Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Vivvt

There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [1]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
  The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)

Towards me

• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha"
• "Use at least little bit of sense"
• "Would you please stop being a JERK?"
• "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)."
• "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you."
• The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always

I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

Towards others

• "Are you dumb? "
• "Who the hell made you an administratyor?"
• "You are so pathetic. Now onwards my eye will be on you and I will tell you what is its like to get punished for others fault."
• "I should have known that you are a hypocrite and a big time manipulator."
• "You need to look here before talking and adding shit to that article I am more experienced than you here and know much better than you. You don't tell me what I should do."
• "Thank you Vensatry for getting your nose into the matter, which has nothing to do with you."
• "Get the Fuck out of my user page"

Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.

   "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

.Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that because you said above that its small, for me its still big reason. When someone had already started a discussion then you had not rights to revert until the matter was discussed on the talkpage. So, its obvious you are the culprit.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sudden studies or WP:BOOMERANG effect? If I get time I am sure I will find many such wikibreaks that have aligned with non-favourable circumstances just to avoid blocks and bans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You wish. LOL. This post I wrote on 23 April 2016 dont show its sudden. Check facts before accusing someone of something.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're going on a wiki break, go on the wiki break. Don't continue editing under the guise that you have 'studies' to do. It's one or the other, and it's quickly approaching the point where a boomerang is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Krish!, you were editing in the past hour which undermines your claim that you are taking a long wikibreak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz Well, I'm still editing because I have an ongoing discussion about the disputed article. So, Isn't that obvious that I'll be editing? Now please close this discussion as I'm sure the discussion on the article's talk page is enough. Thank you for your time folks.Krish | Talk 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be closed without any action against you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well this is May 2016, if you want to take action for what i did in 2015 and before then i am very sorry that's not going to happen and I think you are trying to provoke me to do something with your texts but i am not interested to fight with you or anyone. This is not a place where you engage in random fights. This is an encyclopedia its better we respect this site.Krish | Talk 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always." 08:03, 1 May 2016
• "moron Dharmadhyaksha" ...." dumb moron" 07:56, 1 May 2016
• "She was never criticised you MORON" 07:32, 1 May 2016
• "Dharmadhyaksha, everything was resolved at the FLC, so your edits are questionable. Plus, Now I'll be checking on you and I know some of your articles require that template and Wait then watch IM coming" 07:52, 25 January 2016
• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" 13:21, 22 January 2016

May 2016 stuff... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you already had mentioned above? and the administrator had already addressed them? Give me a break. Bye Bye......Krish | Talk 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins should take this into account that his behavioural pattern has not changed over the years and he keeps abusing other editors with the strong words. Involved editors have seen this I-won't-do-this drama several times and its really frustrating that its always the other editor who is asked behave with civility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that the 5 edits were posted 2 days ago, it's obvious Krish! is unrepentant with regards to personal attacks. Those should certainly attract a block, preferably an indefinite one. Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Blackmane only three edits were posted 2 days ago so kindly correct yourself. I don't think i deserve a block. I have contributed so much here. I have written an FA, 9 FLs and 10 GAs and am still working on plenty of subjects including two other FLs and another FA. You can't just take away everything from me. It's not like only I had fights or arguments here. Everyone does. By the way, did i tell you this user (Dharmdhyaksha) has a long history of interfaring with my work or should i say had a problem with me for reasons unkown to me. He tried to take me down by nominating two of my GAs, few days after they passed and he was criticised by everyone and the GAs were kept as GAs.

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/7 Khoon Maaf/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huma Qureshi (actress)/1

Plus, he would add a maintenance templates to all my FLs, would remove well-sourced texts, tag the articles with Provide secondary souces, even where everything was sourced perfectly. So tell me what you guys learn about him. What does it mean when you do these kind of things. I still don't know what is his problem with me. My above reactions were for his this behaviour,which I think was wrong as all of my FLs and GAs were reviewed by some established and experienced reviewers. So tell me now.Krish | Talk 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned by SpacemanSpiff "The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have." However, this dos not give you any authority to abuse people. Everybody's trying to do something or other by taking time from their real time. You have no right to insult that time. I dont see a point why should please take your abuse for no good reason. Does not matter if you are admin or wiki founder or feature content writer or a newbie, people are not here to get abused. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, he is not retiring or taking any break for studies. He just nominated another list for FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've corrected my post to reflect this. However, the points still stands that continuing to attack another editor while your previous attacks against other editors was being discussed at ANI is just mind boggling foolishness. Editors get into conflict, this is true, but for the most part it is over content what you have done is made it personal. Regardless of what you have contributed to the project, this is unacceptable. Editors that have contributed 10 times what you have, have been site banned for just this sort of thing. You are very lucky you haven't been indefinitely blocked already. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Look, It`s time to stop beating around the bush about blocking Krish. I propose an indefinite ban on Krish for long term personal attacks against multiple users, as shown above. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, this needs to stop and action needs to be taken Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This reeks of punitive blocking, and I do not believe that the edit summaries thereof rise to the level of an indef. Indef blocks should be reserved for outright vandalism. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I had left a warning on the user's talk page a while ago for making some arrogantly abusive personal attacks towards another user. See [2]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Did I tell you this user is friends with Dharmadhyaksha? Yes they are. By the way please tell me if its right to remove well-sourced stuffs from articles which are featured and everything. Just because he didn't like the way article was?

• And, do you think this is not a personal attack to me Krish! You need to complete your studies. For our sake. You were not pinged in that message because i knew it would not be easy for you to comprehend it. LOL. I will reply to others. Please tell. Making fun of my weak english that i couldn't even understand his text is not an attack?Krish | Talk 06:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've been here for close to 11 years. I've made a lot of friends and enemies here. That doesn't discount my views. You have the right to remove and add stuff so long as it is compliant with policies and consensus, which isn't the issue here. The issue here is your pathetic behaviour towards others, calling them names, and abusing them, which you did and as a net result I left a warning on your talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nowhere did I mention studies. I haven't participated in any discussion on Kashibai. Why are you distorting the conversation by inserting it after my comment? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support long-term ban. This user has, on multiple occasions, made it extremely difficult for me to contribute here. His constant bad-faith and abusive nature made me take a long wikibreak last year, and I wouldn't wish that upon any constructive editor. This has really gone on for far too long, and action must be taken. Pinging some of the other editors (Dr. Blofeld, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Kailash29792 and Vensatry), who have been a victim of his abuse. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Oh my. Look who finally replied to a text related to me. God bless you Krimuk. Please tell the administrators that you used to sen threats on Twitter and troll me there. Please tell the administrators that you have abused me on my talk page and through e-mails. You know I really don't have time for this and I don't think I will show those evidences against you, how much you have abused me here and how uncil you are. You have finally succeeded in breaking me. I really can't take anymore and I feel like it was my biggest mistake to come here and contribute here. I have lost all the energy today and I ask administrators for a long term ban as I'm really fed up of this accusation of being uncivil and abusive, even when the others editors have been as abusive as me. I gave three years of my life to this site, three presious years of my college life. You don't need to ask your friends to come here and ask for a block for me, I am making this job easy for you. I ask for a block so that others can live here freely as I'm the only one who is making there life troubled. Well done Krimuk you have done the impossible and I wish you all the best for your future.Krish | Talk 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe Krish! would benefit from close mentoring, and Wikipedia would benefit from a mentored Krish! This is what I propose and I'm willing to act as a mentor if the editor will have me as such.--John Cline (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Am not sure and my memory is weak and there have been many user name changes and there have been many editors in similar article domains that keep confusing me.... But i think he has been mentored by @Titodutta: or was it Dr. Blofeld. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely Oppose ban I didn't realise this was still open. I don't watch ANI, it is a dreadful place. Now, having read the thread, I have some questions. Why does it matter if Krish says he's going on a wikibreak. Breaks are personal, and can come in many forms - reducing your editing, changing focus and so on. There are a number of very high profile editors who still edit despite having a wikibreak notice, or even a retired notice it does not matter. I told Krish he was a hair's breadth from a block for the Jerk barnstar and his behaviour on 1 May and when I did, he stopped that behaviour. He didn't stop editing, he carried on the discussion civilly at the talk page of the article. On the other hand, I've just had to warn Dharmadhyaksha for provocation at that same article. There are two sides to this case, I certainly don't believe that one side should be banned outright. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• The discussion has somewhat veered onto a different zone. To begin with, the user in question seems to have apparently misused his rollback privileges on the page. That said, it's high time that Krish's behaviour be monitored. Because this is the nth time that his conduct has been questioned – this being the most recent one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked). He's been around here for 3+ years, yet doesn't have the temperament to deal with people – a few samples (when he was a newbie): 1, 2. And this was just a year ago. I don't see much of a change in his attitude. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, the user's claims of being the victim of abusive messages off-wiki are absurd, because he is the one who has sent me multiple abusive emails. I had then contacted Crisco 1492 and shared screenshots of those messages with him, after which I was advised to block him and the user was warned. In those emails he claimed that the actress Vidya Balan, whose article I significantly contributed to, had payed for my education. I can send you screenshots of those emails if you like. See this, where he misused the "help me" template to write: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are.." Also, he is the one who, as recently as last month, made accusations of paid writing after I spent working on the articles of three actors who work for Dharma Productions. As many of the editors who have previously interacted with him, the user has a long history of being a nuisance and resorts back to his old ways within days of being warned by administrators. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Krimuk90 I give you a standing ovation. You are the best. Why don't you tell Worm That Turned that you were the person who accused me "paid writing", I didn't took your name on my talk page but now I will provide my side of story. That Balan funding your education was the reply to your accusations that I write on behalf of Chopra and she had paid me. I had told this to Dr. Blofeld also. It should be noted that this conversation of him accusing me of paid writing and my reply to him about funding studies happened in Im nort sure but may be in 2012 or early 2013 but then how this user can still talk to me in December 2014 if I sent him abusive emails? Please tell me, it shows that he manipulated Crisco by sending a screenshotfor a diffenent reasons. He used to abuse me through tweets from random accounts saying "Hey Kid, Is Madam Chopra feeding you well?". Then he chose my user and talk page to abuse me and accused me saying She is the "worst actress of this generation"; who can't do any type of role. Just wanted to let everyone know that! :) Chopra is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!. Please tell me how can a random IP can accuse me of what Krimuk already had? It was not a co-incidence, can't be. That time I didn't know much about wikipedia rules or I would have complained about him and those Ips. He then continued to accuse me through random IPs, pretended to be me She is the "worst actress of this generation"; who can't do any type of role. Just wanted to let everyone know that! :) I don't have a life outside of WP because Chopra madam is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!, I don't have a life outside of WP because Chopra madam is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!, and this one where he claims that it was me who was editing my userpage from IPs Plz don't touch my user page!!!!). But I never abused him off wikipedia and I only had arguments with him her like everybody has with one another. I never abused him through e-mails, though we used to chat about so many things, so please don't trust him because he may show you a manipulated version of emails. If he does, I will give my email adress and passwor to you WOrm That Turned, you can check what i used to send him and it was anything but abuse. I have not even erased a single email of his. So I will show you everything if you want. Coming to his above accusations that I had accused him for writing for Dharma Kids, no I didn't I didn't name it I said that why people always exxagerate things on Dharma Kids saying all their films are blockbusters. There I asked for neutrality and equality. I didn't name him but he went and edited that actresses article like what hehas done on Dharma Kids. Coming to more of his accusation. He is no saint. In February, he started expanding Shahid Kapoor article and he added a controversial thing about his relationship in his article. I reverted him Chopra never accepted that she had a relationship with Kapoor like Kareena did. So get your facts right befor adding such stuffs. He claims to be very senior and well behaved but this was his reply to reverting back to his version She doesn't have to. it's not her biography. Then Dr. Blofeld started a discussion at the talk page and we discussed that they never had accepted their relationship and Blofeld agreed to me but Krimuk took this in a wrong way and refused to discuss. As you can see I and Blofeld discussed there civilly, he didn't wanted to discusss because he believes what he says is right and others are wrong. He showed up at the talk page saying I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck. and then he started getting mad and started hid disruptive editing at the article talk page I did such a fucked job taking this to GA!, I am silly. What, will someone put me in jail for it? . and when he was reverted back for his disruptive editing the fact that no one own articles on wikipedia he said Maybe i'll buy it for 2.45$. He removed all his content from his talk and user page with a message saying Chopra is the virginal beauty or something like that and since has been hidden with summary as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". So please tell me how am I responsible for his bad behaviour? We haven't talked since January 2015 and here is.Krish | Talk 09:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban. That's a bit extreme for my taste. I'd support an absolute last warning that the next time they make a personal attack on another editor they will be indefinitely blocked. The same goes for Dharmadhyaksha per Worm's post above. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I expressed similar concerns about Prashant/Krish to Ian Rose, Cassianto and SchroCat a few weeks back. Sorry to say but Krish! just never seems to grow up. His recent behaviour is a perfect example of why he's not mature enough to edit here. Incredibly childish and never seems to change as he promises. He does contribute some good work but most of his interactions on here are negative ones and he never seems to learn how to avoid them. I think it's best for everybody if he was banned or at least something severe imposed on interacting with people to stop people having to deal with his nonsense. John Cline and some of the others clearly have little experience of this editor, all the mentoring in the world won't change him. When he doesn't feel threatened and is focused on writing he's productive I think, and at times he can even be pleasant, but as Vensatry says, too many times now and just lacks the control to deal with people. Suggest something severe imposed in terms of interacting with others, that might work, but then you'll still get the same petty squabbles over articles. Irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus is for more severe sanctions, then it is as the community wills. There may be a small glimmer of self realisation from Krish! that how they're going about things is just not right considering that a ban discussion is underway. Interaction bans are nasty business and really need some strong reform to have bigger teeth. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, though not necessarily a site ban. Maybe a two-week ban for incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban/Support Sanctions Not sure if practical but perhaps some sort of escalating scale? Next infraction of WP:Civil 1 week ban, and progressively higher from there. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support I agree Krish should be blocked just reading this ANI makes me cringe... I firmly believe that this ani should of been closed days ago... It's obvious that consensus is that Krish is needed to be blocked. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the ban/block The discussion is too lengthy to give in time, though I have had my own frictions with Krish! but banning/blocking him isn't the solution. No one here is so inexperienced that they would do harm to the requisite Wiki page. I believe in the work and dedication by Krimuk90 and Krish!. Coming to Dharmadhyaksha, I really don't appreciate his approach of dealing with fellow users. Arjann (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Arjann also looking for Boomerang? " I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you. I mean it, literally. You and user Vivvt are pathetic" ... "Dumb." This had come on my talk page after 4 of the images this user had uploaded were nominated by me for deletion and which are eventually now deleted. File:Haider film score artwork.jpg, File:Lootera Cover Art.jpg, File:Thalli Pogathey (single cover).jpg, File:Jab Tak Hai Jaan Audio Launch.jpg. The user later also went on to remove a FFD tag from one of the files for which I warned him. Arjann also has a history of making PAs towards other editors. See this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support We just don't need this sort of thing. Op47 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I took the liberty to break up the discussion a little. Too many sub threads and such. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• • May I ask for a mentor please? I still don't know many things about wikipedia though I am 3 years old here, was mostly inactive in 2013 and 14. By the way I need someone to guide me through this. I don't have any friends here who encourage me or support me when I am right but I have people who unite when I do something wrong. I don't get it. If neutrality is the policy of wikipedia then shouldn't they support me when I do some good? Dr. Blofeld has taught me several things here, when I was new and would like to ask for help if he can help me through this. I am sure I will do 10x better in someone's guidance than I used to do alone.Krish | Talk 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd first suggest you strike out your nonsensical support of your own block. I have half a mind to close this discussion and grant that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality is a content policy not a behavioural guideline. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User Galassi at Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

I'm finding it impossible to work with User:Galassi. I started re-editing the the page on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry on 21 April 2016‎, correcting some recent edits and giving my reasons in extensive detail on the talk page The long list of problems was ignored for some days.

• Since in the meantime Galassi kept reverting, I opened a talk page section with his name calling his attention to the problem of him reverting without answering the issues on the talk page.

• Several long discussions ensued, but only with other editors. See this section, this section and this section, for several attempts I made calling on reverting editors to discuss the issues.

• The sum of Galassi’s comments, despite him being the main reverter, consist of one liners that ignore the technical problems and issues, are void of content, except flag waving. Seehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here

• While ignoring repeated requests to him and other editors to answer the objections on the talk page Galassi has persistently reverted the article ever since, whenever I touch it. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• All of these reverts restore several pieces of material which the talk page argues either fail WP:RS, or do not reflect the source, or push a non-neutral POV, such as saying a theory whose scientific status is uncertain, has been ‘refuted’ etc. The edit summaries are obscure, and often specious, as in this morning's Reverted good faith edits by Nishidani (talk): Per WP:SYNTH. This cannot be true because the passage he reverted out is a straight quote from a source. I didn't synthesize anything. My impression is the editor is just reverting me at sight without examining the talk page, the sources, or anything else. I found this exasperating and told him so, without mentioning WP:HOUND, and asked him to stop telling me to 'cease and desist', as if he were dictating surrender terms. This morning he saw me edit anew, an innocuous inclusion of another quote from a source already accepted, and reverted it, and then posted the same 'cease and desist' nonsense on my talk page. This looks very much to me like an attempt to needle away and fish up a reportable response.

I think, since he just engages in blind reverts, and refuses to use the talk page, that he should be asked to stay away from that particular article.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, ignore. THis is a RETALIATORY motion. USer Nishidani alone battles against multiple-users' consensus, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK etc., all of which has been repeatedly pointed to him.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• A browse of the article history indicates that a number of editors take exception to your substantial article-changing edits. Given that your high-handed talkpage pronouncements and the personal attacks in edit summaries have generally failed to convince other editors, I dont think Galassi is the one who needs a break . Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

High-handed? I have twice intervened to stop that editor whom you say I used a personal attack against, from almost certainly getting a topic ban, once quite recently. She uses the talk page, so though she edit wars, and is plainly trying to push a POV, she's amenable to collegial discussion. In that case, I never, never raise an objection to such editors. Galassi refuses to use the talk page, and has consistently edited in execrably bad material the talk page shows fails WP:V. I get pissed off, sure. It took me several months of research to try to master a difficult and controversial topic like Khazars, which I basically wrote, only to find editors frigging about with lazy revert edit-warring to establish a 'truth', while ignoring the scholarly literature. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Which I basically wrote"... So no ownership issues there at all then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No, no ownership problem, a statement of fact. I write articles - it's time-consuming, and hard work; editors like Galassi revert what's done, whatever, on sight. He effectively by his blind and blanket reverts (he never looked at what he was reverting back to) banned me from that article. If you take the example of just the last revert listed above, he cancelled a direct quotation I introduced from the same source used directly above, stating in the edit-summary WP:SYNTH. A direct quotation, as he knows, cannot be an instance of synthesis, and therefore the edit summary was sheer prevarication, and the revert animated by personal enmity without regard to content. I never even scoured Galassi's history or practices, but in the context of his prior bans, for exactly the same kind of nuisance reverting, this seems to be a consistent pattern of abuse. His revert rights should be restricted to vandalism and IPs: if he wants to challenge constructive editors with 10 years of experience and 45,000 edits, he should be asked to note his objection on the talk page (and not just 'vote' there).Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi has been indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine-related material since April 2013 for failing to adhere to a personal restriction on the frequency with which reverts could be performed. Galassi's talkpage shows that conflicts have occurred with other editors over editing of Khazar-related material, or that other editors have intervened (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The justification Galassi gives for reverting in example 2, "It is common sense, you see. Elhaik is a charlatan, as he is bent on pushing a theory that proposes that a Caucasoid ethnic group descends from a Mongoloid one. 'Nuf said," is foolish: he libels a research scientist based on his own basic ignorance of who the Khazars were, a level of ignorance that raises questions about whether any of Galassi's contributions on the subject can be beneficial.     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is IRRELEVANT here. User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV, and he is pushing his anti-zionist envelope elsewhere.--Galassi (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You were reverting me on every edit I made, with no talk page discussion. You never spoke of 'consensus' in your revert edit summaries, but of ostensible policy issues, which I addressed on the page and you ignored.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Geven your history of antiZionist edits elsewhere: you're nowhere near WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Galassi and other editors appear to have failed to engage in the consensus-building process, instead simply relying on the fact that they outnumber Nishidani to insist that he doesn't have consensus.

