or a block. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Going by edits like this one, Kingo7672 might not be a native English speaker. Some of Kingo's other edits are truly perplexing. In this edit, Kingo labels artwork by an artist born in 1970 as coming from Superman's "first comic book", which dates back to 1938. And then there's this unsourced factoid in a BLP. I don't really know what's going on here, but it does seem like we have a problem. Maybe a mentor would work? Those seem to be popular around here lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And since opening this report: [77], a copyright violation which was reverted, then re-added by an IP. I think it's someone messing around, adding unsourced crap, sometimes made-up stuff, often elaborate 'alt' descriptions to images, just because they can. Sorry for the italics, but my take is that mentoring would be a waste of time. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to note this response made by the user. My first thought is to believe that he's just new and offer help to him/her, unless there's evidence of blatant and purposeful disruption made in bad faith, something I'm not seeing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Redacting this response, per Julietdeltalima's response below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I do see such evidence in the frantic attempts by the two IPs to re-add the highly detailed copyvio movie synopsis at Grimsby (film) almost immediately after this ANI report was filed, which I would be stunned to learn was the activity of someone who was not this user. Couple that with the user's ongoing insistence, after multiple requests to desist, on repeating the very unusual mistaken typographic convention of putting a space BEFORE every comma. If the user was genuinely trying to participate in WP in good faith the user would presumably be making an effort to conform his/her actions to this simple, prosaic request. I suppose the alternative inference is that competence is not feasible for this user, which is equally problematic. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima - Thank you for responding to my thoughts. I got distracted while reading through this ANI and somehow missed the important details described above regarding the timestamp of the copyvio issues added to Grimsby (film). I agree that this now appears problematic and in bad-faith, given that the copyvio issue occured after he made the response on his talk page, and after this ANI was filed. I also agree that the IP appears to be the user being disruptive while logged off. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have warned the user about comma placement more than once. The user will temporarily place the commas correctly for only a brief period of time after each warning and then go right back to incorrectly placing them. Regardless, I do think that the editor is editing in good faith, even if the edits aren't particularly competent (all due respect to the user). If a language barrier is the problem, perhaps we can ask him about it and then point him to a Wikipedia in his native language. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding IPs and socks, this anon is almost certainly the same user as Kingo7672. DarkKnight2149 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time I've inadvertently turned up a quacking sock farm. Thanks for the updates. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've filed a SPI for those two edit-warring IPs here. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved with indef and rangeblock. I've added notes at SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, thank you. I agree with Darkknight2149's assessment above, that the edits and grammar of 5.29.105.49 (talk · contribs) appear very much like those of the blocked accounts. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not configuring this as an SPI report in the first instance earlier today; my attention was occupied by IRL issues. User:Oshwah, no self-beating-up, amigo! This is an instance where my involuntary name- and editing-pattern memories kicked in. I just couldn't get there quickly enough today. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

See this edit by the user Its_tritus808. I'm reporting this per proper procedures. I'm looking into this user's edits right now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: User is now blocked. Going to go ahead and close this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Leprof 7272

Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) has been told several times that he is showing page ownership or making personal style edits to this and other articles. A strong message that the editor needs to edit cooperatively. When he makes edits like this, reverting a correct change to formatting of references because he doesn't like it, he's stepping over the line. He also reverted correct date formats per MOS:DATETIES. Check the editor's talk page for additional complaints. While the editor is providing some constructive edits, his WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is troublesome. Either a short block or a warning of some sort would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• From what I can see, this looks to be early in a content dispute. It's also not a great idea to template a regular at the beginning of a content dispute. Perhaps a better place to have gone first is WP:DRN. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• This user seems quite prone to tagbombing as well. The article Merlin Mann is a real piece of art after he marked the issues it had, and I also came across some rather obnoxious tagging on Fugu and Tetrodotoxin that he had done, and that I have since cleaned up. I asked him to clean up the Merlin Mann article some time ago on his talk page but he refused. The Scum of the Earth Church article earlier is also heavily tagged, not difficult to guess by whom. -- turdas^talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed user's TP

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

---

I happened to come across this edit by an indeffed editor on their own TP. I have reverted it as personal attacks, but I suppose the edit ought to be deleted. --T*U (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision deleted and talk page access removed. BethNaught (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick, clean and effecient! Thx! --T*U (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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