Galassi: "User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV." Wikipedia articles are supposed to outline the significant points of view contained in reliable sources. Perhaps Galassi is confusing properly sourced points of view with what he calls Nishidani's POV?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Of Galassi's last 500 edits in the main space (since January 13, 2015), 270 have had edit summaries beginning "Reverted". During this same period, they have only made 86 talk page edits, and almost none of those are substantial original comments. In their entire edit history they have made more than eight times as many article edits as talk page edits. Propose 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Place Galassi under 1RR

I propose placing Galassi (talk · contribs) under a one-revert rule, indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that they are willing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages instead of edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support if duration is to the end of 2016. The restriction should not apply to reverting clear vandalism and block-evading edits by sock puppets. Hijiri88 makes a good case for this. But I do not want this to turn into a first step towards a long block for Galassi. Many of Galassi's reverts are the best thing to do in the circumstances. If the restriction were indefinite, sooner or later he/she would forget and break the restriction, just like he/she did with the more complex revert restriction on Ukraine-related articles. If the restriction were to the end of 2016, he/she would probably remember and obey it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: My above-cited "last 500 edits" was a random number determined by my account preferences. The problem was even more pronounced in the previous 500 edits (327/500 article edits are blank reverts, and only 58 talk page edits, most of them related to Jewish Bolshevism). This is a very long-term problem going back more than three years, so limiting the 1RR restriction to seven months is not productive. And speaking as someone who is himself subject to 1RR (a restriction placed on me because of three brief edit wars that took place almost a year before the restriction, mind you), I can tell you that reverting obvious vandalism and block-evasion, etc. are not affected by 1RR, any more than they are affected by 3RR. Additionally, to demonstrate that an indefinite 1RR would do more harm than good, you would need to demonstrate that Galassi has repeatedly made multiple constructive reverts on the same page in a period of 24 hours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for restrictions need to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if they follow the standard definitions as laid out on the PAG pages related to the restrictions. There's a reason I linked WP:1RR above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is useless. Galassi rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page, at least during last year. His reverts are usually reasonable, or at least justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Whether he "rarely" makes more than one revert per day is immaterial. On the article under discussion here, he has very clearly been edit-warring, and if he had been under 1RR he would have been blocked three times in the past week. 1RR is not meant to create excuses to block people; it's meant to prevent edit wars, and in this case it clearly would discourage Galassi from edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone was engaged in edit warring on a certain page, he/she should be reported on WP:3RR, not here. Then admins would definitely look at this, including other editors who also reverted on the same page. I interacted with Galassi on a number of occasions and agree that he makes a lot of reverts, however most of them were reasonable in cases I know about (no, I did not check this Khazar page because this is something beyond my interests). Hence I do not really see a pattern of recent and malicious edit warring by him. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If 60% of a user's edits are automatic reverts (not including possible manual reverts), then clearly something is very wrong. Your claim that "rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page" is not backed up by empirical evidence. Other articles on which he has indisputably edit-warred in the past month (read: made more than one revert in under 24 hours) include Muammar Gaddafi, Aristo and Anti-Zionism. In Aristo the edit-warring led to page protection. Whether Galassi was on the "right side" in any of these edit-wars is irrelevant, because edit-warring is disruptive in and of itself. (Please note that reverting a user who isn't using the talk page while you are desperately trying to use the talk page is not, in my opinion, edit-warring; but I'm not a reliable source, because no one disputes that this is what I was doing in my "edit wars" of over a year ago, and I was still placed under 1RR.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone makes 100% reverts, that might be fine. His reverts are usually like that. Of course I can only tell about my experience of interacting with this user. It was not usually a problem to interact with him. It did not mean we agreed. And no, I do not think his recent editing on page Muammar Gaddafi (for example) was in any way problematic because it was another red-linked account who edit war against multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps the measure proposed should be reformulated. What is obvious is that on the article in question, Galassi repeated exactly the approach, in regard to any edit I made, for which he has been sanctioned or banned from articles twice in the past. On the article in question he made three reverts on April 23 (here, here and and here). On May 1 two (here and and here, the second involving a patent prevarication as an excuse to again block my editing there. He refused for a over a week to use the talk page, and ignored all evidence on that page that what he was on each case restoring was defective (source misrepresentation etc.). Personally, I just think he should be banned from any article regarding the Khazars, something quite specific. If no one can see a problem in his targeting an editor to effectively ban his participation in editing a page, then of course he can get off scot-free and continue the polite but persistent harassment.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hang on - in the period Nishidani speaks of, three editors were reverting him/her: @Ferakp:, @Monochrome Monitor: and Galassi. So basically, Nishidani was edit-warring with three editors....-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Ferakp and Monochrome Monitor all know how to use a talk page. If you discuss on a talk page in between reverts, and new factors emerge to justify reverting, then it is ... still an edit-war, but it's "less" of an edit-war. Users who don't use the talk page (or use the talk page, but only post inane, irrelevant nonsense) are the ones who tend to "poison the well", so to speak. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment I made some edits, others kept reverting to them. I haven't been keeping track. I do think it's bad to single out a single editor if a bunch of editors are doing it... majority rules, no? Right now the majority is a mob, but mob rule is better than chaste autocracy, in my opinion. If he broke 3RR it would be different.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) But Nish isn't edit warring either. I think the word "edit warring" is overused personally. I think of war as aggressive. This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? That appears to be what Nishidani is trying to do, and Galassi has been responding with one-line "No, you're wrong"-type non-replies. Of the latter's talk page posts, only two have been more than nine words each: one was 18 words and was extremely hostile and used ... "questionable" terminology; the other was 36 words and not much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1. Both Monochrome and I use the talk page. I have no objection to being reverted if the revert is rational and explained. Ferakp just jumped in to revert me, in a tagteaming fashion, without reading the talk page. He at least had the decency to use it when I protested, and what was the result,? He altered several parts of his revert to conform to the very real objections I outlined. Galassi did not use the talk page, repeatedly reverted anything I added, used false edit summaries, and tried to provoke me on my talk page. This is why I reported him: he has banned my work on that article, something he had no right to do, and secondly his behavior in my regard repeats a pattern he had been, as emerges here, admonished and sanctioned for twice on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: You posted the exact same thing under Nishidani's proposal below. By "displayed above", do you mean in the main thread opened by Nishidani? Or to Nishidani's brief aside immediately above your own post? Or to my opening this proposal? Because if it's the latter it's a pretty bizarre accusation -- I have never edited the article in question even once, nor expressed any interest in it. Even if it refers to Nishidani, how is trying to make edits and seeing them all reverted "ownership"? If anything, the user demonstrating ownership is Galassi -- apparently reverting every edit to the article he/she doesn't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Woah. Dude. What the hell? Them's some pretty violent accusations, there -- am I really the one with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here? If an editor makes almost no edits that aren't reverts, then clearly we have an edit-warrior. Proposing 1RR as a way of dealing with such a poblem is a pretty normal solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There really is no basis for your proposal. It's spurious. Hence the "accusation" (violent? what?). And removing bad material from articles does not make somebody an "edit warrior".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Very strong evidence has been presented that Galassi has been edit-warring in the past week or so on the article in question, and pretty compelling evidence has been presented that this is a recurring problem going back at least three years. On the other hand, your accusation that I have no basis for my proposal is itself, ironically enough, a baseless accusation. An editor whose Wikipedia activity focuses almost exclusively on reverting other users' edits is not the same as an editor who "remov[es] bad material from articles" -- please refrain from putting words in my mouth, as I never said "removing bad material from articles" makes somebody an edit warrior. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also (just noticed this), VM placed the exact same words under Nishidani's proposal below.[3] So did he/she misread the thread and think that Nishidani opened both proposals? Because accusing me of a "battleground" mentality for coming across a random ANI thread, reading through it, coming to a conclusion about what has been happening and proposing a solution accordingly is pretty hypocritical, when VM is doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is getting really weird. I gave detailed evidence, which is being ignored. In no edit did I, as Galassi did, (a) restore material that is known to falsify the source (b) nor did I provide false edit summary (c) nor did I accuse someone of WP:SYNTH for copying a key passage from a source which another edited copied only partially (and which Galassi accepted as fair), to complete the picture (d) nor have I a history of mechanical reverting for which sanctions have been twice applied, as does Galassi (e) nor did I tagteam as did Galassi (f) nor did I go ahead and revert without any rationale being provided on the talk page, as Galassi did. Because I exercised judgement (actually reading each source, which Galassi patently didn't),collegiality and restraint, editors are now tending to give Galassi the right of veto over any edit I make to that page. If this is the way Wikipedia operates, well, it's pointless editing further here. All we have is a quick glance at a column of the page edit record, seeing both reverting, and then accusing myself of having no grounds for my reverts, and indeed the major blame because I made a formal complaint against the other reverter. Everything is collapsed to identical behavior, and all distinctions are lost. What I am being told is that care in editing counts for nothing, that prevaricating reverts in silence by the disattentive are on a par with close source control-based reverts. If this kind of slipshod oversight is allowable, there's no point editing here.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles

Support. This is highly limited, but reflects the fact he broke all the rules to disallow another editor's work on that page.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, you made numerous reverts on this page [4]. You reverted edits made by several contributors. If you are trying to make a point that Galassi and others did not talk with you, that was not the case, as anyone can see on this article talk page [5], [6]. Why it is Galassi, rather than you who should be topic-banned from editing this page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Elementary error, equivalent to saying the Chinese and Eskimos have 5 fingers on each hand, therefore their behavior is identical. Look at the differences, there are at least five, listed above.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know much about the subject, but speaking about behavior, I do not really see how this is different: [7],[8],[9]. There is indeed one difference in behavior: Galassi or anyone else did not reported you on ANI, but you did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

He's welcome to report me. In the 3 diffs, I have edit summaries giving my reasons which I then elaborately extensively on the talk page, where they were systematically ignored. That MM is being ideological and violating both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is clear from the page as it stands-she even had the rash hide to use a man convicted in an Israeli court for libel against a respected scholar, Steven Plaut,as an authoritative source for evaluating what tenured academics theorize about: a theory espoused even now by several scholars, and by dozens of Jewish scholars in the past, is in wiki's supposedly neutral voice, dismissed as a baseless fantasy, and those who propose it are implied to be anti-Semitic or fringe lunatics. MM sits round, Galassi does the dirty work, and then she adds in crap which I cannot correct or modify. All of the generalizations made there cannot be sourced reliably, but are WP:OR, written to disprove a theory, not describe it.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: How is trying to edit an article a demonstration of OWNership issues? Surely the one who reverts every edit he/she doesn't like is the one demonstrating OWNership issues? Also, same comment as below applies to you.[10][11] Did you seriously analyze both proposals and decide that both proposals should be opposed for the exact same reason? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Volunteer Marek copy-pasted the same !vote into both my proposal above and this proposal, as indicated by the repeated misprint.[12][13] It's not clear whether he/she actually read one of the proposals and copy-pasted the same response into both, and if so which one he/she actually read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nishidani edit war on this page for years [14] and requested here to topic ban an "opponent" to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC) I am not sure because I do not know this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have much time right now, but thought it important to register my support now for this proposal. I will expand in detail this evening (UK time). --NSH001 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  (now on another computer) Sorry for the delay. I composed a long comment and then lost it due to an intermittent and unpredictable fault on my main computer. In the meantime I see Nishidani has already covered the main points. --NSH001 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Galassi has been topic banned by ArbCom, and also blocked several times by different admins. By continuing to behave disruptively, Galassi's actions now show that he does not understand, or he does not accept, the reasons for his topic ban and blocks. Perhaps a topic ban from Khazar-related articles (a ban covering only a relatively narrow range of WP articles) can convince Galassi to begin to listen to what others are trying to tell him. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Nishidani ant IjonTichy are a part of an antiZionist cabal, so this is way beyond the WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Irondome (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So, in short, Galassi has admitted why he persists in reverting my every edit to that page. He has imposed his ban on my presence there because he is convinced I am an anti-Zionist, i.e. an anti-Semite (anti-Zionist is in many quarters now a code term for antisemite). I won't trouble to challenge the lie -my views on the problem are identical, if any one is curious, to those of David Dean Shulman (a Zionist, since he made aliyah), eloquently if distressfully outlined recently here in the New York Review of Books. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle Involved parties have no business proposing sanctions against editors with whom them have a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A sanction has already been imposed informally, and I am asking for it to be removed. The sanction consists in Galassi reverting every edit I make to the page. Find a solution, whatever. Unless his Pavlovian revert behavior changes, I am denied the right to edit there, since he erases everything I add. If nothing is done to resolve this, then editors here are saying that Galassi has acquired a unique privilege in Wikipedia, the right to target one editor, impose a page ban on him, without having to explain what he is doing, other than saying I am an anti-Semite activist in an Antizionist cabal (a mirror image of the Protocols of Zion bullshit), and which, please observe, is itself a deep violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here ([15],[16],[17]) you recently revert edits on this page made not only by Galassi, but by two other contributors. Why Galassi? It seems that you guys are having a content dispute on the page. Try dispute resolution. Or was it tried already? Sorry, I never edited this page and do not know.My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please actually read and study these diffs. Nishidani is editing constructively here, with detailed edit summaries and extensive reasoning on the talk page. Galassi is just editing destructively, trying to push his own view with the absolute minimum of effort on his part, and serving only to waste other editors' time. --NSH001 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know the subject, but judging from the diffs, some sources are questionable and possibly not RS. One way forward would be to agree about using only the most reliable sources (per MEDRS), as suggested during this RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It’s fine that you expect of me to respond to questions about my editing behaviour. So far, I have outlined substantial evidence concerning Galassi’s record, yet none of those arguing I’m to blame, or that I am doing exactly what he does, have shown (apart from yourself in the edit above this) a willingness to examine my evidence of Galassi’s behaviour, or pose queries to him. Perhaps that’s useless. He never explains himself. To answer you:

• (1)I’ve told editors why I reverted Galassi. I gave him a large list of things he was ignoring in his reverts, and he ignored them.
• (2) User:Ferakp came out of nowhere, made a revert, then when I remarked on the talk page that he was introducing known errors, had no read the talk page, he made one correction, added Steven Plaut who is not an acceptable source for wikipedia, which certainly don't count here since he has no competence in the area, being professor of business administration and a convicted libeler. Ferakp just disappeared after accepting on the talk page at least 2 of my objections were legitimate.
• (3) User:Monochrome Monitor

(a)A premise re policy:WP:NPOV.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

(b) To understand what follows, this is how I crafted the line, in accordance with a strict reading of WP:NPOV, on the main Khazars article. Regarding the theory

Several scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe. This hypothesis is greeted with scepticism or caution by most scholars.

Regarding the genetic evidence:

The evidence from historians he (Elhaik) used has been criticized by Shaul Stampfer[294] and the technical response to such a position is dismissive, arguing that, if traces of descent from Khazars exist in the Ashkenazi gene pool, the contribution would be quite minor,[295][296][297][298][299] or insignificant.

Those two formulations have stood for some years, defended by several main editors to that page from POV and IP challenges. It doesn’t take sides: it suggests to the reader this is a theory that most competent area scholars dismiss or regard with diffidence.

So it is reasonable to assume that I am not POV pushing for the Khazar thesis, or as Galassi now proclaims that I edited as some antisemitic/antizionist ideologist jumping at this theory, since in both cases I firmly noted that it is a quite minor position within the respective academic fields.

As to User:Monochrome Monitor I reverted her because of the violation of WP:NPOV. You mention the diff

(c)Blind ideologically- fixated reverting (a) refusing to address page (c) restoring known errors (d)adopting POV Language etc

• Monochrome Monitor came in with a swag of convictions, beware the true believer (mirroring true believers in the Khazar theory): She had announced on the talk page that one of the scholars, was a ‘crank’, endorsing Galassi’s view that Wexler has been exposed as a ‘fraud’. Both of these are serious WP:BLP violations, of an emeritus scholar still living and still reliably published, and still widely commented on in the secondary literature. As to Eran Elhaik, she said he too was a known ‘crank’. If that were so, it is difficult to understand why after a Phd from John Hopkins University, he obtained a an important research post in genetics at Sheffield University, and regularly published in the top genetics journals in his highly specialized field.

MM believes this historical issue, which to me is a total mystery, has been definitely resolved. I.e. she is passing off as an established fact what is a majority view in a contested field, giving the wiki guernsey to the winners. Worse still she attributed to both the idea that "Jews don't exist",-i.e. she is implying that they have psychiatric problems, leaving in phrasing that connects them sotto voce with anti-Semites, when actually she made a wild concoction of an overheated fantasy, as I explained in detail to her mentor on User:Oncenawhile's talk page. Wexler doesn’t believe in a Jewish ‘race’ (people): Elhaik has nowhere stated that Jews don’t exist. Both are Jews. Another proof that we are dealing with an editor who intervenes on a complex topic with her mind made up, hurling wild accusations at scholars, and editing the page.

In line with the ‘truth’, she has repeatedly written into the article that this theory has been refuted. Well, not quite. The last scientific article supporting a variation of the theory was published just 2 months ago, and no scientist has yet to publish any close analysis of its defects. The finest scholar of the Khazars,Peter Benjamin Golden, has an open mind on the issue and gives Wexler the hearing MM won't tolerate. MM and Ferakp are both preempting scholarship by insisting a still-open issue in scholarship has already been closed. This is a direct subversion of one of the 5 pillars of this encyclopedia. I don't complain of her - I spend a lot of time trying to get her, not to agree with me, God forbid, but to drop the air of certitude, and the idea she must defenda patriotic national cause.

Now that I have given exhaustive explanations as to why and how I do certain edits, can some neutral editor look at the evidence for what Galassi is doing, and suggest an arrangement to allow me to return to editing this page without having to suffer from his automatic reverts, i.e. return to me the right to edit, without an inexplicable pattern of consistent harassment-by-revert?Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're disingenuous Nish. If you think whether the khazar theory is true or not is a "total mystery", you obviously haven't informed yourself on the issue nor read the vast genetic evidence refuting it. Arguing it's mostly settled is very different from arguing it's totally settled in the other direction. That's like saying the position that global warming is caused by humans (in light of the vast scientific evidence) is just as crazy as saying it isn't. You're not arguing in good faith. You read books even the New York Times calls antisemitic, "The Holocaust Industry" case in point. I'm not saying you're a jew hater, you're not, which is why it's so upsetting to me that you're fond of reading books like "The Invention of the Jewish People" and "Ashkenazi Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Semitic Identity". It's a blind spot you need to address. You're a very smart guy, well-read, worldly, a veritable bibliophile. But your reading comprehension mysteriously fails you when it concerns the State of Israel. On your userpage you offer a netanyahu quote which you interpret in the exact opposite way it was intended. If you were taking an SAT, that's -1 point. You need to do some soul-searching. I certainly did. I used to think "From Time Immemorial" was meticulously researched scholarship and now I read Amos Oz (albeit with a healthy dose of cynicism). Try reading a book like "Jews, God, and History" for a change. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Look at his last edit on the Wexler's own article. He takes a direct quote, and misrepresents it in his edit into 180degree opposite of what it means. That is more than disingenuous. More like sneaky tendentiousness.--Galassi (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Jews, God, and History by Dimont?? Oof! Would that be as reliable as a People Magazine article on Jennifer Aniston? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's a critically acclaimed classic of Jewish studies. What's wrong with you?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi I don't think he'd be deceptive deliberately, it's not his character. But I agree the Wexler article needs a bit of fine-tuning.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Stepping aside of the personal attack, the book is feel-good patriotism, not serious history. It is a puff piece. Americans are familiar with fact-free Americana, and that book is of the same order. Spoiler alert: George Washington did not confess to chopping down a cherry tree. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(Says the person who thinks "Zeitgeist" is serious history.) The book is meant to summarize 3000 years of history in a way readers can relate to emotionally. That's why it's called "popular history", that extra pathos gives it a broader appeal. In that regard it's more similar to Wiesel's Night than the Vrba–Wetzler report. It's disgusting to compare it to the cherry tree nonsense. I don't want Nish to read a book that takes a detached approach to its subject. It's written from a pro-Jewish perspective, that's the whole point, I want to expand his horizons. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

With your second personal attack, you are definitely out of line. I will not be provoked. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ban Nishidani: The anti-Israel activist Nishidani is the one who should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0B:CA00:8D81:106:7F36:6C1C (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose banning Nishidani Someone has gone nuclear over a content dispute. (This comment is not related to the original complaint.) Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Questions: Galassi, first are you still topic banned from Ukrainian topics? If not, please see where the topic ban was lifted. Second, isn't Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry a violation of that topic ban? Talk:Khazars is clearly related to Ukraine. I'm not seeking to start an ARE report right now but if it's a topic ban violation, then this topic ban is superfluous since Galassi is already banned from the topic. It would be better to be honest and acknowledge this first. From there, we can have separate discussions about the conduct of other people and how to proceed so that the editing on that page is done in a productive manner for all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• The question is almost rhetorical. Most maps show the Khazarian Empire overlapping the modern nation of Ukrainia. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would say the answer is definitely "no": that was a completely different country, with a different territory, different in time, and populated by Turkic peoples who were also very different from Slavs in culture and language. The dispute is actually more related to ARBPIA. Of course Calassi could violate his topic ban by editing some other pages, but even if he did, no one objected per WP:IAR. If anyone considers his edits on Ukraine-related subjects disruptive and deserving a complaint, they should submit a request to WP:AE. However, this is moot at this point because I do not really see any recent and clearly disruptive violations by Galassi. P.S. A connection certainly exists (this country was at war with Kievan Rus'), but it would be too tentative. This is like sanctioning someone who has a topic ban on editing Russia because he edited Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually User:Ricky81682 and Grammar's Li'l Helper are certainly correct. Galassi is banned from Ukraine-related articles. The History of Ukraine Template has been on the Khazars page for a decade, since every history of the Ukraine deals with the Khazars in the formative age. Both the articles on Ukraine and History of Ukraine dedicate space to the Khazars since the Khazar empire’s northern wing gave rise to the ‘powerful state of Kievan Rus' forming the basis of Ukrainian identity’. Any history of the Ukrainian capital Kiev will include extensive discussions of the Khazars. User:Sandstein confirmed Galassi’s original ban stating:’ I am of the opinion that an appropriate reaction to this violation would be to ban Galassi indefinitely from editing anything related to Ukraine.’ Anything related to the Ukraine includes its early history. The Khazars are a key theme in standard academi c descriptions of the early history of the Ukraine. E.g.

• Paul R. Magocs, A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, University of Toronto Press 2010 pp.37ff., 48ff.p.50.

‘Living in the protective shadow of the pax Chazarica, the Slavic tribes on the Ukrainian lands were spared for a while the worst nomadic invasions from the east,m and, as a result, between the seventh and ninth centuries they were able to expand their agricultural and trading activities.

‘The appearance of the Khazars in the seventh century proved to be of great significance for the developments in eastern Europe and in Ukraine in particular.p.37

• Alexander Basilevsky pp.83ff. Early Ukraine: A Military and Social History to the Mid-19th Century, McFarland, 2016 pp.83ff.
• W. E. D. Allen The Ukraine, Cambridge University Press, 2014 pp.9ff.
• Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, Basic Books, 2015 pp.18ff.
• Anatoly M. Khazanov, ‎Andre Wink (eds.) Nomads in the Sedentary World, Routledge 2012 p 90, pp.86ff.

The Germany/Russia analogy doesn't work. Germany existed independently of Russia, which emerged many centuries later. All sources note that the Khazar empire extended into Ukrainian lands, whose polities took over some Khazar institutions. There is a nationalistic rift in the way Russian and Ukrainian scholars interpret the 'identity' of the Eastern Slavic peoples under the Khazars, and as they emerged to defeat the latter. But neither school denies that the Khazars foreshadowed the emerging Slavic states, and influenced them.

As to behavioural patterns, with regard to these two contiguous article

• Khazars

I made 408 edits (8.43% of the total edits made to the page). I basically rewrote it top to bottom over 4 years, after finding this mess. The result has found consistent consensual backing by several other editors on that page. Extensive talk page comments.

40 edits by Galassi on Khazars (0.83% of the total edits made to the page). 35 of these are reverts or mass removal of material. No notable talk page presence.

• Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

I made 62 edits over 2 and a half years, overwhelmingly consisting in the building up of sources and content. Extensive talk page comments.

Galassi has made 19 edits over 1 year 4 months of which 16 are reverts. Virtually no content added, only endorsements of prior versions. No relevant talk page comments.

I don’t own the page. But, given the construction of the history of the page, it is difficult to see how, now Galassi, by his reverting everything I added or tweaked to the page in the last month, I can ever return to that page confident that I have a right to be there. I repeat: his blanket reverting constitutes an effective ban on my presence there. By what authority? and, given that the Khazar story is related on all wiki Ukraine articles, why has Galassi been given permission to evade his ban, and edit here?Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Russian soldier's article

Alexander Prokhorenko meets notability rules. Another editor who is very disruptive and was obviouly wikihounding Mhhossein nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko.

I can't assume any good faith about this nomination, as FreeatlastChitchat is experienced user who have seen this. According to the nominator's ideology The only fault in this article is that the article was edited by Mhhossein, so I will take it to AFD as I am Free to do anything with Chit Chat.

The article was created by a new user from Sri Lanka. FreeatlastChitchat had no right to harass a new user to satisfy his long term goal to harass Mhhossein. Thank You for reading. --2A03:4A80:7:441:2066:60ED:1134:1A99 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is no disruptive editing going on in the article. If you wish to bring a behavioural issue to light, you will need to provide Diffs. Till then, goodbye. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I had checked yesterday that your last block was due to an WP:AE request filed by Mhhossein. Do you want to waste other editor's time by such reckless nomination? You assumed that Mhhossein created the page, but the page was actually created by a new user. Another question is, do you know what a user should do before nominating an article for AFD? Others check for notability, search for reliable sources if the new editor missed something, while you check your rival editor's contributions. If you don't know the process of how to do google to check for references, then you have no right to make any AFD nomination. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:49BF:DD9C:3BF5:686E (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem here is not regarding your 'disruptive editing' on that article rather the OP is mentioning your hounding behavior. I can provide diffs showing your blatant harassment and hounding on multiple pages in spite of being warned against that, at admin's request. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as Keep with no Delete votes. It was an unsuccessful proposal and Mhhossein was just one editor who was working on this article. Do you have other evidence of harassment because this isn't very convincing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was nominated as Mhhossein edited the article. If such behaviour is allowed then I have no problem . User A can hound user B and nominate for AFD. Then we have to clap. Do you care about the type of introduction User talk:Muvindu Perera got in Wikipedia?2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is convincing evidence. Of course there is convincing evidence. Admins must always believe the statement of an unregistered editor that another editor is disruptive. Oh, wait a minute. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Just filing an AFD that was closed as Keep isn't harassment. You say that you can provide diffs. Then do so, or a boomerang block is in order for disruptive claims or disruption.

The page creator, who is a new editor from Sri Lanka was not harassed? There was not a single delete vote in that AFD as the nominator didn't check the notability before nominating the article. Sorry, I forgot, "Registered users can make trigger happy nomination to scare new editors like Muvindu Perera." And nobody actually cares whether this new editor will ever get any welcome message. As he hasn't got till now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muvindu_Perera 2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Liz: Thanks for your intervention. Freeatlast's behaviroal issues are more than just hounding and I can show you this at your request. Anyway, regarding his hounding, on same cases he was disguised as a normal and good faith editor such as here and here where he was using a very bad language and was clearly hounding me (see the article talk page history), or here where he jumped into the discussion after his seven day block. You can clearly see his clear hounding here where he caused harassment. See his edit here and tell me if it's anything other than hounding and harassment. You can also add his harassments here where he hounded me and got a warning for his bad tone from an uninvolved editor. Also his awkward AFD nominations of my articles had been a question for other editors (see [18], [19], [20]) and I had asked him to be careful about his nominations. These where what I remembered. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have presented like 12 interactions in past 6 months (The majority of which are those where other editors agree with me). This equates to like 2 interactions per month, which is infinitesimally small for editors who are editing in the same genre. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it shows you had been hounding me at least for past 6 months. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ping @Liz: to see if she is willing to let us know about her feedback. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory

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

---

It would be good if an admin or two could try to get User:E.M.Gregory's BLP violations under control at some point so that they can't make anymore without getting blocked e.g. [21][22][23][24] (the last diff is also an example of blatant source falsification by the way). Just in case anyone thinks this is simply a decent human reacting to racism, it's not. This is someone who said of Regavim (NGO), an Israeli organization whose raison d’etre, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, is to force the Israeli state to speed up/increase home demolitions and forced relocations of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Bedouin in the Israeli Negev[25] - "This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves". So, E.M.Gregory's ability to perceive and react to what they regard as racism seems to be dependent on the ethnicity of the target and the degree to which they criticize the actions of the State of Israel. There is no point in me trying to get them to stop because they regard me as one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", well, that and the fact that I think they should have been topic banned from making ARBPIA related edits long ago because, to put it simply, their personal views mean that they will do harm. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Their recent contributions to Talk:Ken Livingstone, which have involved repeatedly making potentially libellous accusations against the individual in question, have similarly been pretty unconstructive. I'm not sure if that warrants action but if it is part of a wider problem then maybe it does need to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• All these diff are related to a couple of notable controversies that are already described on the corresponding pages [26]. This is something well sourced, and discussion on article talk pages should not be a problem. If anyone has BLP concerns, please post it on WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these controversies should be mentioned in the article, but whether it is a breach of BLP to say of someone described by the local Rabbi as "a friend of the Jews" that she is motivated by "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is she? I do not know, but there are multiple publications about it (like here) and a notable controversy and resignation. Not an obvious BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the very article in which Rabbi Leavor describes Shah as "a friend of the Jews". Whatever one's view of her reported comments and actions, it is a far (and BLP-breaching) stretch from that to "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect My very best wishes, I don't think this is good advice or an appropriate and effective response to BLP violations. I'm not here for advice anyway, I'm requesting admin action. These diffs appear to be unambiguous BLP violations by a Wikipedia editor that accuse living people of "race-hatred of Jews" and "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians". The source is E.M.Gregory's mind and they are expressing their personal views. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to hold any view they like and regardless of any of our opinions about the merits of the views the editor is not allowed to violate BLP by expressing it on talk pages or via article content. When an editor makes a habit of violating BLP something should presumably be done to prevent it happening again. What is going to be done? Something or nothing? If nothing is going to done, that's okay, but I would like confirmation from one or more admins because they are the only people who can ensure that a BLP violation has a cost for an editor who violates BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that relevant portion of the policy is Public figures. The essence of the claim was reliably sourced, belongs to the page and already included. The only question is about wording used during the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is about the behavior of editors, one in particular. It's not about what should or should not be included in the articles based on reliably sourced information. If you ignore the fact that the editor accused a Swedish politician of "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" in an article apparently based on nothing, then sure, it's then just about wording used during discussion and whether it's okay for editors to use talk pages to refer to a living person's "race-hatred of X" as a statement of fact because to them it is a fact, while to RS-world it is an opinion. If that kind of behavior is acceptable then let Wikipedia say that it is acceptable and we can all benefit from that freedom of expression. If it's not acceptable then there should be a cost associated with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Sean here. It is important that admins make it clear as to whether measures will be brought against E. M. Gregory or not. At present we are simply left in limbo, unsure of quite how to respond to their recurring BLP violations on a variety of different pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If this user makes "BLP violations on a variety of different pages", one should provide a lot more diffs to prove this point. I can agree that four diffs in the beginning of the thread do not look good, however given that people he mentioned have been accused of antisemitism in multiple RS, retired because of the public scandal(s), and that antisemitism can be viewed as a variety of racism, these four diffs do not really look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is

• the acceptable number of BLP violations for any given editor is precisely zero
• it is not possible to provide a number that represents the limit that separates an acceptable number of BLP violations from an unacceptable number of BLP violations or a valid method to derive that number that remains consistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what should be done. I agree that these are (a) BLP violation and (b) pointless and largely useless comments made on talk pages. It's basically the equivalent of saying "there's a POV problem with the article" on each talk page. Now misrepresenting a source is another big no-no. Would a topic ban on the I-P issue be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? My edit about Regavim, made on the talk page of Susya, here: [27] is a paraphrase of the organization's mission statement. It is not a "misrepresentation" of any source. The discussion amounts to a difference of perspective, as is true on the talk pages of many human rights organizations. Frankly, what I remember about that particular, extensive, warlike debate over a minor article is that I walked away from the topic out of distaste for the aggressive POV-pushing. Sadly, the article is still tagged for POV a year later, probably because neutral editors are driven away from the topic area. Nasty, aggressive, POV editing of the type exhibited on that page is one of the most serious problems Wikipedia has. Dragging editors who dip so much as a toe into the Middle East to this page is part of the problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The error I did commit was in regard to the resignation of a Swedish cabinet minister who was forced to resign not, as I misstated, because he called on Turks to murder Armenians, but, rather, because he was linked to a militant organization (Grey Wolves (organization)) that advocates (and acts) on such such calls. Error now corrected. Error-free editing is, of course, impossible, but I think my record can stand up to scrutiny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to say "the allegations of anti-Semitism against X deserve space in the article", but not "X's aggressive race hatred of Jews deserves space in the article". You may think that X is anti-Semitic - that is fine - but keep such thoughts to yourself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, well said.

• E.M.Gregory, if you had kept your personal views off the talk pages and edited more carefully to avoid accusing a living person of something they did not do, there would be no ANI report. The cesspool-like nature of anything remotely ARBPIA related in Wikipedia is caused by people doing things they are not supposed to do, things that are more easily not done than done. I reported you because you are part of the problem, you are making things worse not better, you don't seem to care and you need to stop. If you had said something about a vile human being like Eustace Mullins having a race hatred of Jews no one would care apart from delusional neo-Nazis. But what you are doing will always get someone's attention because your actions will look like BLP violations to many people. It's good to see that you corrected your errors at Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice about Mehmet Kaplan to switch from direct guilt to guilt by association, which I suppose is an improvement, but I think you are targeting those articles because of Kaplan's views about the Israel-Palestine conflict and that your edits are colored by your views. Is that not the case? Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.
• Can you and will you make an effort to ensure that your personal views do not color your selection and editing of articles so that your actions are consistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE?
• Can you and will you keep your personal views about the real world to yourself when participating in discussions to the extent that you do not violate BLP? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Outsider Note: I will comment later on the concerns brought up - but I want to point out that the few times I crossed lines with the nominator Sean.hoyland it did appear to me that he/she edits articles very pro Palestinian. I especially noticed this when a disruptive IP randomly canvased the nominator Sean.hoyland (among others) into an article in order to assist in posting negative material on a Pro Israeli minister. At one time (a while back) I remember the nominator was repeatedly advocating (Changed to:) appeared to be siding with a group of users who were dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP - all while the subject of the article was undergoing court proceedings and a trial. I must point out that the nominator is much more civil and honest than many other users in this area. However this should be taken into consideration if the motive behind this is to mute and remove an editor due to conflicting POV - especially since both of these editors have been edit warring reverting against each other. Caseeart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to include the diff where I told the IP they were not allowed to edit the article[28], told you that that it is not possible to violate 1RR by reverting the IP because of the 500/30 rule (User_talk:Number_57#Canvasing) i.e. the edit warring report the IP filed was merit-less and did not edit the article or participate in the discussion to which I was canvassed. I don't know who or what "At one time the nominator was repeatedly advocating dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP" is referring to. If you make statements like that about editors you should have the integrity to include evidence. The only BLP related discussion I have been involved in recently is Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_20_April_2016 which doesn't match your description. Also, I don't edit war, I stop edit warring. Almost all of my edits are reactive nowadays. If they look "pro-Palestinian" that's because most of the disruption is by editors who presumably consider themselves "pro-Israel". Almost every edit I make nowadays is to a) enforce the 500/30 rule because extended confirmed protection has not been implemented across the topic area or b) address the actions of socks/editors who are making things worse rather than better or c) ensure editors follow WP:BRD in ARBPIA. When the disruption stops or when it is all handled by extended confirmed protection and smart bots, I will stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I do not mean to say in any way that you violated any rules. I thus did not feel the need to leave any diffs. On the contrary when the IP "tried" to canvass you to assist in posting negative material on an Israeli minister, you (unlike others) fully followed the rules and even warned the ip which shows a degree of integrity. I just counted that incident as additional evidence that non involved users also view you as pro Palestinian. (I won't go off topic introduce diffs of an old BLP discussion, and I also changed "warring" to "reverting").

Now, in the Israeli Palestinian conflict it often it ends up that whichever side has the majority of votes gets their way - a concern was brought up in one of the arbitration committees (I can't seem to find it) that Pro Israeli editors are routinely banned or topic banned thus leaving the Pro Palestinian side with the majority. (Assumingly because pro Israeli editors don't follow the rules or as I experienced - also because they are strictly scrutinized and more often reported by pro Palestinian editors - [I rarely edit this topic but I encountered a case where no one bothered investigating or blocking an (alleged) pro Palestinian editor who edited under an ip (sock puppet) to call E.M.Gregory a "fucking moron" [29] [30]- Just imagine if this sockpuppet ip instead would have been a pro Israeli editor.......]). I am pointing out that this may be the motive here. CaseeArt (^Talk 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<- I see. Thank you for the clarification. What is my motive? Actually it doesn't matter. What matters is whether a rule has been broken by an editor, and if so, what can be done to prevent it being broken again. My intention is fully described in this ANI report and I have tried to ensure that my personal view of this editor, my bias in other words, is included because I'm not an uninvolved observer by any means. Rules are being broken all the time so why report this editor now? The BLP violations were the last straw. To see why they were the last straw, here are all of my interactions with E.M.Gregory since they started editing. I have limited patience with editors who bring what I regard as divisive ethno-nationalist irrationality and aggressive edit warring to articles and talk pages because they just don't seem to care about WP:NOTADVOCATE.

• The first time I noticed the editor was when they made the statement about Regavim (NGO) that I mentioned in the initial comment[31], one of the more extraordinary statements I have read on a talk page in ARBPIA. My immediate impression was that a person who expressed support for an organization whose activities seemed indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing-lite, as far as I could tell, was probably going to start fires.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing - [32][33] - Commented at AfD because, in my view, E.M.Gregory used "a fatally flawed and fundamentally unethical approach to sample information spaces in order to frame and spotlight (or perhaps curate is a better word in E.M.Gregory's case) specific cases, but ignore others"

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing - [34][35] - Commented at AfD because of E.M.Gregory's apparently unhealthy focus on ethnicity and "willful disregard for mandatory neutrality by using indefensible methods to frame and build articles". That article started a fire in ARBPIA.

• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - [36][37][38][39] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• B'Tselem - [40][41][42][43] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• J Street - [44][45][46] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Those seem to be mostly edit disagreements between E.M.Gregory and Sean.hoyland. CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why someone brought up motives, of users, but yes, I know Sean Hoyland is 100% pro-Palestinian, but I haven't found him to be posting against policy. I've dealt with him in the past and when facts are brought up, it's Okey-Dokey, not an edit war. So we should stick to what is on hand and not about users. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Asking why motives are brought up? Once it's established that the possible motive behind this ANI is that a pro Palestinian editor is advocating to ban another pro Israeli editor from editing Palestinian Israeli conflict articles (in order to maintain a majority lead), now we could assess the validity of the case.

  Now in response to the case: When one of the most respected editors on pro Palestinian side was blocked for serious personal attacks, and soon after they sockpuppted under an ip to call E.M.Georgery a "fucking moron" (see my diffs)- and many many more such instances - this seriously disrupts Wikipedia but no one bothered to take action. On the other hand, a few times of E.M.Gregory's choice of wording on the article 'talk page' "Article needs coverage of X's aggressove, race-hatred of Jews." without using words like "alleged" or "possible" - is a lesser problem that does not need ANI - You could respond on the article talk page. A warning at most. (Note: I just moved this comment up because previously I did not realize that Ricky81682 is an admin comming to resolve issue) CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can we stay on point here? E.M.Gregory, can you understand why (a) it's not helpful; and (b) it's a BLP violation to go to a talk page and say (without including a source) "hey, why aren't we calling this person this in the article"? It doesn't even matter if the name-calling is appropriate, if your only comment is to suggest name-calling without citing a source, it's inappropriate and frankly a useless comment on a talk page. Is the possibility that no one has found a reliable source for the subject possible? I know so much of the joy of the IP conflict is that everyone assumes the opposing side is busily working to do whatever but if you came to the talk page and said "hey, we are missing this issue, here are some sources about it, people would care a lot less (assuming we are talking good quality independent reliable sources). You want to fight about whether that representation is true, good, take it to the talk page but I don't care about that, I first care if you are going to be going around to talk page just posting "hey, why don't we talk about X in this article?" as if that is a useful use of other people's time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The diffs shown in the OP are totally unacceptable and the solution is simple—an uninvolved admin should topic ban E.M.Gregory per WP:ARBPIA. That particularly applies now that the editor has had an opportunity to show they understand the issue. The fact that an IP has been trolling an editor is unrelated to the diffs, and there should be no further dodging of the issues raised in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand what I wrote about the IP. I was presenting evidence that the motive behind the nominator reporting "pro Israeli" editors may be so that Pro Palistinian editors remain the majority, and that it would be unfair and nonconstructive to the articles of this topic if you topic ban this editor (there are almost non Pro Israeli editors left). The user being reported has completed over 12,000 edits and has a clear history with no blocks. I also hope the administrator understands that E.M. Gregory has not got a single warning on his/her talk page about this whole issue, and that a "topic ban" is similar to a full ban from from wikipedia because most of E.M.Gregory's edits are on this topic. Give a warning and it will probably not continue. In either case E.M. Gregory has not logged in yet and has not even had a chance yet to respond to Ricky81682. CaseeArt (^Talk 08:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• This restored a blatant BLP violation, claiming that a named living person advocated violent attacks on Armenians when the source said no such thing. Calling it both well-sourced and significant when reverting a removal that specifically calls out WP:BLP, which I note says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. is a violation of both WP:BLP and basic common sense. This is typical of this users work here. nableezy - 18:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that it is indeed an outrageous BLP-violation; E.M. Gregory writes "due to his advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" ...which is absolutely not in the source. However, the source is in Swedish (yes; I can read it), can E.M. Gregory even read the source? (Not that it is any excuse if he cannot.) Huldra (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Request block of User:Caseeart

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

---

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

For months now, Caseeart has been obsessed with me. They have been accusing me of sockpuppetting since September.[47]][48] Despite being told by many editors that I had done nothing wrong, they filed a sockpuppet report against me. When that didn't go their way, they brought a complaint here. They were told to drop the stick. Instead, they attacked me above—repeating the disproven lie that I had socked—and didn't notify me.[49][50]

Since Caseeart was told they were "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG", I request that they be blocked for their recent behavior here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to change the story. Every report that I made was valid and well documented and another administrator might even decide to block you now WP:BOOMERANG.

• Sockpuppeting See Sockpuppet investigations/Malik_Shabazz the clerk administrator actually agreed it was a valid sock-puppet investigation and that Shabbazz was using 66.87.114.76, 107.10.236.42, 66.87.114.248, 63.116.31.198 for edit warring and personal attacks.

The only reason they did not block Shabbazz was because it was "a few months back". But the purpose of a sockpuppet report is also for the record (as you will see below).

• DOPPELGÄNGER account The admins also agreed that the account User:MShabazz is not allowed to be a WP:DOPPELGÄNGER account and they asked Shabazz to change it [51] - because it he/she uses it to edit, and "Such accounts should not be used for editing". Shabbazz did not listen until another administrator went onto Shabbazz's page and changed it [52].

• Previous ANI for "apparent personal attacks by Shabbazz" Let me explain why my ANI was valid. At the sockpuppet investigation - an administrator advised me me about reporting the personal attacks (from the ip's) at ANI which I did. I did not correctly present the case and did not show the list of all the history of personal attacks. -Not everyone bothers looking into all of Shabbazz's history and all the diffs therefore it did not end in a block.

Shabbazz repeatedly laughed at my writing skills:

• "I'm sorry it took you half an hour...I hope your reading skills improve."[53]
• "Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read"[54]

Here is the list of attacks on other users (I believe that all these were aimed at pro Israeli editors - all within a few days and this brought to Shabbazz's block) See this ANIand this ANI

• "suck my dick, ass hole"[55][56]
• "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?"[57]

Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is [sic] you want, I won't".

• "You can suck my dick, too, asshole" [58]
• "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia?"[59]
• "As much fun as it's been, sonny boy, I'm going to bid you adieu."[60]
• This deleted edit summary I think Shabbazz was calling a user "sick in the head"[61]
• deleted personal attack

After Shabbazz was blocked - it was established by the clerk (because of the valid sockpuppet investigation) that he/she appeared to be editing under these IP's and went on with the attacks:

• 66.87.114.76 "fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template"[62]
• 63.116.31.198 "So shove your threat to block me up your ass." [63][64]
• Was my ANI really invalid??

• Above ANI on E.M.Gregory: IP 66.87.114.76 (which was determined to be Shabbazz as mentioned earlier) attacked User:E.M.Gregory and called them a "fucking moron"[65]. This is very relevant to the above discussion since Sean.Hoyland particularly used this diff to report E.M. Gregory calling Hoyland and Shabbaz POV pushers. It was important to show both sides of the story that Shabbazz also attacked E.M. Gregory. But still I deliberately did not name Shabbazz a single time in the ANI in order not to further take the report off track and not to revert the report onto a Shabbazz discussion. (I obviously had no intention at all of reporting Shabbazz - a single diff without name mention - I doubt anyone could even find that diff now).

• Today's attack Shabbazz just called me a "persistent edit warrior"[66] without providing any evidence. In fact Shabbazz did not respond on the article talk page for a few days [67]. It thus appeared that Shabbazz agreed/left the dispute. I therefore addressed his/her concerns and fixed the edit (to my ability and understanding) and put it back in the article - that is in no way or form edit warring (let me know if I am wrong). (Just now, AFTER Shabbazz again |reverted my edit without responding to our talk page discussion - finally after the revert, another user joined in and responded).

I am finally starting to understand why almost all Pro Israeli editors eventually get banned. I never edited the subject and only recently I was pulled in trying to fix something else. All of the sudden I begin getting warnings and I get reported. Something really needs to be done but this is not the place to discuss.

My Statement: I am not aware of the meaning of "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG" I don't understand the words "three microns" and I tried to clarify in this discussion[68] but did not get a response.

I was never blocked and I have no intentions of breaking rules. If an admin determines that I acted inappropriately in any way- please let me know and I will cease to do so, and if necessary will cease to engage in any discussion with Shabbazz for a set period of time and never talk about this issue again.

I will not be available for a while - if any action will be taken (other than closure or warning) please wait until I am back.CaseeArt ^Talk 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a TL;DR acknowledgement that competence is required and you lack competence. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

After this is over I will be taking a short break from editing wikipedia.

Will anyone do anything about the gruesome personal attacks? The first wave of attacks resulted in Blocks for Shabazz and triggered an Arb Comminttee meeting resulting in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 - very strict rules regarding the Israeli Palistinian articles.

All that did not help, because Shabazz just took it a step further and began Personal attacks against pro Israeli editors using ip addresses (in addition to the attacks on me lately). Does anyone have any solution? CaseeArt (^Talk 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Caseeart: It is very simple: your last SPI against Malik was closed. Please don't keep alleging that Malik engaged in sock-puppeting. If you want to pursue it, the appropriate venue is SPI. I also don't see why you bring MShabazz into a totally unrelated dispute. You seem to view everything through the lens of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian". We all have POV, but that does not mean everything we do is determined by our POV. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian Contrary to Shabazz's claim, Last sockpuppet report did confirm that Shabbazz was using IP addresses for edit warring and personal attacks. Also read my response - I did not try to bring him into any dispute I presented a mere diff as evidence to the case. CaseeArt ^Talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Caseeart: I will not be diverted into a discussion about the merits of the SPI case. It was closed, that's all that matters. If you want to pursue it, open another case at SPI. Or if you want an ANI case against MShabazz, open a separate case here; don't bring him up in a totally unrelated dispute. Keep your allegations about sockpuppeting to yourself in the meantime. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian Let me clarify: I was not trying to pursue any case against anyone in any way shape or form, not ANI and not SPI. There is no point of a duplicate SPI - Clerk already warned Shabbaz to stop. I did not metion Shabazz name anywhere, and the Diff was for evidence purposes only. (And if was a mistake on my part to present the "diff" - then let let me be notified (preferably by an admin) that this SPI case is not allowed to be mentioned). CaseeArt ^Talk 05:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed this discussion and promoted it a level. I thought it was related to the prior discussion, which Caseeart tried to turn into a discussion about me -- despite being told to drop the stick and without notifying me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given that you opened this section accusing them of telling a 'lie' that you socked - when you were using both a doppelganger account and IP's to sock, its a bit rich to complain about them dropping the stick and making it about you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Which parts of WP:SOCK and WP:STICK are unclear to you? I never violated SOCK. Caseeart can say it as often as they'd like, but wishing won't make it so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:SOCK actually. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." - you were using multiple accounts and IP addresses for an improper purpose. Specifically logging out and edit warring with IP addresses is covered by the following paragraph where it says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". From the sockpuppet investigation I will quote Vanjagenije directly: "Shabazz was using IPs to edit-war and for personal attacks." You were socking by the explicit definition as per WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

For the record

This is to let you know that I have issued a formal warning to Py0alb in respect of his general conduct on the site, specifically a blatant personal attack. I am not requesting any administrative action at present as I would like to see if the warning has the desired effect first, but I would like it noted that I have felt it necessary to take this action. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this in relation to something else here? I don't care but a little context would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its in relation to this unprovoked personal attack here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=718296213&oldid=708946288

to which I responded with support for HappyWaldo in a constructive manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=next&oldid=718296213

This followed the makings of an edit-war, in which Black Jack refused to follow BRD protocol and left aggressive and threatening edit summaries, see here for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=718298414&oldid=718281906

Happy Waldo then attempted to diffuse the situation by opening discussions on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718345167&oldid=718244463

He also requested my input on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718416782&oldid=702399308

So I commented in a constructive manner here, addressing Jack's refusal to follow protocl: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424370&oldid=718422779

and tried to move the discussion onto more constructive ground here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424979&oldid=718424370

In response to this, BlackJack then posted an unwarranted and unprovoked "warning" on my talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718566617&oldid=718416782

and I replied patiently and constructively on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackJack&diff=718573957&oldid=718040219

For the record, the motivation behind this attack on myself may be related to a previous disagreement over the validity of the term "major cricket", in which BlackJack lost the argument as the consensus view agreed with my post. I will let you judge for yourself whether that is or is not relevant.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket_(2nd_nomination) and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_cricket

Also note that this isn't the first time he has started an ANI against myself (the previous time he repeatedly begged for me to be blocked, but admin sensibly ignored this), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=701294918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also very much worth noting that at no point has BlackJack alerted me to the presence of this ANI against me despite the big "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" sign above. For an editor of his experience, it would be surprising if this was an accidental oversight.

Py0alb (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are the one who made the personal attack, not Py0alb. And you need to try to explain your edit-warring at Cricket, because the boomerang may be about to hit someone. Katie^talk 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow--if this is the edit that started all of this, yeah, that's a pretty blatant personal attack on the part of BlackJack. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Katie and Drmies. Yes, I'm very much aware of the WP:BOOMERANG risk when reporting a problem and I accept that my initial message to Happy Waldo could have been worded better. Drmies, you need to go back a bit to this substantial edit by me which was the beginning of a, shall we say, WP:BOLD initiative to improve the key article in WP:CRIC which has fallen over the years from FA right back to start-class. In short, "Cricket" is in a bit of a state and needs a complete overhaul, preferably by an experienced editor who has a thorough knowledge of the subject. If you check my contribs history, I think you'll agree that I qualify, although there are some people at CRIC who are even more qualified, given that my speciality is cricket history rather than cricket the game. You will see in the edit summary that I said: "extensive revision commenced", which means exactly what it says. Anyone who was curious about my intentions for this long-neglected article, or anyone who doubted my credentials, had only to visit my talk page and ask me what I was doing. I would have happily explained.

Instead, Happy Waldo summarily reverted a large chunk of my input without discussion. He is not a very experienced editor and I think this is the only cricket article he has previously edited, and then not much. He said in his summary that my changes should be "discussed per BRD". I disagree with that as reverting an obviously genuine and extensive piece of work is not the first course of action. He should have contacted me directly or via the article's talk page to ask what I intended, especially as by then I had already made considerable changes to the article. In his next edit, a minor one, he said in the summary: "some of these recent edits are troubling". Okay, so ask me about them. When I came back to the article, I restored my work and commented that it is "Work in progress; later sections will be edited out", given that he seemed to be concerned about temporary duplication of some content. Again, if he had a problem, he should have consulted me but he chose to revert everything again and said, somewhat rudely, I thought: "then work on it in a sandbox". Well, sorry, but with my knowledge and experience I know what I am doing and I would soon have finished the initial phase of my task, which would have included editing out the temporary duplication (i.e., existing sections and sub-sections which largely need removing or at least drastically reducing). I was annoyed about being summarily reverted twice without any polite enquiry as to my intentions and so I "had words" with Happy Waldo who, for all I knew, might have been a troll. Subsequently, it became apparent that Happy Waldo is a bona fide editor with good intentions but perhaps misguided due to his relative inexperience. We have had talk page communication since then (noticeably ignored by Py0alb above) and we have agreed a way forward for the article's rescue: see this from him to me and this from me to him which were the last contacts we have had as I have been unavailable for the last couple of days. So, yes, we had a bit of a row and I perhaps over-reacted but I could see my genuine attempt at rescuing that article lurching towards a 3RR fiasco if Happy Waldo had reverted a third time. Anyway, and again this is omitted from Py0alb's "description of events", I had already apologised to HW and things have been fine since then.

Right, I accept that my first post to HW was out of order because the "red mist" descended and I retaliated to a double revert that seemed to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and possibly trolling. You now have the full story which provides you with Py0alb's omissions. Taking a step back, however, I would accept that I deserve a warning and maybe even a short-term suspension. In football terms, a yellow card or a red card. If it's a yellow, then please place a suitable warning on my talk page. Unlike the numerous warnings posted to Py0alb's talk page, it will not be summarily deleted and ignored (see below). Any such warning will stay on my page. If you choose a red card, then I'll take that on the chin and come back whenever the suspension ends. Please let me know.

Now I come to Py0alb. This individual has made only 670 edits in over five years and yet he has been hauled before ANI on more than one occasion before this; he has been reported to ANEW and given a formal warning about his conduct; he has been found guilty of blatant copyright violation and given a final warning about his conduct; he has had several warnings posted on his talk page and has summarily blanked and ignored all of them; and, interestingly, he has even been reported to SPI on the basis of certain sock-like comments and behaviour but no sockmaster could be identified.

There are two things I would say about his above input: he is "always the victim"; and what he doesn't say is rather more significant than what he does say.

I did report him to ANI in January for his confrontational and disrespectful attitude before and during the major cricket AfD. He has not mentioned above that he breached process more than once: e.g., reinstating a prod that had been challenged and refusing to proceed to AfD; blanking the article he wanted to delete and making a ridiculous "ban" threat; edit warring; trying to mislead inexperienced contributors in the AfD by stating that only online citations are relevant and not those in "some book that someone once read"; voting twice in the Afd; and generally failing to observe AfD protocol and due process such that, at one point, the admin Bbb23 felt bound to remove a personal attack by him. Py0alb says above that he won the AfD but that is a lie because it was, rightly enough, a "no consensus". He fails to mention that, afterwards, three or four of us in WP:CRIC agreed that "major cricket" is a term not really used widely enough as yet because, unlike "first-class cricket", it is not officially defined. We effectively decided that the article was premature, a bit like creating an article about the 2036 English cricket season, so we decided to do a merger with another article. Py0alb also fails to mention that I fully acquiesced in this decision and performed the redirect, despite my support for the article hitherto, and I personally went around all the articles with links to major cricket and altered the links: see my contribs or check the links and here is one example. As for the ANI in January, the admins made their decision not to block him, despite some significant criticism of him by certain admins (which he has not mentioned above). I accepted the ANI decision, I did not make any protest and I moved on.

After I got annoyed with Happy Waldo and sent my angry message to him as explained above, I was astonished to see Py0alb intervening with what amounts to incitement and at the same time a personal attack directed at me. This was obviously done out of spite after the ANI in January because the issue was none of his business and he is not an admin who would have had the right to step in and calm things down. Instead, he attempted to inflame the situation by inciting Happy Waldo into raising an ANI about me. That would have been for Happy Waldo to decide and it is not for Py0alb to try and push him into something he might not wish to do. Py0alb adds: "I think the majority of the cricket portal (sic) would support you". Would they, now? Can he name one single member of WP:CRIC who would come forward and denounce me, which is what he means? Of course not. I accept that some of them might have suggested to me that I talk to Happy Waldo and, as I mentioned above but Py0alb did not, I have already apologised and we have moved on. I would say that two members of CRIC at least are close friends, in as much as you can have online friends, and with virtually all the others (i.e., the ones who contribute often and whom I "know" reasonably well), my relationship is cordial and, often, co-operative. Py0alb's "opinion" of my standing at CRIC is a lie deliberately intended to damage my reputation on the site, which is why I see his post as a personal attack directed at me, clearly out of spite because I justifiably raised an ANI about him four months ago.

There is also this message to Happy Waldo after I had issued my warning to Py0alb. You will see that he is effectively repeating (and twisting) what I have said to him, which is interesting for reasons I won't go into at this stage and it is nonsense. His idea of a "polite comment" is hardly normal given that it directly attacks another person; he talks about my "constant aggression and antagonism" and says I am not "WP:competent". Can I please see some examples of this constant aggression as there must, perforce, be thousands of them given that I have done way over 60k edits; and, as I'm always willing to learn, can I please see some examples of my incompetence too? Py0alb has himself been told both here and here, for example that he is incompetent in matters of WP standard procedures and protocol.

Am I justified in issuing a warning to Py0alb? I think so, not just because he has made a personal attack on this occasion but because it is yet another incident in an ongoing saga. Remember that this is an account with only 670 edits and yet there have been several complaints about him. A superficial look at his talk page doesn't reveal anything because all the warnings have been blanked out, but they are there in the history. Here are some examples: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], this, which was effectively a final warning, this, which was a final warning following an ANEW case and this immediate removal of the final warning by Py0alb.

Isn't that rather excessive for someone with only 670 edits? Is he "always the victim"? Is there smoke without fire?

Let me know if you have any questions but please note I am not available much nowadays. I did "retire" a couple of months ago but have found I can still spare some time for WP so I am actually "semi-retired". Jack | ^{talk page} 19:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy wall of text redux. Conciseness. Find some, please, 'cause this is waaayy too long. Lemme see if I get it: you did the 'bold' part of WP:BRD, you were reverted, and then you wanted the reverter to be the one to initiate and do all the discussing. It doesn't work that way. The burden is on you as the editor who added the content to source your edits. Then I get something something about the absolute audacity of someone with "only 670 edits" to participate in these discussions because he was warned for edit warring three years ago and something something else 670 edits. Oh, and 670 edits. Would somebody else read this and correct me, because my eyes are glazed over. Katie^talk 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless another admin wants to get involved, I suggest we just forget the whole thing and move on. In fact, I will move on. What a waste of time, as usual. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Drmies at their talk page

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

---

@Drmies:, with whom I have had a dispute with regarding Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, is harassing me at their talk page. Their content removal at Cheryl Fernandez-Versini didn't appear constructive to me, and the edit summaries seemed quite vague. I restored the removed content and left a {{Uw-delete1}} on their talk page, and left me a sarcastic reponse ("Linguist, thank you for the nice template.") I removed that, but they reverted me, telling me to "buzz off". I understand that I may have made a mistake with the reverting of the content removal and the warning, but I will NOT tolerate being harassed or attacked on Wikipedia. Linguist 111^talk 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: First off, Drmies is an admin and on ArbCom, so any accusations you make are taken seriously. Second off, don't template the regulars. It's your fault that you didn't take it up with him yourself. TJH2018talk 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough on the article, you disagree and revert. This wasn't a mistake yet, just a dispute. Your first mistake, you template a regular breaking WP:DTTR. Then you delete content from Drmies on their own user page in violation of WP:USERTALK. You claim you're being harassed by them when it's YOU going to THEIR talk page. That's like claiming to be harassed by someone every fucking time you ring their doorbell. QUIT GOING TO HIS FUCKING HOUSE. You're the cause of your own problems. Then you create this thread which is going to WP:BOOMERANG hard on your ass. Best advice: run far away from this issue and never speak of it again. (This was the toned down version, the original version would've easily earned me a WP:NPA block).--v/r - TP 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, admin and all that has nothing to do with it. User thinks they can impose etiquette on me when they can't find the proper words to apologize for a silly template, that's all. Close with no admin (boomerang) action needed, please. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

DTTR is merely an essay. There's no reason to not template if someone's done something wrong and also, it's easier. It also depends whether you want to interact or not. I'm not saying anything about this dispute but DTTR in general. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• True. And some regulars need to be templated every now and then. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• The only clearly questionable action here is Linguist111's removal of content on Drmies' page. The only person who gets to remove content from Drmies' page is Drmies, unless you're self-reverting. pbp 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Self-reverting" And even then, the editor whose page it is can decide to un-revert, if they so desire. BMK (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by the user Oatitonimly

This editor seems to be determined to replace all mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to "Turkish invasion of Armenia." There is currently a requested move discussion started by them but they are trying to replace all mentions of Turkish American War in various articles with their preferred POV in the meantime.([75], [76],[77],[78] [79][80][81][82]) Worst of all they even tried to alter the posts of other editors on a talk page.

Tiptoethrutheminefield warned them about this but they seem to be continuing with deleting/replacing the mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to their preferred version as shown in above diffs. There is also evidence of canvassing, [83],[84] where they seem to be notifying the editors they think would support their proposed move. I think Oatitonimly is not here to build an encylopedia but rather to push an agenda, and I think this type of revisionism should not be tolerated. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't replace all, just some where I thought it necessary. There are multiple redirect links for a reason. Not all those edits are adding the alternate name, some I was removing things that simply didn't belong.[85][86] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[87]

He warned me the name were red links so I changed them to make them work. I notified Marshal because he had proposed a previous renaming discussion for the article similar to this, so I wanted to alert him. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You thought altering talk page posts of other editors by removing the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" was necessary? You also deleted it from see also sections of articles, those sections are for related topics which Turkish-Armenian war clearly was. Forgive me, but I find it hard to see your editing pattern anything but a campaign to remove all the references of "Turkish-Armenian war" from Wikipedia. I also recommend you read WP:CANVASS because notifying an editor because they share your goals on a matter is the definition of canvassing.Darwinian Ape ^talk 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oatitonimly keeps changing every article that has Turkish-Armenian War mentioned despite being warned and reported which is in fact is nothing less than vandalism, to add insult to injury they are edit warring to keep their changes and claim vandalism in their edit summaries just look at the contribs of the editor, there is nothing but disruptive editing, which is hard to keep up. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are they? if to look on Oatitonimly last edits, he is reverting the same ip 95.208.241.193 which seems to be backed by you like here [88][89] etc. And it is a clear case of content dispute so please assume good faith and don't call it a vandalism. Lkahd (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I use they as a gender-neutral pronoun as it's common in wikipedia. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Also, WP:NOTSUICIDE it's very hard to believe the editor doctored the talk page posts of other editors in good faith. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just glancing over before dinner, anyone reckon WP:ARBAA2 might be applicable? Not that Oatitonimly has been warned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the topic was under discretionary sanctions as my involvement started with the proposed move in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But a quick research reveals Oatitonimly was aware of the sanction since they started an AE request based on the same sanction They may not be officially notified but certainly aware of the sanction. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lkahd is very correct in that you are lacking in good faith. Just like your IP friend, you keep reverting other changes besides the name, for example you deleted a source to something additional I added here.[90] The first time I wanted to rename all uses, and it was my mistake that I hadn't realized I was doing it on old talk discussions, but this time I only wanted to add the alternate name to a couple pages in order to add some balance. And if you won't object, I'll be undo the reverts you did that took away other changes I made but I'll leave the article name as it is, in order to stop this edit warring. Though I hope you'll realize I was just trying to give the invasion redirect a couple more links and let them remain, I left the majority in the war link. Oatitonimly (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits are not actually tendentious: the article had previously been called "Turkish invasion of Armenia (1920)" and many sources have been presented in the renaming discussion that use the "Turkish invasion of Armenia" wording. I reverted Oatitonimly's edit in the AG talk archive [91] and advised him [92] that this was not appropriate editing and that it would also probably be best to wait before altering wikilinks related to the article title currently being discussed. Of course altering another editor's words is a big faux pas, but a one-off incident like this can be put down to inexperience. The same could also be said for the altering of the wikilinks. My objection to them was that Oatitonimly was deleting links that worked and replacing them with dead links (because there is no "Turkish invasion of Armenia" article or redirect). This again is probably down to inexperience. Personally, I think Wikilinks that are "see also" type links should have the exact wording of the article title they lead to, but for wording inside article content there is not a need to make an exact duplication, as long as there is no deception. A wikilinked phrase like "the 1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia" that led to the Turkish-Armenian War article could be completely appropriate wording, depending on how the containing passage is worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NB, I do not think there is any pov as such between "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia", however, the latter is more descriptively accurate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Had the editor stopped after your warning I wouldn't have reported them. But removing links from see also sections of clearly related articles as "doesn't belong" and edit warring to keep their preferred version in every article that mentions Turkish-Armenian war, despite not achieving a consensus in the talk page of the original article combined with the previous behavior shows a clear pattern of disruptive behavior and a lack of respect for consensus building. It's not the content itself I object to, which is just a content dispute, it's the editor's behavior in unilaterally imposing the content change in all articles in Wikipedia behind our back without any sort of consensus. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My warning was specifically about altering other editors' words. I don't see that act being repeated. And was also about not turning working wikilinks into dead ones. That too has not been repeated, I think. The rest was just advice. I don't see what you claim to be "revisionism" in the argument about whether "Turkish-Armenian War" should be "Turkish invasion of Armenia" - both terms are in use, but I prefer the latter because it is more accurate descriptively, and because it follows the title format found on many Wikipedia articles, not the least being 2003 invasion of Iraq. And even if the former is the one that consensus decides on for that specific article title, there can still be good reasons to use the latter wording as links in other articles. I haven't gone through all of Oatitonimly's edits on those other articles to check if he has had those good reasons. But I do find Oatitonimly's edits to be rather pointless (and thus, yes, pointlessly causing disruption) because without any accompanying backing argument they can be (and are) easily reverted. He needs to be encouraged to discuss things on the talk pages, present arguments for each major edit change, and realize that not everything needs to be fixed in a day. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I outlined my reasoning for the content dispute on the talk page of related article, I wont reiterate here. The edit pattern of the editor looked to me a clear attempt of whitewashing every instances of the use "Turkish-Armenian war" to bolster their move request and I am not convinced that they were trying to improve the articles by replacing it with their preferred version. I'm glad that you also see these edits as causing disruption. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his editing, especially at the start when he was breaking wikilinks and editing other people's words, has been disruptive, one could even say eagerly disruptive - but I think "whitewashing" is overstating the ambition of the edits: both "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia" are used by sources, and one is currently the title, the other a past title and now a redirect. "Tendentious" is also overstating things, and the "not here to build an encyclopedia" assertion you made at the start is just not justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When almost every edit of the editor was an attempt to replace the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" with "Turkish invasion of Armenia" Considering the determination, bordering on zealotry, I think whitewashing is not an overstatement.(there are at least twice as many examples of this replacement campaign as I initially reported) There is also the issue of canvassing, edit warring and altering other editor's posts. And while it's possible to see each of these transgressions alone as inexperience, combined it's a clear NOTHERE like behavior. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you claim is being "whitewashed"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian War" obviously. See their comment in the move discussion in regards to the common name argument right before they started the rampage of replacement: "Less words will always yield more results. You also have to consider how many of these are Wikipedia WP:FORK"(referring to google search results) I think they believe(erroneously) that by replacing the instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian war" they will alter the google results or something. But given that the disruption seems to be stopped for now, I am OK if the admins would like to give the editor some rope, hopefully the disruptive behavior will not be repeated, although I'm not optimistic. This is not an area I am particularly interested in so I think it's unlikely we will collaborate in other articles after the move discussion. But I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a general bias in Turkish related subjects.(though limited my experience may be) There are some editors, unfortunately, who seems to be going to some enormous lengths to cast Turks in the worst possible light. I don't doubt there are proTurkish counterparts guilty of similar crimes, but they don't seem to be prevalent. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Some could think you have just revealed a pov agenda. But, I think, to have said so openly what you have just said is only revealing a failing of some Wikipedia articles to properly convey correct information. Those articles should have informed you enough for you to realize how disturbingly wrong (and actually offensive) that "to cast Turks in the worst possible light" opinion is. The Turkish-Armenian War article is not at all well written - I would like to improve it but it is currently protected thanks to Oatitonimly's unproductive edits. Maybe revisit it in a few weeks or months and see if you still stand by your opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing at the AE:

Unfortunately Oatitonimly continues with the disruptive behavior by canvassing at an AE request that they reported. I told them in the AE request that it was not an appropriate behavior. In turn they asked me to delete my comment "out of human decency," accusing me of battleground mentality on my talk page. I told them I would delete, if they acknowledge in their request, that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that the editors they pinged can see there is foul play in notifications and act accordingly. As of now they did not comply with my request. They also accused me of gaming the system, which is a clear projection since they were the one who tried to justify their canvassing by trying to find loopholes in policy.(see the conversation on my talk) They also accused me of editing "while carefully avoiding the 3RR." which is a clear misrepresentation and an assumption of bad faith. I gave this editor the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that they would see what they are doing is wrong and disruptive, but the problem is they don't seem to understand what they did was unacceptable. They are coming up with excuses that are less and less convincing. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at linguistics articles

I've come across a pattern of disruptive editing at linguistics articles, notably at Hruso language and Sholaga language. In both of these articles, editors are edit warring to restore various kinds of inappropriate content. Shaiful Ali is adding lengthy notes about what sort of material ought to be added to the article at Hruso language, visible here for instance, while Av1995 has added large amounts of material having nothing whatever to do with the actual language at Sholaga language, visible for example here. This is being done as part of a school project, conducted by Chuck Haberl. The matter was raised at ANI a while ago (see here for the previous discussion), but nothing has been done to stop the ongoing disruption. I think some kind of intervention is needed, as this has become an aggravating problem for editors concerned with linguistics articles. At the very least, it would be proper to request that Chuck Haberl encourage his students not to edit disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Excuse me. I am Av1995. I am not editing disruptively at all. I was told to research about the language and very little is known about Sholaga, yet however more information is known about the people who speak the language. So my research has highlighted that. To conclude, the final assignment was to compile my research onto the wiki stub. All of the information I have put on the page has to do with Sholaga or about it's speakers, the Soliga tribe. My categories are: classification of the languge(Sholaga), names of the language other than Sholaga, The Soliga Tribe which I have clearly provided information about as the speakers of the language, Geographical Distribution which is where the language is spoken, examples being words translated from english to sholaga, and current events which includes how the Soliga Tribe's children who speak Sholaga are being assimilated into society. Lastly I end with my references and external links. I have shown you how every single section relates to the language Sholaga and therefore should in no way be considered inappropriate or disruptive to the current topic of the article. Please stop deleting my edits as I have not put all of the info up as a waste of time. I spent time researching and learning about the language too. If you want to, you may reference my links to question my information. But this is a very strict request to stop taking all my edits away. Thank you.

Av1995, there are two obvious ways that your edits at Sholaga language have been disruptive. Firstly, you have added content that has nothing to do with the Sholaga language, for instance, "The Soliga tribe used the penis of the Sambar deer to treat hydrocele. They also used the flesh of the House crow to treat anemia. The Soliga Tribe is extremely intelligent and knows much about their environment and the use of resources in its community." That is a very good example of something that does not belong in an article about a language. It is not linguistic information. The fact that it relates to the speakers of the language does not make it appropriate to a specifically linguistic article. Secondly, you have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, and have reverted multiple users after they removed your additions. You reverted Kwamikagami here and me here. That is not an appropriate thing to do. If your edits are reverted, you need to discuss the dispute on the talk page, especially when multiple editors revert you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I did not make the entire article about that? That was one section of my edit. And I am new to wikipedia so I apologize if I did something wrong. I am unfamiliar on how to talk on the talk page. However, only the two of you have reverted me. Av1995 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Soliga's use of the penis of the Sambar dear to treat hydrocele is non-linguistic information. It does not belong in an article about a language at all. The fact that you did not completely fill up the article with information about the medical uses of animal penises does not make it appropriate. The talk page of Sholaga language can be found here. Click on the blue word "here" and it will take you to the page. You should have raised the issue on the talk page as soon as you were reverted. Respecfully, multiple users reverting your edits is generally considered a good reason to stop making the edit on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Av1995: FHC is correct - you are being disruptive. I've left a message on your talk page explaining our policy on edit warring and the three-revert rule. We were all new here once and we understand you're a student. However, you are in danger of being blocked from editing, so stop this blind reverting and listen to what the other collaborators are trying to tell you. Katie^talk 09:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm the instructor in question. FHC summoned me to this conversation. I've been working for several months now with Adam Hyland and the Wiki Education Foundation, and I've noticed a pattern of disruptive behavior as well.

• An inexperienced (but well-meaning) editor makes changes to a stub page;
• An experienced (but overzealous) editor reverts all of the new editor's revisions, often without explanation, but sometimes with abusive language (such as claiming that edits made in good faith are actually "disruptive," "unencyclopaedic," or "graffiti," in the hopes of flagging the new editor for punitive measures);
• The new editor either gives up, frustrated beyond hope, and never makes another edit ever again, or re-reverts the perplexing and ill-explained reverts, opening herself to punitive measures. The overzealous editor(s) then uncharitably declares this to be a "revert war" (despite knowing that they are likely dealing with a new editor operating in good faith) and use the new editor's lack of experience to get her blocked from editing.

This is *not* collaborative. It is, in fact, the very opposite of collaboration. It's obvious to me, with all the prurient discussion of deer penises above, that you have an excellent idea of what is "unencyclopaedic" and what is "encyclopaedic," exceeding that of the average newcomer; if you had spent as much time removing only these elements as you clearly have spent trying to get my students punished, then Wikipedia would have some new editors, a few more collaboratively-edited articles, and a whole lot more good will. That is obviously not the tack that you have decided to take here.Chuck Haberl (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'll take a look at the activity above and check back shortly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Without a comment on the quality of the edits or the nature of the response, these issues can be defused if students don't edit to re-insert their contributions without taking to the talk page first. That's hard, because it puts the onus on the new editor to recognize what is happening, why and engage and allows the more experienced editors to wait and review changes. But if a contribution has multiple problems which might merit heavy revision or removal and it is reverted, re-inserting it will only make the communication problem harder. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Adam (Wiki Ed), why don't student editors simply work on Draft articles or ones in their User space? Then, their instructor can see their work but they won't run into obstacles that occur when they try to make big changes on narrowly defined subjects. Then the instructor or a Wikipedia volunteer can make suggestions or point out problems in their work and the new editors won't run into experienced, "overzealous" editors who are just trying to protect the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. That's normally our suggestion for work like this where a student aims to completely overhaul a page or create a new one. We were not involved with the course when it started up initially and reached out to Chuck in the course of the semester. I suspect that future classes where students use on our training and materials from the start will more heavily involve user sandboxes. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I was originally inclined along those lines, but the tutorial you guys asked me to follow suggested that it was better to get the students involved in editing Wikipedia directly as fast as possible (or did I get something horribly, horribly wrong?). It would have gone better for these students if they had started by making incremental changes to the page first, as I suggested from the start of the semester, rather than large scale revisions at the very end, but as it happens there is currently no way for faculty to mandate that students complete their work in advance rather than submitting it only when it is due.

This is actually the third year I've run this course, and just about every aspect of it works better each year EXCEPT for the Wikipedia part. The first year, in which there were only 30 students and I could monitor things more closely, worked quite well, but the following two years have been trying, to put it lightly. My sense is that the more engaged editors here prefer the stark, clean lines of a stub to what they perceive as amateurish edits, so they revert first and ask questions later. Students panic (because they perceive the other editors' interventions as vandalism), they re-revert, and then the veterans escalate the situation and I get emails (and the ones from Wikipedia editors are seldom very pleasant when it comes to intruders on "their" territory). It basically leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

At its base, it's a problem with the culture, more than anything else. In future years, I'll host a private wiki on our learning management system (we use Sakai) and let the students do their thing without provoking these kinds of unavoidable conflicts.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Haberl, it is quite clear that your students have been editing disruptively at multiple articles. I have attempted, at the talk pages of both Hruso language and Sholaga language, to explain to your students why their edits have been problematic. Shaiful Ali simply ignored me at the talk page of Hruso language, while I had a short and unproductive exchange with Av1995 at the talk page of Sholaga language. Shaiful Ali and Av1995 have both edit warred to restore their changes, and in both cases they've done this even after being reverted by multiple users. That is disruptive behavior. Pointing that out is simply pointing out a fact, not being "abusive". I agree that one has to exercise some tolerance and understanding with new users, but that is different from defending disruptive editing, as you unfortunately appear to be doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud... you're the one who has appointed yourself "guardian" of these pages, you should have put in a token effort to make yourself clear to the new editor, if you were going to take the responsibility in the first place. And calling a couple of reverts an "edit war" is pretty rich.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Haberl: FreeKnowledgeCreator and the other editors put in much more than a token effort to explain the changes to Sholaga language, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. The student's explanation for what appeared to every wikipedian involved as disruptive editing, was:

"[I] was only trying to keep it as the way I had edited it because my professor had said he would grade our finals today and that page was my final."

True, this doesn't seem to have happened on the majority of the pages edited by the other students in this project, but it nevertheless leads me to think that similar incidents could in future be prevented if it's emphasised to students that their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it sticks around or not. Uanfala (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed emphasized that exact point at several points throughout the semester, Uanfala.Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not, however, go so far as to say that all of the other editors put in even a token effort. The stage was set when, after three days of sustained edits on the part of my student, ALL of her effort was summarily reverted by one of your veteran editors, who justified his move with only a few words in the in-group house jargon of a certain class of Wikipedia editors ("rv. non-encyclopedic edits and content forking"). This immediately put her on the defensive and the rest is history.

I appreciate that Wikipedians have aspirations to professionalism, but this is so far removed from my own professional experience both as a writer and an editor, having contributed entries to reputable, peer reviewed journals, and edited entire scholarly volumes as well as authored monographs and journal articles, that I'm not sure what standard of "professionalism" the Wikipedian community is aiming for. If I or one of my past editors had treated a submission made in good faith in the cavalier way that he routinely does, we would likely not have a job in our industry for very long. Editing requires much more than just an encyclopedic content knowledge, it demands patience and close reading, and by reverting my students' work in this manner, he has paradoxically demonstrated that these are attributes he is lacking. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should be a better teacher then. If your students are routinely editing disruptively by Wikipedia's standards, they should probably ask for their money back. Really now, one of them thought 'use of penis' was acceptable in a linguistics article? That is so far beyond a joke. Here is a quick tip: 1st lesson of editing wikipedia - if material you add is removed, do not keep replacing it without talking to someone competent. Although really from the examples listed it looks like they did speak to multiple competent editors, they just did not listen. In short, your students are required to adjust to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not required to adjust to your students. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Chuck Haberl, the student who worked on Sholaga language must have had access to JSTOR. Perhaps you can point them to http://www.jstor.org/stable/603185, which looks (relatively speaking) like a goldmine. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely let him know. Hopefully our institution has access to that journal through our subscription to JSTOR. If not, there's always ILL.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, these articles should be tagged as works in progress at Rutger's so that (a) people know to leave them alone for the time being and (b) we can keep track of them to clean them up later. This was agreed to last year when we had the same problem. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what the tags on the talk page do? If a student editor behaves as if they aren't aware their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it gets reverted, I think it might be up to us to remind them. Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually after seeing this interaction On Chuck's talkpage I think there are bigger problems. 15zulu left a politely worded notification regarding Chuck's students and was met with sarcasm and abuse. Problems appear to be deeper than merely competence on the part of the editors, when the instructor evidences such disdain for Wikipedia's rules and community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocks for the 166 animation hoaxer IP

If you're not familiar with this LTA, you can check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. Basically, the editor vandalizes animated children's films by adding fake credits, crossovers, and music tracks. For example, changing the Genie in Disney's Aladdin to say that Liam Neeson played him, then adding Rugrats characters to the cast. And, for good measure, maybe changing Liam Nesson's article, too.

While investigating which IP ranges to include in this report, I was pleasantly surprised to find that several ranges have already been blocked, including 166.137.104.0/21, 166.173.48.0/20, and 166.177.96.0/19. So, here are a few more listed by /24, dated by activity, and including links to obvious uses of that range:

• 166.137.216.0/24: 67, 71, 186, 245 (April)
• 166.137.217.0/24: 38, 48, 90, 147, 204, 213, 218 (March, April, and May)
• 166.137.218.0/24: 29, 68, 81, 107, 179 (March, April, and May)
• 166.173.184.0/24: 36, 73, 100, 123, 125, 252 (February, March, and April)
• 166.173.185.0/24: 0, 23, 41, 65, 148 (April and May)
• 166.173.186.0/24: 23, 25, 90, 133, 234 (April)
• 166.173.187.0/24: 4, 7, 44, 48, 50, 72, 106, 166, 188 (February, March, and April)

Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little busy today but I blocked 166.173.184.0/22, which covers the last four ranges on your list. I'll look at the others when I have time later. Katie^talk 18:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also blocked 166.137.216.0/22 - there was more disruption from this range than the first one. Katie^talk 23:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this is a prolific vandal, and I got a few more limited rangeblocks applied in the past. I had proposed a few /21s and /22s before, but the disruption hadn't yet boiled over enough, I suppose. I think this covers pretty much every IP range used to date. Hopefully, the the vandal will find a new hobby. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

wWhat is with the 166 ranges? There seems to be an unusual concentration of bad editors banned/blocked from this range. Blackmane (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The range belongs to AT&T Mobility. Most likely it's people using their phone's cellular connection instead of their home ISP to avoid identification or blocks. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Several 166 subranges are also home to a long-term problem on many articles related to The Weather Channel. That editor is usually in the 166.170 and 166.171 vicinity, and I have blocked a few /24 there. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges‎

• Obergefell v. Hodges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have an ongoing problem with WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWNERSHIP at Obergefell v. Hodges‎, a page on a vital US Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. User Antinoos69 is bullying those who would edit an article which he has admittedly put a fair amount of work into, insulting them via the talk page and via edit summaries.

Civility

• "May I be so presumptuous as to interrupt you legal geniuses and venerable scholars long enough to present a couple sources and some brief comments?"
• "Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, really."
• "your absurdity needs to stop."
• "Get over yourself." (This, I should note, was for restoring another editors MOS:LQ corrections.)

Ownership

• Calls for article to stick with his version
• Refers to attempts to edit the article to meet MOS:LQ as "trying to annoy me"
• His most recent five edits as of this posting 1 (2 3 4 5) are all undoing other users' attempts to get the article closer to guidelines MOS:LQ and WP:SEEALSO), variations from standards for which he has not only not achieved consensus, but received zero support for on the talk page.

Problems noted

• lack of civility and ownership noted by Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• ownership noted by Jonathunder (talk · contribs) (who noted them other times as well.)

I've deliberately kept the listing above to the past month, but looking at the talk page will show you that this is not a new situation; the user has called editors "ignoramus", saying "I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you", "You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped.", etc. The net effect is the creation of a toxic environment which discourages the involvement of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• More "bullying". When does rudeness or incivility or whatever become bullying? Sorry, side note I suppose, but doesn't one have to be in a position of power to be a bully? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We could split on terminology; in physical world situations, I'd say that the willingness to use physical aggression is often what creates that power. In an online situation like this, it's the willingness to be uncivil. But if you wish to find a different term, I likely have no complaint. In any case, your attention is appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• At the very least Antinoos is guilty of edit warring, having made this edit three times in the past week. And there's fighting over a word, here and on a few more occasions. Antinoos, I'm beginning to think there is something to this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos is clearly aware of this discussion, not just because it was on his user page, but because he responded to a mention of it on the article's talk page (with "Was I meant to be impressed?") During that time, he has engaged in substantive editing on a couple of talk pages. Seemingly, whatever is to be done here will need be done without his input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruption by TrumpErmNo et al.

• List of LGBT members of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TrumpErmNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.1.1.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 147.226.87.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there's a lot going on here. I met this editor on the congressional LGBT article above. There may be more IP's. These are just the ones that converged on that article. I did some work there to remove the refimprove and apparently they take issue with it, and also some content that was there prior, which they attribute to me. I haven't re-revd because it would be basically 3RR entrapment, and this thread needs to happen anyway. Apparently I didn't discuss on the talk, which I created yesterday when I revd their edit.

Five warnings on the registered talk page not including mine today, and an apparently unheeded one from Drmies regarding their username. Two additional warnings on the talk for the 86 IP.

They seem to be centered on politician related pages almost exclusively, lists and bios. There's a lot of unexplained removal of content and a bit of addition. Admittedly, some edits seem to be either neutral or maybe productive(?), but there's a lot of disruption. I figured initially I would history surf a bit, revert, and move on, but given their edits...its gonna be a chore. User has 619 article edits on the registered account alone.

I can't say totally that this is intentional socking without further evidence. May just be forgetting to log in. At any rate, this needs addressed. (Notifying user and IPs of ANI post haste) TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit... Should have done this prior (mb). One IP geolocates to the UK and one to the US, so it may likely be coincidence. 147 is at Ball State U, and only has five edits. Probably followed the LGBT article to David Dreier. On the other hand, the 86 IP has 347 edits, geolocates to the UK, and also has a history of editing articles on UK politicians, as does TrumpErmNo. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a username block of TrumpErmNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warranted. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. It does not violate the username policy. It has a political sentiment, but is not offensive or disruptive. No comment on other behavior though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, what to say. I am going to block TrumpErmNo for that user name; they just need to change it. I see no evidence of intentional foul play, let's put it that way. EvergreenFir, I hate to disagree with you, but a Trump lover will have a hard time saying "Hey TrumpErmNo, not to get personal, but I really think that the edit you made to the Earl of Hupsaflups's categories is not so great". We want to be a big tent, inclusive of everyone. With a kinder, gentler machine gun hand, so to speak, which is why I made it a softblock. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate an uninvolved undo on the LGBT page. But I can do it myself if need be; I'm only at two. The real issue is the crimes page. There has been a lot of content removal. TimothyJosephWood 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing impedes your fixing it. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is true, but per Caesar's wife, is always best to avoid the appearance of impropriety. As the user is banned, probably not an issue, and over cautiousness on my part.TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. Its not okay to have username titled 'TrumpErmNo' but it is okay to refer to Trump as Drumpf? A name John Oliver dug up and described as "Drumpf is much less magical. It's the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.". Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Struck per below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, well this is embarrassing. So apparently the John Oliver app installed on the browser I was using changed the comment above. Good thing I don't really edit politics articles. Many thanks to DHeyward for catching. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, some of the edits are just removing unnecessary headers. As far as List of LGBT members of the United States Congress, it looks like an edit war which is a content dispute. You've started a discussion on the talk page which is the next step, not coming to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I disagree, but I have things happening, and will try to respond in more detail in the morning. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I will agree that it looks a lot like a content dispute at first glance, but in detail it's really just disruption.

• Removal of a {{cn}} on the only uncited person on the list.
• Removal of the content sure, but removal of the sources serves no purpose. The article had been tagged with {{refimprove}} for two years.
• Keeping in mind all this started because I initially reverted this edit, where the user added a slew of politicians who were not out, but rather were involved in various sex scandals. (They had a similar conflict on this edit, undone twice on another article.)
• My revert there led to two attempts to simply remove the sentence stating the list only included out people.
• Refusal already to discuss, after I began the talk page when I revd their extensive sex scandal edit coupled with the demand that I "should ask the talk page before making these edits," (edit summary) when again, at the time, the talk consisted of one post by me. The content removal may have been bold, but the onus is on the remover to discuss, as I attempted to do.
• Indication that the removal of the content may have had more to do with me than the content:

"Can I point out that the unnecessary information wasn't there until you edited the page, so clearly all the countless editors before you didn't think adding such trivial stuff was important" (edit summary)

• Notwithstanding that some of the content removed wasn't added by me.

So in a nutshell, user with a penchant for trying to label not-gay politicians as gay gets their edit reverted, and decides to be disruptive. As I said above, my first impulse was to just clean up the mess, but after looking at their history, and seeing that they've garnered eight different warnings on two accounts in a little more than a month, I figured a report was appropriate.

I'm going to look into more detail on the other article. But this is getting long. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I...don't even know what is going on with List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• I thought the Trump reference sounded familiar, did dome digging in the archives, might want to check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainYuge/Archive. The end/start dates for the 2 accts fit. Rgrds. --64.85.217.48 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of overlap between TrumpErmNo, the IP, and banned user Huge456. Not sure about CaptainYuge. I'm not really sock-savvy, and someone who is may want to look into the whole ordeal, maybe request a check.

I do notice that Trump was unblocked today by Yamla, and has made it a point to remove warnings from their talk, but not to request a name change. The IP is also continuing to edit, which is an issue if they actually are the same user. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference spam

39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) seems to be only here to add references written by one Muhammad Aurang Zeb. Anyone think this is worth a mass revert? They've stopped and may not be around again or for a while. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick search of Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal and found some valid academic sources online (see 1 and 2). It might be a student or scholar who is very familiar with his work. I'd select a few references and judge them based on their merits rather than do a mass revert. I looked at a few and they seem legitimate to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See his profile at the Durham University where he appears to be a post doc, profile says that he's in Pakistan on a research project. The IP is a mobile IP in Pakistan, not at Durham. I have no idea about this area and don't know if the sources are good or not. —SpacemanSpiff 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is clearly inappropriate WP:REFSPAM. So many references to one individual's work across such a variety of articles like this doesn't occur without persistent self-promotion. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If the references are useful and pertinent to the statements they are cited to, I don't think it is critical to know who contributed them. I was a graduate student in two different programs and I can easily see myself adding references to the work of one of my professors or advisers to the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think we have to evaluate the references on their own. One I looked at was from a Routledge anthology and they are a well-respected publisher in academia.

Mind you, I am not arguing that all of the reference need to stay, I was just arguing against a mass revert. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's refspam. 40-50 links added? All to same author's work, even in some places where a ref wasn't really needed? That's a shotgun, not a well-aimed approach, and should be mass-undone pending individual decisions by non-coi editors. Note: I had manually undone/rollbacked a few before I saw there was an ANI; will stop for now pending discussion. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:119.158.13.23 went on a similar spree for the same author, at the time inserting the apparent PhD thesis. User:DVdm undid them at that time. Now we have a different IP from similar geographic area adding the followup work or replacing the thesis with that later work. That's a few patterns that seem too coicidental. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding huge numbers of citations here to papers that, although they are published, have received few or no citations in the actual scientific literature? Definitely WP:REFSPAM. Wipe them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor of London

Page requires protection as a matter of urgency to prevent the addition of pre-emptve information as the election is ongoing and the results have not been announced, the page is have information added, which should not be added until the result is announce. There is a high likelihood of an edit war to keep the pre-emptive information off of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one day. The results should be clear by tomorrow, right? If not, we can revisit the issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The results should hopefully yes, but the page is now having pre-emptive information added by auto confirmed users now as well. Sport and politics (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like full protection was needed, at least for the next 24 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The result has been declared [93] DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Wrong Wrong, only the first round has been counted see London Elects, the only reliable source in this case here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect, if I read "Sadiq Khan has secured victory as London mayor...", from an RS, I was not wrong to make the post. It is verifiable, even though it might not be the truth. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read to the end, you'll see that that's just the first-preference votes, and because no candidate has more than 50 per cent, the second preferences are required. Khan will win, but it is not yet confirmed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The final result will appear here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

...at around midnight UK time, according to BBC Radio 4. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I must say it's kind of nice to see another country besides mine with election angst. Not that angst is good. Just sayin'. It's Friday. I need wine. Katie^talk 21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And now this edit war has itself made the news (remarks at 20:46). ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This was all entirely predictable. Out of interest, do articles relating to elections ever get pre-emptively protected? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK no, and I'd be opposed to us doing so if we do do such a thing. As with sporting scores, election results are one of Wikipedia's most reliable recruiters of new editors, as they're something that require constant updating and are very easy for people without Wikipedia-writing skills to fix. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit too easy, as this shows! If the editors stay and start to make constructive edits, though, then I suppose it's worth the short-term disruption. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If there's not actual voting still going on, how can the WP article affect the election outcome? It sounds like voting has stopped and they're now trying to figure out the results. I don't see anything for us to pre-empt. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The results have been officially announced (see e.g. [94]) so I have removed the protection from the Mayor of London and Sadiq Khan articles, and made very basic updates to them. More work needs to be done and it would be good to keep an eye out for vandalism, but I'm off to bed now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

lol @ the yanks, "Londoners elect Muslim"... They elected a fucking lawyer actually :D 151.230.93.81 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about us affecting the outcome, 50.0.121.79, just about us being accurate. The rules state that the mayor's term doesn't start until the second day after the results are in, anyway, so Khan isn't officially the mayor until Sunday. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an M.A. really counts for that much nowadays, in any case. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that, due to delays with the results, Khan doesn't officially take office until Monday (the relevant legislation states that the mayor's term of office will "begin on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election is declared to be returned") - see here, here and here. The Mayor of London, London and Sadiq Khan articles keep being edited to say that he took office yesterday, though. I'm not going to edit war over this, but someone needs to step in to correct things. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Alvyray

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

---

Alvyray has been editing articles about or related to Pixar, and nothing but those articles, since he registered an account on Wikipedia in 2011. Thing is, he co-founded Pixar, which effectively makes these edits WP:COI. So for this reason, I am proposing a topic ban that would prevent him from editing any Pixar-related articles. Anyone agree or disagree? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy (as much as many of us would like it to be), but there are resources available for dealing with COI editors. You can add {{connected contributor}} to the article talk pages and user warnings such as {{uw-coi}} at Alvyray's user talk, and if you need help you can post something at WP:COIN. You might be surprised by how many COI editors start cooperating after being educated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the beginning of a discussion not a topic ban. Some of his edits are making corrections about the origin of the company which I would assume he would know well. There is a clear COI here, but I think if the claims are supported by references, his information could enhance the article. He just should be making editing suggestions on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can probably close as a teachable moment. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• i've left Alvyray a message about managing COI. This posting was an over-reaction. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And he responded very nicely here. I don't anticipate trouble going forward - seems very reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There are no mistakes, just happy accidents. TimothyJosephWood 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

FreeatlastChitchat comments and revision need addressing please

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

---

@FreeatlastChitchat: this editor has recently decided to include comments such as this in their reasoning for reverting an entry on the very contentious Talk Page about Yadav, that I have been engaging in the debate on for some weeks. The Masked Man of Mega Might has already warned two (2) other editors to not behave in such a manner, and I feel that even though there is a semi block on the article (which I'm not asking to be fully protected), this sort of language is not conducive to having the debate on content. I request some ANI advice and formal decision, please, on the editors obvious inability to leave POV out of this article. I see that the specific users who have been warned, and involved, do not speak English as a first language and it has become quite problematic in the end to attempt any meaningful debate, though not for a lack of trying by various people. I'm making no requests but some further advice please. I have not informed the user, as I am still working out how to correctly use the 'subt-ANI' above, of which I apologies for. I will put something basic on their talk page though

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Notified. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked for advice and here is my advice. Try to find a better source, this source has too much POV language in it, for example "Pak of lies", referring to Pakistan as a country. We should not allow such BS sources to begin-with. As for FreeatlastChitchat, he is calling the source what ever he is calling. His description is not intended towards an editor. I suggest closing of thread. FreeatlastChitchat and thread starter has been advised. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me in your comments, and you have ignored the language used by the editor, to be blunt.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, the language was directed at the source so to be blunt, the source uses harsh, hateful and POV language so he might have put it in milder words but considering that Wikipedia is usually edited by grown ups, the language is not that bad, rather your summary language is not any better than his. Leave him alone please, let him edit in peace. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• When did calling a SPADE as a "SPADE" become an offence?

A nationalistic and highly POV Indian source has been used to insert the falsehood(what else do you call a Lie in Politically correct terms I have no idea, I could tone it down if you want but falsehood is the most PC word for lying that I have atm) that However, Rouhani dismissed this report, adding that RAW's involvement in Balochistan is a rumour. However this is the exact opposite of what Rouhani has said. Don't take my word for it, just take the word of the economic times and the Hindu, both of which are India papers. Every paper will give the information that 1)Rouhani was asked if there were any talks between PAkistans Chief of Staff and him about RAW's involvement and 2)He dismissed the idea of internal discussions about RAW as a rumor. There is not a SINGLE newspaper that claims Rouhani was asked about RAW's involvement and he said NO, RAW is not involved. He is talking about the rumour of internal discussions, not the involvement. I would also like to point out that this has already been discussed on TP and a consensus achieved. We can see here that The NOM was also pinged to the discussion but he conveniently choose to ignore the ping and has now edit warred about an issue which was already decided. So to sum up

1. The nom should learn how to edit wikipedia's controversial topics from a mentor who has experience in dealing with controversial topics. Someone like MShahbaz etc if he is free can take up the task if they are willing. He should be mentored by the said experienced editor who should teach him step by step how to deal with text from nationalistic sources. The mentor should teach him that newspapers like this are prone to "twisting" the words of various international figures in order to "make them say" something which they have not said. The mentor should also teach him that when dealing with such sources it is VITAL that the entire article is read line by line instead of just reading the heading. The nom should learn about fact checking basics too, that when dealing with controversial topics editors must check MULTIPLE sources to make sure that they are putting "facts" in an article and not some POV mumbo jumbo.
2. As far as the (personal attack) WP:NPA about my and other editor's English is concerned, I am willing to let it go if the nom issues an apology.
3. The next time the nom is irked by an issue, he should make sure that the issue is NOT one that has already been discussed. Thread necromancy is quite hilarious in forums and whatnot, but here on wikipedia it just creates a hassle, so the next time the nom thinks someone is doing something wrong, just give the TP a quick look, maybe the issue has already been discussed.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - FreeatlastChitchat is filibustering about the source, but this is not about the source, rather about him. After responding here last night, he went and did two more reverts at the page with language like:

• If you want to tell about the "role of Iran" use an Iranian source not an Indian source. And do not insert Indian claims here
• IF an IRANIAN source exists about this then "insert" it. If it does not exist, keep it out. Inserting a Pakistani source is just as inserting an Indian one

In the process, he was edit-warring with three or more editors and reaching 3RR, whereas I understand that he promised to voluntarily keep to 1RR under the terms of his last unblock. Later he went and did a huge revert at Balochistan conflict undoing a month's worth of edits. All this in a good day's work. It seems to me like Freeatlast is testing Wikipedia's patience.

(For the uninitiated, Pakistan claimed to have arrested inside its territory an Indian national based in Iran and accused him of being a spy, whereas India suspects that he was abducted from inside Iran or the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran is the only country that can determine the truth between the two claims and the Iranian investigation is quite the key to the whole episode.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no smoking gun in your comment either. It seems like people are brewing a storm in the tea cup! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Dragon Fly is just pushing his POV and dragging Freeatlast because of no valid reason, here's why:

• Dragon Fly was himself the one who opened sections after sections after section at Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav about the reliability of ALL the sources mentioned in the article.
• He then went on to say that none of these sources are reliable.
• To the extent that he then explicitly declarers that the "New Indian Express" "is blatantly nationalistic about the matters and doesn't try to be informative. I wouldn't support this source", and that "New Indian Express" "is poorly written. It doesn't cover much, or accurately written" i.e. he rejects the source(s) which does not conform to his views.
• But when the same source/newspaper (New Indian Express) which he had categorically rejected pushes his own POV and opinion, he goes on to do two reverts in a row. this and this (two consecutive reverts against two editors)

I mean, he fills sections after sections at the talk announcing that sources that make up the current state of article, precisely the New Indian Express is not RS and is (blatantly) nationalistic, and thus should be removed, but when the same source supports his POV, he initiates an edit-war and even report the user at ANI for doubting the source?

This is irrespective of the fact that Dragon Fly has been repeatedly and categorically asked to "prove that the sources are not RS" and to "Point out which precise policy does the article in its current state violates". He has been suggested the same thing by another editor and was also advised by the same editor not to characterize mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" and that he needs to check Wikipedia policies. But to no avail. Instead he engages in an edit-war and reports Freeatlast when he challenged him here even though Freeatlast only commented about the source in his edit-summary and not the editor.

I dont know why Dragon Fly is being tendentious and owning the article while saying that he is going to re-write it in its entirety?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment about leniency shown to FreeatlastChitchat

Already there is an active ANI above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_in_Russian_soldier.27s_article and now this. There is also an WP:AE case going on. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. One IP who tried to close the previous discusion two days ago, commented that FreeatalstChitchat is immune to long term sanction. FreeatlastChitchat is not a very good content creator, overall negative to this project. Only those users who like his biased pov support him. No administrator warned him for harassing a new user who created the article about Russian soldier, when he was Wikihounding Mhhossein. 2A03:4A80:7:441:8891:78E4:8E9C:106E (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing nothing but testifying that there is a campaign going on against one editor who I categorize a voice of dissent here on Wikipedia and as every where else in the World, nobody is liking that voice of dissent here as well. People are hell bent to shut that voice. I hope these calls are rejected so that Wikipedia can be edited by people having many different views. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are getting involved, but you consider this as voice of dissent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko. All were wrong with their Keep votes and FreeatlastChitchat was right to check the contributions of Mhhossein and nominated the article for AFD, which harassed the new editor from Sri Lanka who created the article. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:9592:D44A:11A7:480E (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should? Also, what's wrong with nominating an article for deletion? How about you tell the community what policy he violated in nominating that article for deletion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted my concerns, it is for someone with AN/I rights to make a judgement and any decisions. I'm not going to enter into a commentary on the way SheriffIsInTown, TripWire and the other Pakistani editors are behaving. When asked by someone with authority I will make a statement as to the ENTIRETY of this article and its talk page, as this will be the second time it has been done so by the AN/I. I stand by the full list of my comments as being the basis for my reporting this last effort to the AN/I. If I'm found lacking then so be it, but I think the ENTIRE article needs to be AfD'ed or their needs a long and lengthy ARBCOM by numerous senior editors, and as I feel the latter is something that nobody wants to spend time on, which they should imo, then the former is the best course. I'm at the point of considering this an FA style intervention and with said scrutiny, for anything remotely unbiased to be in the article....

Regards,

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This user (FreeatlastChitchat) attacked me personally by saying that I use "sneaky tactics" in wikipedia. This sort of language is not new from him. He is indeed a habitual offender.Ghatus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, FreeatlastChitchat explains in the same comment that why he thinks that you are applying "sneaky tactics" as you seem to be twisting the facts in the source so no personal attack in that. I don't think words "sneaky tactics" are that harsh. Again, as I explained above, Wikipedia is mostly edited by grown-ups and FreeatlastChitchat might have assumed that he is talking to a grown-up. You are not supposed to report every little thing at ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus, the language you have been using on Wikipedia while addressing almost every user you have encountered isn't very Wikipediash either. If you want, I can spend sometime to find some diffs supporting this.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Wheel-warring by template editor

Back on 4 May, template editor Jonesey95 decided that the template-protected {{Infobox NRHP}}, with tens of thousands of tranclusions, needed to have an error-tracking category added (no problem there), a change only announced at the relevant wikiproject's talk page yesterday. Because the majority of transclusions included a deprecated parameter (the parameter had previously been included, but a discussion concluded that the parameter's information was trivial and simply removed its functionality), we suddenly had tens of thousands of error pages with no real problems. I therefore restored the parameter with its contents commented out, the goal being to prevent this parameter from producing an error without displaying the trivial information. Within minutes, Jonesey reverted me and announced that he was enforcing project consensus. This is wheel-warring.

With this in mind, I'm asking that this user's template-editor right be removed. It's normal for wheel warring to result in an immediate request for arbitration, with a desysop often being the result even in first-time cases; in the same way, violating the firm statement at WP:TPE, And never wheel war with other admins or template editors, is grounds for immediate removal of this right, especially as this editor added this significant change to the template without even attempting to seek consensus beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to a page that displays the error, for everyone's benefit? Ibadibam (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

All or virtually all pages in Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters alphabetised under "G" are relevant (they're nearly the entire contents of the category); A. B. Leavitt House is one such. Please remember that I'm giving the details about the parameters merely as context for the wheel-warring, not as a fundamental part of the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how WP:WW applies to this case. I am not an administrator. I did not "repeat a reversed administrative action". Please help me understand what the problem is here. Nyttend restored the unsupported (not deprecated) parameter without discussion, against WikiProject consensus.

This abrupt escalation of a simple revert to ANI, without meaningful discussion, is uncalled for, as far as I can tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I started the good-faith discussion about this parameter at the WikiProject talk page, specifically noting that one unsupported parameter in particular would cause a large number of articles to be placed in a hidden error-tracking category. Nyttend added the parameter back to the template against WikiProject consensus before contributing to that discussion, and Nyttend reported me here on ANI while that discussion was ongoing and on its way to an amicable outcome.

I have engaged in good faith during this entire process, as I always do here on Wikipedia; I don't have the time or energy for drama. In an effort to extend an olive branch (unrelated to this ANI report), I have removed the parameter in question from the error-checking that the template performs, with a comment in the template code that explains this unusual situation. Readers of this section who visit the "G" section of the category linked above may not see the error message while the job queue catches up with this change. To see an article affected by this error-checking, visit Agat Invasion Beach, which has the unsupported parameter |address= in its infobox. The error is noted via a hidden category and in a red message that appears when you preview your edit, as is the case with most infoboxen that use this error-checking module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The wording of WP:WW is not applicable, but the principle certainly is—people with advanced rights should not use those rights to revert each other. Nyttend's edit summary in diff is "Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors" is crystal clear. If it were the case that Nyttend was wrong, the procedure would be to post on the template talk page with a ping to Nyttend, and ask to have the edit summary explained. Wikilawyering about "consensus" is fine for edit warriors pushing some line in articles, but the technical side of Wikipedia is supposed to proceed in a more measured fashion, with technical explanations (not "I've got consensus so I'm reverting"). If there is a technical fix for the problem, that shold be explained on the template talk page. After waiting for any responses, then install the fix—do not revert and patch, particularly on a template that is apparently used in over 57,000 pages. Anyone who doesn't have time for drama should not be reverting other editors without due discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand here. In WW, I'm seeing this:

Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.

It describes two reverts. I definitely understand the principle that there should not be back-and-forth reverting; the WW policy describes a sort of 2RR, similar to 3RR for normal editing. But in the incident described above, there was only a single revert.

The WW page also says:

Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling. There are few issues so critical that fighting is better than discussion, or worth losing your own good standing for.

That's exactly what I was doing on the talk page, as you can see. In lieu of discussion, Nyttend made an abrupt edit that short-circuited the good-faith discussion and went against the established consensus of the WikiProject. And then instead of following the WW page's advice to "Seek constructive discussion, and aim to cool the situation and bring it back to normal processes, if able," Nyttend escalated the situation by posting here.

Please help me understand what part of this policy I allegedly violated, whether it is found in the strict wording or in the spirit of the wording, so that I can avoid doing so in the future. If this situation is truly wheel-warring, then I believe that the policy's wording is in need of clarification to explain that (1) a single revert can constitute wheel-warring and (2) template-editors, not just administrators, are subject to this policy. Thanks, everyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. (1) WP:TPE says They [template editors] are also permitted to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you decide that a change won't be controversial, only to find that it is, it's a mistake (but notice that you "should be aware of what kind of changes require gathering consensus beforehand and which don't"), but if you find your changes undone, it's controversial. (2) TPE says This is, fundamentally, an administrative-level right, and you are expected to behave with the accountability and stability that entails. You're subject to admin-type policies when editing template-protected pages. (3) Have you read the "editing disputes" section of TPE? This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. You have a privilege that most people do not have. The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step. Therefore, if your edit is or may be controversial (see the "When to seek discussion" criteria above), avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections after a few days. Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors. You changed the template to your preferred version when there obviously wasn't agreement, and "wheel war" is here used to describe this kind of action. (4) Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. John protects a page, it's reversed (i.e. unprotected) by Jane, and John undoes the reversal (i.e. reprotecting). The policy is clear that a single revert can constitute wheel-warring. You caused the template to display an error when it included certain text, I caused it to stop displaying that error, and in a combative fashion, an administrative-level right was used to redo the action. If you revert me on a basis such as "that didn't work like you thought it would", or "this does the same thing more easily", etc., that's different, because you're fixing a technical error, but this wasn't that at all. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to engage.

(1) I understand this. The change I made was supported by the January 2016 consensus on the project's talk page. The change has been responded to with gratitude by editors who understand that it is highlighting errors in the infoboxes that would otherwise be hidden. I have received similar thanks for editing other infoboxes in the same way. In this case, because a single parameter was causing so many articles to appear in the error category, I started a conversation to let affected editors know and to offer some suggestions about how to address potential problems.

(2) You did not undo my change. The edit you made did not remove the articles in question from the category. If you had tested your change in the sandbox, as is suggested above, you may have noticed this. As you did in this case, I have made edits to templates that did not work, and I have been grateful when other editors have modified or reverted those changes in order to correct my errors. I have never reported those editors for helping me in this way.

(3) It was your edit that had the potential to be controversial, since it went against the project consensus and it was the subject of an ongoing discussion. You are the one who "change[d] the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute."

(4) In your John/Jane example, there are two reverts. In our situation, there was only one, after which I reimplemented the spirit of your change, but with code that actually worked. You claim that your edit caused the template to stop displaying the error, but that is not true. You would have needed to edit the template's error-checking code in order to stop the affected articles from displaying the error. I reverted your edit in part because it did not achieve what you wanted it to achieve. As I said above, when other editors have done this for me, I have been grateful, not belligerent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm missing something, here, Nyttend; wouldn't a better solution have been to edit the affected pages to remove the now-meaningless parameter (or, more likely, use AWB/ask someone who can to do so)? I guess I don't see how the original change to add error tracking is broken.
• As for the charge of wheel warring, my personal $.02 is a distinct "meh". If we're being super lawyery about it, WW specifies "admin", not " people with advanced rights"--it's not entirely fair to judge someone on a policy that does not really indicate it applies to them.

  Only slightly less lawyery: it's commonly accepted that it's the third mover that starts to violate WW, but given that Jonesy's first edit was several days before, and the edits were not a straight "edit revert revert" sequence, is enough for me to say that it's not so clear-cut that Jonesy's action was in fact a third move.

  Significantly less lawyery: it seems to me that WW is a thing because wheel wars generally do a lot more collateral damage than simple edit wars on an article. Unblocking/reblocking is an obvious and canonical example; undeleting and redeleting is another. All these actions cause significantly more disruption to other editors than a simple edit war, and thus we have WW to prevent that. In that sense, it's easy to see why template editors should be included in WW in general--such a war on heavily-trafficked sites would be similarly widely disruptive. But in this specific case, there was actually very little disruption: the reader of the affected articles would not notice it at all (the added cat is hidden, after all), and the editor would just get an error message that isn't really incorrect.

  So, all these things considered, I'd personally call it a wash. Go, and edit-war on templates no more. We should probably look into expanding the scope of WW to include template editors and the like, but this is not a good case study for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I was trying to make these same points. I think it might be worthwhile to start a discussion on the WW policy talk page to decide whether template editors, who have a newly minted permission that did not exist when the WW page was created, should be included in this policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you disputing the basic facts of what Nyttend said (that thousands of pages were blocking a category due to your edit)? Are you disputing that Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit? Are you disputing that Nyttend left a very clear edit summary explaining why the revert had been done? What is the urgency that your edit must be restored right now? In the future, please do not use advanced rights like that. There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute all of the above, because they are not facts. I have explained the sequence of events above. I will respond concisely to your individual questions below.

• It is not true that "thousands of pages were blocking a category". I created an error-tracking category that added articles to an error category. Once I saw that the category had been populated with a popular but unsupported parameter, I posted a notice to that effect at the WikiProject's talk page, suggesting that the project's editors notify me if I had made a mistake: There are 53,000 articles in the error category, which makes me think that there may be an inconsistency between how the template is commonly used and how the template is coded, or that I missed some parameters when I added the check. If the latter is the case, ping me here and I will fix the problem ASAP.
• It is not true that "Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit". Nyttend did not revert my edit, and Nyttend's edit did not fix the problem, as I explained above.
• I dispute that Nyttend left a clear, factual edit summary ("Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors"), because Nyttend's edit did not have the described effect – the pages continued to be listed in the error category, as I explained above.
• Your next question, "What is the urgency..." does not make sense. My edit was never reverted. This is why I am so confused about how this sequence of events was referred to as a wheel war. Writ Keeper explained my confusion very effectively above.
• You say "There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all." I assume that this is addressed not to me, but to Nyttend, who escalated a good-faith discussion to the bureaucracy of ANI and does not seem to understand what a wheel war is, at least as the policy is currently and clearly written, even after I explained that this situation was not a wheel war. It is possible that the policy has recently changed and that this particular sequence of events used to meet the wheel war criteria, in which case this is a learning opportunity for many of us.

Thank you for your questions. This experience has been educational. I hope that we can all move beyond this unfortunate misunderstanding. I am willing to let it rest, as Writ Keeper has suggested. If there is a discussion about expanding the wheel war criteria to include template editors and certain types of single reverts, which seems like a sensible discussion to have, please ping me, and I will participate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about my imprecision. By "revert" I meant that you had made an edit, and that Nyttend had changed the template in a way that you did not like (and which you undid three minutes later giving no reason other than consensus). I have not examined the edits in question because who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. If Nyttend's edit broke something, by all means revert giving the technical reason why the edit had to be immediately reverted. Editing templates (particularly those transcluded on 57,000 pages) should not be done with the same approach taken in articles where it is standard procedure for the usual suspects to revert each other using any excuse they can dream up. If Nyttend's edit needed to be reverted immediately, give the reason in the edit summary. Otherwise, discuss it and explain what you believe was Nyttend's error and what you proposed to fix it. It appears you have never edited the sandbox—using the sandbox would avoid the need to make three edits to fix one problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Random non sourced bad faith edits

The user IP address 118.148.186.56 & this is changing the birth place and origins of articles, for the ANI's information, that seem to be disruptive more than anything.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Notified. May want to keep WP:AIV in mind. Usually better with run-of-the-mill vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

OK cheers will do.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User exhibiting ownership claims

First, I hope this is the correct noticeboard to make this report. I am here to report Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making statements and edits exhibiting WP:OWN of article content. On Captain America: Civil War, after I made some initial adjustments to that article's "Box office" section (the first of a few I was going to do) Joseph undid that change, using the edit summary to state "please let me do all the box office edit part. I've added 100% information there. lemme handle that portion." I restored the change, telling Joseph in my summary that their summary exhibited WP:OWN qualities saying "no one editor "owns" one section or another on an article. this section needs major work, and I'm about to work on cutting it down to a more managable section." (the last bit to tell them my intentions moving forward). Joseph proceeded to undo that edit with their summary a bit heated, as well as attempting to say there is a specific way to present the information (which there isn't).

I then proceeded to tidy up the box office section of the article, here and here, removing some unnecessary records (or "fluff" as I consider it), per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. After making these edits, I placed a notice on Joseph's talk page, where I hoped to expand slightly from my edit summaries why I made the changes I did, since I knew they would be interested in them.

After this, in an edit to the page not to that section, here, Joseph says that they will "have to re write the box office section. all the important informations are removed. lots of work to do" Please note they feel they have to rewrite the section, not readd anything I removed, as I suggested they could do in the talk page post I made to their page. And finally, in a response on my talk, Joseph exhibited some personal attacks, additionally saying that "No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section." (their main editing focus on Wikipedia), though this is not the case, if their talk page and contributions are examined. I hope admins or others can help with this situation. I'm not saying the full extent of my tidying edits should stay, that maybe something else can be brought back. But I don't feel it is helpful when one editor is attempting to control every aspect of this section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Very clear WP:OWN problems here. I don't immediately (without much investigation) see anything leading to a personal attack, though there's definitely some edit warring going on. I think perhaps it should be made clear to the editor that they do not get to own the box office section of articles. I wonder if it's worth enforcing restrictions? I'm not sure it is at this time. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: I felt their response on my talk was a little personal attack-y, but everyone has their own interpretations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to try to resolve disputes using edit summaries. Please bring your dispute to Talk:Captain America: Civil War where other editors can weigh in with their thoughts. Going to the article talk page, rather than reverting, should be your first course of action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't feel that any dispute was trying to be resolved in edit summaries. The reason I started this discussion here was because of the language Joseph used which cleared seemed to violate WP:OWN in my opinion. Since your comment, they have restored the whole formatting as they had it. Not only did that break reference formatting I adjusted to be consistent with the article on the whole, again, it was the whole section, not just parts they felt should have been added back. I have started a discussion regarding it on the talk page (after restoring the section for the ref formatting and my reasons of WP:INDISCRIMINATE), so I do hope that they join the discussion, here or there, so we can make some head way regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Admin Support at Move Discussion

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

---

I request Admin support or comments at a Move Discussion at Talk:Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson#Requested move 2 May 2016, in which it is requested that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson → Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson – Reason: There is no letter [ þ ] in the English language or on the keyboard. Article title should be in English letters, as per WP:TITLE, and WP:ENGLISH, and WP:UE. While I have provided three Wikipedia policies in support of the move, opposing editors have not supported their position with any Wikipedia policies. The Discussion has been open for six days. Thank you. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No; you haven't got a chance with that one. Sorry- consensus, as well as, conveniently, logic, is firmly against you there. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Boneyard90, this board (and adminstrators in general) do not intervene in content disputes unless there is a specific accusation of editor misconduct. Clearly there is none here. It was ill-advised for you to bring this here. WP:DRN is the place to go for help resolving content disputes. It would be equally ill-advised for you to take this there. There is no content dispute at the article under discussion. Your position simply is not being accepted (unanimously at this time). You are just going to have to accept that. This thread should be closed post haste. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree in minor detail with User:John from Idegon. This is not the sort of dispute that is appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) because DRN does not take disputes for which there is another forum for handling the dispute. This appears to be a move dispute, and the procedure for dealing with them is a Requested Move. A Requested Move normally runs for seven days. I haven't looked at the talk page, but, if the move has been open for six days and is against the OP, the Requested Move will be closed with consensus against the move. It is true that this is a content dispute and that this noticeboard is for conduct issues, but this content issue has its own resolution mechanism and so does not go to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thread still should be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Kov 93 on 2016 Magyar Kupa Final

On article 2016 Magyar Kupa Final there is simulated match done and copied from Romanian Cup by Kov 93. Results will be avalaible after last whistle of this match. --37.248.254.159 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There did not seem to be sources provided for the information recently added, so I have reverted it. But, surely the final whistle has now happened? MPS1992 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Inorap

Inorap (talk · contribs) has been changing the rating score at hip hop album articles. For example, the user replaced "7/10" with "{{Rating|3.5|5}}" at Surf (Donnie Trumpet & The Social Experiment album) [95]. Although having been warned by other editors at User talk:Inorap multiple times [96] [97] [98], the user keeps doing these things over and over again [99] [100]. I think it is disruptive behavior and has to be stopped as soon as possible. 153.204.104.88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please try to discuss this with the user before bringing it here, in future. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR

User:MehrdadFR is a very problematic editor, who does not appear willing or ready to reform his behavior.

• On the article Public executions in Iran, he has consistently removed well-sourced information from the human rights organization Amnesty International[101], using edit summaries like "rv propaganda", "rv professional liar", "removed false and propagandist material"
• On the page Violence against LGBT people, he removed an image of regarding the execution of two Iranian teenagers (Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni) that allegedly engaged in homosexuals acts with the edit summary "pedophile rapists".[102]. After the image was restored by User:Good Olfactory, Mehrdad removed it again without explanation.[103]
• In Hijab by country, blanked non-controversial information pertaining to Iran without explanation.[104]
• On the page Ahmad Vahidi, remove well sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement in the AMIA bombing, falsely citing WP:BLP in his edit summary.[105]

What can be done regarding this problematic editor? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid only problematic editor here is Plot Spoiler. Point by point:

• There's an explanation Talk:Public executions in Iran#False claims about alleged "beheading in Iran" which is pure fantasy and unfounded in Iranian law (fully available online). When someone is insisting on disputable information and avoiding conversation on talk page, then we can surely speak about propaganda intentions.
• Removing image from Violence against LGBT people was consulted with administrator Good Olfactory (here and here).
• It was blanked because it was biased and without sources. I personally rewritten edited whole section based on first-class academic sources.
• In article Ahmad Vahidi nothing was removed, sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol exists below in text and there's no any dispute about it. Only issue I see is putting it in WP:LEAD because there are much more important information for leading section.

Issues related to Plot Spoiler's editing can be seen here on UANI history where he systematically tries to censor all criticism. Similar problems exist here and so on. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And even after this request, MehrdadFR is engaging grossly POV editing, like this[106]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's properly sourced and factually undisputed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And continues to engage in WP:edit warring and remove well-sourced information on Public executions in Iran without proper talk-page discussion, edit summaries, and against consensus.[107] Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He needs to get blocked for | his BLP violating edit summary. On this talk page he shows a google page as evidence of his claim, which I won't repeat, problem is, this page doesn't support his claim in the slightest.KoshVorlon 16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on User:Aurevoirbronny

Looking for a quick sanity check on this. This is an account that sprung from nowhere to create article Jason Falinski, a biography of an aspiring politician in Australia. The "bronny" in the username is presumably Bronwyn Bishop, a soon-to-be-ex-MP who has essentially been deposed from her seat by Falinski. Falinski's notability for an article is somewhat contested, although that's not what this is about. What I'm a little more concerned about is that the account managed to pop a serviceable looking article out of nowhere, linked it to a few places, and then disappeared until showing up on their AFD discussion so they could defend it and get in a few cracks at editors for wasting their precious time, without a single newbie error anywhere. Perhaps they've just RTFM, or more likely they've had another account that they're not using for whatever reason. I was tempted to block as an obvious sock account, especially as User:AusLondonder evidently came to a similar conclusion here, but I am somewhat peripherally involved so I'm bringing it here for further review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

I think it's obvious this is a WP:SOCK. I have no personal affection for Bronwyn Bishop but this account is WP:NOTHERE - "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia: Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance", "Dishonest and gaming behaviour: gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty" and "Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business: Narrow self-interested or promotional activity". The experienced editing including use of templates is shown here and also discussed here AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours [108] [109] [110]
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours [111] [112] [113] [114]

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [115] *[116] [117]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [118], [119], [120], [121] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [122], [123].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox should be promptly closed per Speedy Keep #2.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the latest edition of Godsy's stalking my edits. No reason he needs a hit list of articles I worked on he wants to kill. For several weeks a remarkable number of pages I touch are promptly touched by Godsy - to the point I believe he checks every edit I make. He has moved many pages back into stale userspace instead of improving them. This is deletion without discussion. The correct action, if one thinks a page needs more refs, is to tag or better yet add the refs, especially on uncontroversal topics like a civil war regiment [124] or a museum page in the middle of an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only thing I've done is fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and correct related problems on multiple articles. You continually disregard WP:STALEDRAFT, by moving content to the mainspace that is unsuitable for it (e.g. User:Abrsinha/Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, Special:Diff/705686655), and have even went as far as moving pages to the mainspace and subsequently personally nominated them for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell). You have also moved pages from the userspace of active users (e.g. User:ONUnicorn/Browning Hill Research, User talk:Legacypac#Browning Hill). Lastly, you fail to do basic cleanup of the content you move to the mainspace (e.g. activating categories, fixing obvious manual of style and format errors, etc.), which I've kindly taken up the task of doing. Your nomination of my sandbox is solely to provide a forum for disruption and to harass me.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is Godsy that is harassing me. Bringing up two old moves I AfD'd as clearly stated tests that have already been discussed extensively is pretty dumb. As I've pointed out to Godsy - there are over 200,000 pages tagged as having no sources, yet he only focuses on stale drafts I've moved into mainspace that usually contain uncontroversal info that can be easily sourced. Many other editors are happy to perform tagging and cleanup on new pages, but very few editors are skilled at daylighting stale drafts with potential. If I was responsible to get every article I touch up to Good Article status I'd never make much progress on sifting the good stuff from the crap/blank/attack/prohibited copies/etc in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And a page that looks like this [125] when I found it amd responds to multiple Redlinks is not "Unsuitable". Now it turns out another editor found some copyvio and deleted that instead of rewriting it, but that is why we work cooperatively. Someone else could restore and rewrite... Except Godsy has relegated the whole page to stale userspace without notice or XfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For example, User:Admfirepanther/The Genius Files (Special:Diff/706182169) then (not that introducing a copyvio into the mainspace is commendable), un-sourced (except to itself) and seemingly un-notable. The problem is, content fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the mainspace, until it is up to a certain standard (i.e. meeting the core content policies and the notability policy). I simply follow the stale draft guideline and occasionally invoke BRD. If you disagree with the stale draft guideline, feel free to propose a change to it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Godsy does not understand the stale draft guideline and sets a standard for mainspace on articles I daylight that other articles are not required to meet. His actions to rebury content do not improve the encyclopedia for the reader. His restoration of deleted pages into stale userspace does not help the encyclopidia. He is simply harrasising me and whenever I pish back, he drags me to ANi. His latest example is a book series by an author with his own page and pages on most of his other books. If the book series is really not notable as he claims, nominate it for deletion already or better redirect the title amd merge the content to the author's page. Sending the page back into stale draft space and deleting the title helps no one. User_talk:Admfirepanther/The_Genius_Files Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Process is important, and I follow it. "whenever I pish back": Wikipedia is not a battleground. The only other time I've "drag[ged]" you to AN/I is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userspace subpages issue.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Godsy should Find some other user to stalk. Process for the sake of process to acbeive a bad result is not important, it's stupid and disruptive. Godsy has been callimg my page moves "undiscussed" like somehow I'm supposed to discuss moving a stale user draft on it's talk page with myself. Yet he is moving many articles out of mainspace without any discussion. I think Godsy should be required to seek consensus on the article talk page, or run the page through AfD before he moves a page into someone else's (usually long gone editor) userspace. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) B- Your moves are unquestionably bold R- Bold edits are often reverted D- You asked me on my talk page and I told you I'd gladly discuss any reverted move with you; Bold, Revert, Discuss. "I consider review of Legacypac's edits to be entirely properly, given that he has previously done bold-bad things", part of the opinion of someone at the MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Legacypac should keep a log of others' userspace pages that he unilaterally moves to mainspace. With that log, these discussions would be informed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: That exists automatically at Special:Log/Legacypac.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• At the top of the list is Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, which looks like a pretty clear case of cross-space move warring between User:Legacypac and User:Godsy, and in which the last page move is WP:block-worthy disruption, disruption both to process and more serious to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) User:Legacypac promptly fixed the article. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On the point of general principles, without comment on the particular behavior in this case (which I haven't looked into): In the recent comprehensive RfC on stale drafts, which is still open, there was a question addressing what I think is the central issue here. It asked, Where a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted? While the RfC is not yet closed, the result in that section at least is a very clear consensus in support of returning to userspace, with many editors commenting. A2soup (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem behaviour/edits by User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.

L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk · contribs) is, at least according to his username Lorenzo Iorio (there is a reason this page is salted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio), and is treating Wikipedia as yet another platform to promote his own views concerning frame-dragging, and the surrounding theoretical and experimental results surrounding it with the biggest WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I have ever witnessed in a published scientist ([126]).

Iorio has published several articles on the topic, and probably know more about frame dragging than many other people, myself included. However, this is a fairly contentious and controversial area in physics, at least in the sense there are major disputes with Iorio and others like Ignazio Ciufolini are going at each other with no holds barred (e.g. doi:10.1002/asi.23238). While I'm not taking a side in the dispute, this area and dispute between Iorio and Ciufolini has spilled over Wikipedia in the past (see Talk:Frame-dragging and Talk:Frame-dragging/Archive 1, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Scientific misconducts, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Legal actions by I. Ciufolini against L. Iorio, etc.), with several IP/sock puppets involved over several years (e.g. Gravitom et al.).

So when he recently edited frame-dragging, inserting several reference to his own publications (and this despite a promise to reduce the number of citations to his own work, I reverted with the edit summary "Clear conflict of interest, while you may comment and flag issues on the article talk page, let others improve the article per WP:COI.)" This has been discussed with him before at the teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_480#Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?).

Of course, that made me the target of Iorio's ire, calling me 'an incompetent jerk', again despite the promise to be cooperating and diplomatic. Going by the past behaviour of socks in this area, most of them pro-Iorio, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say this behaviour is extremely unlikely to subside, and we shouldn't abide such gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not to mention WP:PROMOTE/WP:SELF and a bunch of others as well.

So, here we are at ANI. At the very least an editing restriction on Iorio to refrain from editing frame-dragging related articles (broadly construed) is needed because the WP:COI here is just way too high, and I've got little hopes that the next person that make and edit that displeases Iorio will be treated any better than I was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've notified WP:PHYS annd WP:AST of this discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And to no one's surprise, here are more personal attacks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He's received a warning against personal attacks and I agree that his editing behavior is worth looking into. But when there is a talk page discussion going on, I think it is counterproductive to leap to "I'll file an WP:ANI request to get you blocked" in response to another editor.

Wikipedia does not have a good track record of incorporating scholars and experts as editors on the project. I would hope there would be some way to benefit from his expertise while he manages his COI and that needs to rely on communication with the editor. I'd like to hear from editors and admins who have successfully worked with academics on the project in the past to see what can be done rather than immediately reacting with another block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Warnings are rather pointless in this case. Were this a first offence, it'd be premature to call for a block/editing restrictions. But this (combined with the socking history surrounding frame-dragging), is hardly that. Conflict of interests and civility have been explained to Iorio several times already, with little effect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:, one idea I at least proposed regarding Falun Gong some years ago was for an editor other than those under sanctions to create a page or pages in his or her userspace for articles/topics which had yet to be created, which would be entirely under the direction of the editor in whose user space it is contained, which other editors could edit up to the point the pages are moved into regular space. I don't know if that sort of thing would be useful here, but, I tend to think that there are likely to be a lot of spinout articles on many of the topics academics would edit, and I suppose it might be possible to do something similar with at least articles on books, journals, academics who have written on the subject, etc. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is probably an off-beat suggestion, but perhaps the most obnoxious of the two could be "exiled" to Wikiversity where we are more tolerant of deviant behavior. Since both are highly competent scientists, the exiled individual would be allowed to place a prominently situated sisters link at all relevant WP articles. I love writing on Wikiversity because I get to (almost) "own" what I write; then I add a sisterlink to WP when the document is ready. Just don't send us both individuals, please.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Site Ban

On the one hand, I agree in principle with User:Liz that we should be trying to increase our outreach to scholars and experts in subject-matter areas. On the other hand, it is unfortunately very clear that this particular scholar has no intention of working collaboratively with anyone else. As the above diffs show, he persists in insulting administrators (including by pointing out that they don't have scientific credentials, when they aren't trying to comment on the science) and on calling editors and administrators "jerks" and their edits "vandalizing". I would have preferred to let the physicists and astronomers comment on the merits, and I advised the subject to ask them, but he persists in the personal attacks. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as being too patient. (My own thought is that the English Wikipedia collectively is usually too patient with editors who are net negatives. That is my opinion.) I don't see any point in further warnings. I don't see any middle ground, such as a topic ban on personal attacks (already forbidden) or a topic ban from physics and astronomy (his area of strength and interest). I have to propose a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

a) Today, I was just editing the voice with the purpose of reducing my own citations: I first restored the version including my citations to better edit it later: indeed, I specified that in the comments to the modifications. I was just editing it by removing some citations of mine, when simultaneously Headbomb again removed all and solely my citations. b) Moreover, all here ignore (why?) the long and numerous comments by the US-based editor displaying her/his IP in either the talk page of frame-dragging, in her/his own talk page and in the Spinningspark talkpage in which she/he reiterated the request to reinstate my references.

d) The problem is that admins, who are incompetent to judge on any aspects of that voice and on my own references as well, without any reasons vandalize the voice by deleting all and solely my references. In this way, it is as if they arrogantly claimed to have some scientific motivations to do that, which is not possible. Otherwise, it is a clear conflict of interest against myself (And the users of the encyclopedia). If some of them were convinced that there were too much citations to my works, with intellectual honesty and humbleness, they could (and should) have discussed it in the talk page first instead of brutally and arbitrarilly removing all of them. It is clear that it is this behaviour by them the cause of all this mess. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Not sure about it but that's overkill. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Causes frustration and waste. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
• Comment - While I have not made up my mind quite yet, remarks such as these are not reassuring in the least. GAB^Hello! 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've blocked the user for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support long term WP:NOTHERE behavior. It is important to go through with this for future incidents. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This editor's battleground behavior and disruption outweighs any positive contribution he has made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this editor has, through various sockpuppets, been engaging in a variety of disruptive behaviours going back years. I've run into them several times e.g. at Lorenzo Iorio and its deletion discussions, a brand new sockpuppet asked me to intervene in a dispute at LARES (the talk page of that article is instructive) etc. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour and a refusal to abide by the rules and community standards. He's treating Wikipedia as a battleground and clearly violating WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Expert or not, Wikipedia does not benefit by allowing him to edit the encyclopaedia. Iorio would be better advised to present his scientific work in the peer-reviewed literature, and leave encyclopaedia coverage of these topics to others. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Modest Genius: SPI is where you make claims of sock puppetry, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'm no expert on these procedures but do note the sockpuppet thread linked above. This is clearly the same person IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what thread you're referring to, but after the rather egregious block evasion, perhaps your comment could be considered prescient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• This one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitom/Archive. Modest Genius ^talk 10:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban based on the grossly inappropriate comment from what seems to me to might be perhaps more deserving of the insults he gave than anyone else here. I have had some, minimal, experience with academics and others who have had widely publicized material that they produced which related to their edits. Many of those experiences indicated that the individual in question was incapable of adhering to conduct guidelines. The IP comment above makes it rather obvious that at least that individual qualifies as such as well. And, FWIW, in the few cases I immediately remember of academics who insisted on editing content directly relevant to their own studies, pretty much all of them suffered the same fate, and justifiably, much to my own regret. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You apparently have little if any understanding of civility, as per WP:CIVILITY. Noting that basic civility is also in general a requirement for the real world, your incompetent, foul-mouthed comments here make it very extremely questionable whether you are qualified to be an editor here, or, for that matter, whether you are ever competent at interacting with real people anywhere else. What I and the rest of the editors here want, is you to indicate that you are an adult by your actions here. I have seen nothing to date which leads me to believe you are capable of doing so. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support obviously, after the above rant, and expressive language which I normally am not bothered by, but on a noticeboard? Really? Arrogant sod is WP:NOTHERE -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph.D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support Yuck! I generally think it is good to have professionals and accademics editing Wikipedia articles I am even inclined to cut such editors considerable slack because expert knowledge is important to this project and dealing with non-experts in one's own field can be trying. That said, this person's behavior here is odious - I would not put up with it from a colleague, an instructor or even a child. PS - someone please range block this guy. Jbh^Talk 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Considering the above block evasion and personal attacks.... We don't need people like this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've blocked the IP above for blatant block evasion, and warned this editor that next time is likely to be an indef. I don't otherwise have an opinion as to the sanction discussed here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Anyway, I don't think this is really Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D., since an actual academic expert and molder of young minds would never act so childishly. Also, his English is way below the level one would expect from a member of the international physics community. Probably it's just some jealous rival impersonating him so as to embarrass him. Someone should probably write to his institution to bring this to the attention of the authorities there, so they can assist him in preventing his further humiliation by whomever it is that's actually doing this. EEng 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

His own website indicates that he is currently a school teacher, not an university academic. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Watch -- in a moment he'll appear to remind us that Einstein was, after all, a lowly patent examiner. EEng 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the number of {{RPA}} tags there are in just this thread. Whether or not the user behind the removed attacks is or is not actually Dr. Iorio, the user's behaviour is clearly not intended to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - They've been given ROPE and pretty much used it all .... It's clear that despite this being a collaborative project they're not interested in working with anyone ...., Siteban's the only next best option IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Whatever usefulness this editor had was lost in the sea of incivility. Arguments can be made for how we got to this point, and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future, but the point stands that this editor no longer has any desire to be a contributor. The sock puppeting is only going to continue until they are range-blocked. It's a formality at this point. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I will accept for the sake of discussion that this person may be a great physicist. For all I know, they will soon win the Nobel Prize in Physics. If so, congratulations to them. But as a Wikipedia editor, this person is a total failure because of the destructive free will decisions they have made. Not only are they a failure here on this project, but they are actively and consciously pernicious. We are much better off without them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Xismrd

Xismrd (talk · contribs) keeps introducing the same false statements in the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University (it is "La Sorbonne", sentences that make Paris 1 looks like the only inheritor of La Sorbonne, etc.), in spite of the fact that he's already been blocked for his behaviour. It is perhaps the same person as IP users, who had the same kind of editing.

Talk page sections:

1. [127]
2. [128]

Examples:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]

--Launebee (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

First, you need to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~, so we know who has posted this report.

Second, you need to post a notice to the editor's talk page informing them of this discussion so that they can participate.

Finally, Xismrd's edits mostly occurred in March and they haven't edited since April 24th. It looks like there is a discussion occurring on the article talk page and, right now, that is where the discussion should be occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

1 Sorry for that, I forgot! 2 I did, right above your notice 3 He did it again in April. The discussion deals with other topics, not about his type of editing. He just wrote something in March here [133] and never discussed it again. --Launebee (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Attacker of Tim Lincecum

IP editor 2600:1001:B010:2138:AC44:B2EA:91C5:ACA3 keeps editing Tim Lincecum to change his team from free agent to New York Yankees. According to Google news searches he is still a free agent; the most recent news is now 9 hours old and that he might be under consideration by the Boston Red Sox. Nothing about Yankees. So it is vandalism, five times in less than half an hour. See, e.g. this edit —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is already protected using pending changes and so any edits by the IP would have to be accepted. I think at this stage it's simplest to just revert their edits and not accept them if they are changes that are not supported by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If it persists, you could ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Googling the subject gives no indication that the Yankees are intending to sign him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have stopped for now, so no action is needed at this point. I have seen cases where IP users repeatedly vandalize articles, and their IP addresses get blocked for awhile. Is this the page to request IP blocking, and if not, where is that page? Please be aware that vandalizing protected pages creates a burden on reviewers, so sometimes IP blocking can be an additional tool, and may even help convert the vandal to a beneficial contributor to Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

While you can report IPs or users here, the best thing to do here (where the edits are clearly unsourced) is to use warning templates, and after reaching a level 4 warning, report the offender to WP:AIV. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminate deletion tagging and utterly uncivil comments by User:SimonTrew

A few days ago, I declined a speedy deletion proposal by User:SimonTrew (whose signature is "Si Trew". He responded by calling me "you half-arsed small brained fuckwit".[134] He also placed a second, phony speedy tag on the same redirect, claiming that a just-opened RFD discussion had reached consensus [135] and made a string of uncivil, unfavorable comments about my supposed refusal to participate in the RFD discussion even though he hadn't bothered to / lacked the simple courtesy to notify me of the discussion. Since I learned of the discussion and did respond, he refused to respond to my comments.

Over the last few days, User:SimonTrew has made a long string of speedy nominations which are clearly inappropriate, accompanied by nomination statements which are often bizarre, incoherent, or irrational. For example (and this is nowhere near an exhaustive list):

• Tepre Pacificum, nominated with the statement because Neelix made this up I think it is disgusting it do stink. It's not at target WP:RFD#D2 now do you see. A tepre is no kind of sea in Latin or in Greek, you'll see that this is Neelix nonsense when, I think by now you get the gen. In fact "Tepre Pacificum" is the name Magellan originally gave to the Pacific Ocean,[136], documented by even a cursory GSearch.

• Tartaria Magna, nominated with the statement because Neelix when he felt inclined made up some Latin bad declined, this not a target WP:RFD#D2 confusing I hope my nom's a bit amusing. But said and done this should thus my CSD's a blunderbuss. It is easy to document that "Tartaria Magna" is an older term [137] that is used to refer to the redirect target.[138]

• Utopianists, nominated with the statement The people who have such beliefs are utopians let's be brief this is a made up Neelix word so please delete it how absurd. In fact, it's in such standard works as the Merrian-Webster dictionary.[139]

• Mar del Sur, nominated with the statement because The Southern Ocean which if you take a rough translation from Portuguese is not the Pacific Ocean this is simply Neelix nonsense. In fact, it's a standard phrase even documented in the Spanish Wikipedia.[140]

• Orsino (play), nominated with the statement because Orsino has been played you'll find in several dramas, it's unkind but this one is not quite correct I ask delete this redirect. (Neelix). Redirecting a play to its notable author's bibliography is in no way abusive, and is generally considered appropriate.

• Nuestra Senora de Candelaria Parish Church, nominated with the statement because Nope you can't do that. That would be like saying St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square parish church (despite the fact that St Martin in the Fields is a parish church and a famous one, to inject "trafalgar square" into the middle of it would be absrd. which is what Neelix is doing here. We don't have St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square Parish Church. You can't inject it like that. Since the redirect target is Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church, this makes no sense whatsoever.

• Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria, nominated with the statement because Neelix she was not Duchess in but of.. In fact, a simple google search reveals that the Neelix phrasing is more common than the "Duchess of Bavaria" phrasing thisw editor says is standard.

• Guillitine, nominated with the statement because This is a Neelix redirect. A man who knows a thing or two if Guillot would dispose to chop an I for O I see that's sound but this has its head on the ground. It admittedly did surprise me that this was a plausible misspelling, but Google searches and other online dictionaries treat this as a standard redirect, and it's hardly an unheard-of usage (eg, [141]. A pretty good example of why editors whould check rather than flying off the handle about things they don't like.

I therefore propose that User:SimonTrew be topic banned from matters related to Neelix redirects. Their editing has been grossly irresponsible; their refusal to do appropriate checks before their nominations is clear; their nomination statements are inaccurate, disruptive, and irrational; their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil, and they have refused to engage in discussion. This behavior does not improve the encyclopedia; it has become a pointless personal jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from SimonTrew but I have seen the code word "Neelix" being used indiscriminately in redirect deletion nominations and deletion edit summaries as if the redirect then automatically requires deletion. It's not always an appropriate or a sufficient explanation for deleting a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll also ping Sphilbrick and DGG as I see they've had some recent involvement in the discussion of RfDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Si Trew's heart is in the right place, but he (1) thinks he's funny and has a tendency to belittle and insult anyone he feels doesn't appreciate his lame attempts at comedy (probably the most notorious example), (2) shoots from the hip sometimes without engaging in due diligence (as evidenced by all the above), and (3) has a tendency to flare up in really bizarre ways when people don't agree with him (example which springs to mind, but you can find plenty of others just by dip-sampling his user talk contributions). He does do valuable support in the often thankless but necessary field of cleaning up redirects, and with that in mind I wouldn't object as an alternative to a "no attempts at comedy anywhere other than on your own talk page" restriction; as one of the admins who did the original batch delete of the notorious Tumorous titties redirect-farm which kicked the whole investigation into Neelix off, I can appreciate that it's hard to deal with the sheer volume of Neelix's disruption without getting snappy at times. (As I said at the time—and was opposed by Si Trew, as it happens—I feel that in some ways it would have been better for all concerned to run a damnatio memoriae bot to undo everything Neelix ever created, even though that would mean losing good along with bad; the timesink created by sorting the good from the bad is staggering and nowhere near complete.) ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  (Adding) @Liz:, "Neelix" is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects (see WP:G6). The full wording is any redirects created by Neelix if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. Without it, WP:RFD would grind to a halt; there are literally thousands of these things that need cleaning up. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Add this to Hullaballoo's evidence above (admin only, as it was a no-brainer revdelete for its obnoxiousness). ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some of that is still visible, and still very inappropriate. [142]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted hundreds of inappropriate redirects created by Neelix back in 2015 so I know that they numbered in the tens of thousands and many (but not all) are not useful. But I don't think just dropping a Neelix mention in a RfD nomination is a valid reason alone for deletion but that's my point of view. At the minimum though, Si should slow down. Just yesterday, at RFD he was responsible for 18 of the 20 nominations and those are only the redirects he thinks might be controversial, he CSDs more than that. Looking at the six pages full of redirects that Anomie has put together, it's evident that more need to be cleared out but I still think that we should only be deleting or nominating inappropriate redirects and those need to be evaluated independently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll start my comments by confessing to two biases, both in my opinion modest, but worth disclosing. First, I might have contributed to SimonTrew's approach. I'm well aware that doing a mindless task too long can be mindnumbing. Si's approach was to try to inject a little humor into an otherwise mindnumbing task. I'm probably guilty of encouraging him, as I thought some of the early efforts were humorous. YMMV.

My second bias is that while there are not many things in Wikipedia that make me angry, seeing yet another Neelix redirect makes me see red. In my opinion, we as a community failed in the general response. Given the magnitude of the problem, and the rarity of plausible redirects, plus the observation that a missing redirect is exceedingly innocuous, I would've preferred that we mass delete all of them and let anyone create the small handful that might have been appropriate. The community disagreed and I accept that, but it is quite sad that so many, many hours of valuable volunteer time have been sucked up by this cleanup. (I wrote this before seeing that Iridescent has made the same point, earlier and more eloquently.)

Now that I have that off my chest, I've tried to read the CSD nominations without bias, and I believe the vast majority of the Neelix nominations have been valid.

It is possible to carry something genuinely humorous too far, and if some do not find it humorous, that point will be earlier than for those who do find it humorous, so it might be wise for side to back off on the humor attempts. (As an aside my family would find it quite humorous that I am giving advice on humor; I am notoriously bad at it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: "Without [the Neelix CSD], WP:RFD would grind to a halt": That doesn't fit with history at all, RfD thrived long before Neelix redirects were called into question and it should continue to thrive long after (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log). If a redirect doesn't meet one of the WP:R#DELETE or WP:RFDOUTCOMES it generally isn't deleted at RfD. "'Neelix' is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects": It's a criteria for speedy deletion, most of the "Neelix" redirects listed at RfD either obviously don't qualify for it (i.e. don't explicitly meet an WP:R#DELETE or seem truly implausible) or have been declined, so it actually doesn't have much bearing on RfD discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have no intent whatseover of trawling through all these nominations, but one that came up on my watchlist was this one. This was a redirect from a moved page, with incoming links. Had it been speedied it would have left behind a number of redlinks that have no need to be red. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Another one on my watchlist is this where the reason given for deletion is "because Neelix redirect. Just because someone died into the title ain't supplied, it is just normal then to state in main text, there one can relate" which is gibberish. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Simon is doing a thankless task. No one is nominating redirects ONLY because Neelix created them, but tagging his name at RfD is very helpful as if good arguments to delete are advanced Admins often speedy the redirect. We should have mass deleted the whole lot of the redirects but that has not been done. Instead people come here attacking the people working on the cleanup. Oh and now we find his templates are misleading garbage too - see TfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding gibberish rationales on valid redirects should go unthanked. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite a thankless task User:Legacypac it is a bit of a sod but that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Neelix in no way made them in bad faith he made them in good faith but we have to decide what to do with them, about eighty percent go CSD, ten percent I tag as keep, the other fifteen percent I list at RfD. (That makes 105% but I keep the shilling from the guinea if that is OK with you). Yes it is not hard work but very boring for both admins and for people like me who speak a lot of languages so have to try to explain in English why a redirect does not make sense in French and so on. I don't mind it, but considering I created things like Old Rouen Tramway and Mariniere out of WP:PNT from French I am not quite as green as I am cabbage looking and I am a bit offended if people think I am. What do I have to have a pic on my user page showing how ugly I look? Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The two that came up on my watchlist, as I linked above, were perfectly valid redirects resulting from pagemoves. They have incoming links, so are serving the proper purpose of redirects. There was no way they were eligible for speedy deletion, and the "rationale" I quoted above makes no sense whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I thought one or two of his earlier comments were quite funny, but I think he has gone a bit further than that. I've just come from his talk page, after I declined an apparently irrelevant CSD request (possibly posted on the wrong page), and left a message about that and a request to tone things down. After saving, I noticed that DGG had already made a similar comment, and saw Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's link to here. I hope that Si takes notice of us and cools things somewhat before a topic ban is imposed. If he doesn't, there's probably no other way. I've declined some Neelix redirects as there are some that are valid, and the rest that aren't at least aren't totally undermining the foundations of the encyclopaedia. They're silly to us, but were probably made in good faith by Neelix. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

My reply and I probably have it in the wrong section. I have no doubt that Neelix made them in good faith, they are a bit mindniming after you do about sixty or seventy a night. The user User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who proposed me for a topic ban I do not believe is in good faith, probably just not quite understanding that when I propose at CSD I tend to list in rhyme and such so that the poor old admins such as User:Sphilbrick can at least get a bit of fun with my really bad poetry. I am starting to assume bad faith with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz because usually it is bold, revert, discuss, with several admins I know from editing over the years (on Wikipedia not personally) the little rhymes and things amuse, when CSD is not abuse. What User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is WP:HOUNDING frankly. If you have a look at my talk page or that user's talk page any question I ask is immediately reverted by that user so I am starting to lose good faith. I was actually thinking that user was a sockpuppet of User:Neelix. I have no problem with Neelix, he in good faith edited and made the encylopaedia a lot better, that was when we didn't have a search engine that nearly worked. He has fetishes for breasts such as I have listed in CSD tonight, but he was in no manner a bad faith editor, there are plenty of top-shelf magazines if you want to do that, you are hardly likely to do it on Wikipedia are you. When I say "Neelix nonsense" that is just really Wikipedia jargon under the WP:66 Neelix concession but I do not understand why, as someone who probably contributes not only to WP:RFD but to WP:PNT and have translated articles from Latin, Hungarian, Spanish, French and some weirdo language they speak in Wales that I am not qualified, under the Neelix concession to list things at RfD.

I believe User:Sphilbrick is an admin and I am not asking for his backup I am man enough to argue for myself, but Sphilbrick seemed to appreciate the little jokes I put in the listings at CSD, which I have been making ever more rime riche. I am not asking for any kinda special treatment, what actually I am worried about is whether User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz actually is an admin or not, which seems something that user will not say. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo has been accusing quite a lot of people around wp and does not respond to queries posted on his talk page.This user does not assume good faith and has been known to disruptivEly edit the encyclopedia, as his block log suggests. I would also like to point out that the username suggests that the user posesses a grudge against the admins and this Indiscriminate harassment of new users may be more of a personal vendatta rather than a desire to work witb the community for improving the encyclopedia.-Account2235 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a keen observation, Account2235, especially since you've been an editor for one day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am a keen observer as you can observe the user has something about WP's administrators in his signature which prompted the research into this users contributions one thing led to another and 2 days later here I am with all this information.Also note that I had an altercation with the user:Hullaballoo and my view may have been influenced by it.--Account2235 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: You can check if an editor is an admin via Special:ListUsers. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

{@Cylpo: I deliberately didn't. There is a kinda well I may have it the wrong way but that the user is or is not an admin I believe he or she is not. Then, that user cannot take my things out of CSD and listing at ANI is absurd. I will start defending myself. I do not believe that that user is an admin therefore I do not think that user had any right to speedily keep my listings under the WP:G6 concession to then as a user who has no administration rights then speedily to delete them, I think that is abuse of process and I would list that user here were it not for the fact that user is not an admin. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. The reason I list in rhyme and so on is it is a hard job for the admins to plough through the redirects as much as it is for me to list them. I believe that this user who has declined my nominations at CSD is playing on admin rights without quite saying so because this user never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible to discuss this user's behaviour. I am not standing on cerermony but I genuinely believe that this user does not quite "get it" what we do to make the encylopaeidia better. I don't care what is listed at the CSD's that was because User:Sphilbrick said that I don't want to put words in that user's mouth but something like "I must admit usually at CSD I just roll my eyes but yours always make me crack up". Now, what am I to do? Of course I want it to be simple for admins to delete things but I have to offer reasonable explanation and if I do it in canto, rime riche, iambic pentameter or limerick, so what? That does not make me a bad editor. What makes someone a bad editor is that whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start. Si Trew (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm getting pissed off. Si Trew has repeatedly posted comments such as that I "never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible" and "whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start". I have never deleted "a talk conversation" started by Si Trew, anywhere (unless he's also one of the anon/IP vandals who show up regularly on my talk page). I have never reverted anything on his user talk page; I've just checked my contribution history over the last two years, and I've only made two edits to his talk page, both in the last two days, both template notices which removed nothing from it. I've responded to several of Si Trew's request (despite his often failing to notify me of the discussions, and sometimes actively aboiding notifying me User_talk:Alcherin#CSD_redirects_by_you_know_who; Si Trew has generally ignored my responses and refused to engage, until I opened the ANI discussion. It is frankly next to impossible to take such comments in good faith. When did it become acceptable to so brazenly make such false accusations against other editors? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Si Trew, any editor can remove a CSD tag if it has been wrongly applied. Misapplied CSD tags can result in the deletion of valid pages so it's important that pages that are tagged incorrectly be untagged if there are questions about the tag's appropriateness. And to show I'm not biased, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed two CSD tags I had applied to redirects. I disagree with his reasons but he had a right to evaluate them and judge whether they were incorrect (of course, he was wrong this time but he has the right!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Si Trew thread arbitrary break

• Trew is doing a truly awesome job at RfD,and he has the innate ability to sift shit from piss over there. Trew's wry/dry humor is only for the cognoscenti so don't sweat it. Luridaxiom (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• SimonTrew is using his multiple language abilities on tackling all the Neelix Latin redirects I was afraid to touch. Turns out Neelix's Latin was as bad as his breast fetish and obsession with srewing around with subjects names in strange ways. They are like redirecting Bears and Sun bears at Polar Bears. When processing 50,000 redirects we are bound to mAke the occasional bad call, so let's not get too excited over the occasional questionable CSD. If some potentially valid redirect gets turfed with the misleading crap, the project will not fall apart. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I disagree with the Neelix bashing that goes on at RfD, and have never personally engaged in it, but many users do. I would suggest a blanket statement that everyone at RfD should limit their Neelix directed comments to "(Neelix redirect)", but SimonTrew shouldn't be singled out. Si Trew's contributions to RfD are irreplaceable and of high value. Topic banning them from any discussions there would be a net-negative to the forum.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Everyone makes errors,and I have from time to time had discussions with SimonTrew about a few of his. But considering the amount of excellent work that he has been doing in cleaning up the remnants of the utter mess that Neelix left us with, I can not consider this blameworthy , nor can I imagine that if I were doing the amount of work he has been doing on this that I would do any better. All that is necessary is a reminder to go just a little slower, and bring any possibly doubtful cases to RfD. (the doubtful cases seem primarily those where Neelix made one of his ill-advised redirects but accidentally happened to create one that was actually useful. Distinguishing this can sometimes take subject knowledge and therefore need discussion.) DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If SimonTrew were creating silly redirects I would happily support a ban, but we should give the cleaner a great deal of slack when helping to reverse the absurdities dumped on the encyclopedia by Neelix. While redirects are cheap, the idea that every possible phrase should be made a redirect is unhelpful and it is better that the excesses of the past be cleaned up. If someone really wants to paste "Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria" into the URL and go to the right page, what about Maria Sophie Amalie Duchess in Bavaria and all the other possibilities? Wikipedia's search mechanism is improving, and it should be able to handle most useful cases. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (sort of) Can we just implement a restriction that SimonTrew is required to knock off the humour and leave relevant (and comprehensible) edit summaries? Since that is the main issue. A relevant summary would indicate he knows and understands what he is doing, and would stop annoying others when he does make the occasional mistake. (Actually forcing him to describe what he is doing might help prevent said mistakes). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claiming that "their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil" is almost breathtaking in its irony. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - You can't really blame the bloke for trying to have a laugh after going through the thousands of redirects all "kindly" created by Neelix, I personally would've preferred for all of the redirects to be nuked regardless of whether they were actually helpful or not but unfortunately wasn't the case, Anyway I would suggest SimonTrew perhaps knocks off the humour just a notch but other than that I don't really see a problem and don't really see anything that says "Yes this editor needs to be topicbanned", Also Topicbanning him would mean the Neelix-sorting would take even longer ..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Can there at least be an acknowledgment that some of the explanations for the nominations are practically gibberish? Some are nonsensical. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz I agree some don't make the blindest bit of sense at all but I had a feeling someone somewhere would've been offended etc which is why I left it out entirely but yes the edit summaries/comments need to make sense ... well much more sense really.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose He's doing a bang-up job finding all of Neelix's incorrect redirects. KoshVorlon 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - meh. From memory, this is not the first time OP has suggested a topic ban related to Neelix redirects against overwhelming consensus that they should be tagged and deleted in exactly this manner; Legacypac can probably refresh me on that one. Having personally sifted through a few hundred or thousand or so of Neelix's redirects and the associated RfD discussions since the start, I assure you that "because Neelix" is indeed perfectly valid rationale - some of the redirects he created are so mind-numbingly ridiculous that we created a special deletion criterion for them which amounts to "because Neelix". Because it's not worth anyone's time to try to go through them individually, but Gotch bless users like LP and Si Trew who are trying anyway. SimonTrew: if I could offer one more bit of advice to you from this thread, I advise to assume when applying Neelix-related G6 tags to assume that whichever user reviews will not know anything about Neelix, nor be able to decipher your humour. A clear rationale allows a reviewer to quickly say "yes, this is G6" or "no, I disagree with this rationale and here's why". The "here's why" of course is just as important. Meanwhile, making any revert with an edit summary "absolute blithering incompetence" is a clear personal attack and entirely unwarranted, not to mention not a valid reason to remove a CSD tag. Also unwarranted personal attacks issued in Hullaballoo's edit summaries are "rv idiocy", "it's evident that the nom is either utterly irresponsible or competency-challenged", "per WP:COMPETENCE", "per WP:COMPETENCE" again, "timewasting and nonconstructive", "abusively hasty speedy tagging", "incoherent and invalid", not all of which have been levelled at SimonTrew but at other users tagging articles in good faith. Maybe if the burden of non-admin patrolling CSD is weighing on Hullaballoo, they should take a break. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse the above wholeheartedly. Just how is an admin doing the mind-numbing task of patrolling CAT:CSD supposed to react to a deletion rationale like This well known brand of tum antacid is now a Neelix, I'm not placid, this makes nonsense of the targ it don't make sense so thus I ask it be deleted swiftly by some admin who knows more than I (on a redirect to a French journalist) with anything other than the presumption that they've stumbled on a particularly peculiar piece of vandalism? ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose SiTrew's humor might simply not set well with everybody. I think anyone will harmlessly resort to humor if you try to clean up a lot of Redirects. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm that is very odd. When I go to my page or something it says it must be noted on the user's talk page that there is a discussion at ANI or something like that some banner. It was certainly not noted to me so I only actually found this ANI discussion by accident. User:Lenticel does a lot of good work over at RfD clearing up east asian language redirects so I think it is fair to declare an interest there but I have never met him or her just throough Rfd. Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew, you're a pal, but take care that you don't toss careless accusations, especially here. The notice on your page is here, and you replied to it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not me tossing the careless accusations. It is not me who brought another editor to ANI to explain myself. I should like to know whose careless accusations you mean. This is not Judge Judy. As it happens this has taken a lot of time of mine away from making the encylopaedia better, needlessly. You probably do not live in Hungary and have to speek Hungarian Roma and other languages before you get a loaf of bread. I do know what I am doing. The fact that a bad faith editor, as I suspected, cannot be bothered to reply to any conversation is not my problem.

The first thing when you work out a problem, is decide whose problem it is. If it is not yours, you can just walk away from it. I love editing Wikipedia so I am spending time to discuss the problem. I ain't accused anyone of anything. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a detailed explanation of why each Neelix redirect should be deleted, but sadly many of them are so indescribably stupid the best explanation I've come up with is "Neelix Nonsense"TM I've CSD'd hundreds of non-existent Neelix invented words, and we meep finding them. Simon Trew's worst nom's make more sense then many of the redirects. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it is the WP:G6 Neelix concession, that was put in place for six months and that six months is nearly finished. I am sorry that my humo(u)r may not go down so well with another editor who does not seem to bother to reply to anything but all this hullabaloo is just getting in the way. I Have to make a guarded choice when I list at CSD or RfD or speedily keep, otherwise we flood the whole lot. I am fed up with explaining myself, if you want to ban me, just ban me. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They won't and you won't be. And someone somewhere will continue to be treated like dirt by admins. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just steer clear of insults, and be plain enough for admins returning from the wilderness who missed the original screening of the show. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Culi

Hi. I am having some issues with Leonard culi (talk · contribs · logs). The editor persistently fails/ignores to update timestamps despite messages at their talkpage, thus introducing factual errors in a BLP. Examples include [143], [144], [145] and much more.

The reason I bring this here, is because the editor was created when 217.73.143.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a month, after persistently doing the same thing and shorter blocks where not helping. Also today a very similar IP adress 217.73.143.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was editing the exact same articles in the same discruptive manners.

Articles are many, including

• Edvan Bakaj
• Erjon Vuçaj
• Gjergji Muzaka
• Gilman Lika
• Senad Sallaku
• KF Tirana
• ...

and I think it would be better with a block instead of semi-protection as it spans over several articles. Perhaps a rangeblock (if possible) and perhaps the account should also be blocked?

I leave the decisions up to admin, but in my mind something has to be done. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look? Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassing phone calls from jayron32

Deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jayron32 made an harassing phone call last night. I don't know how he got my phone number. He threatened to reveal my personal identity to all of the Wikipedia editors if I ever dare revert his edits. What should be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.60 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Complain to your local police; harassing calls may be criminal. I'm sure they will give you precisely the attention you deserve. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Block an obvious troll? John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Another IP recently (about April 15) made a similar bogus complaint about another admin "threatening" him offline. Can something be done with that yoyo, or is Wikipedia stuck with him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I blocked that one too. Probably the same yoyo. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find it. Maybe it was rev-del'd. But it would be interesting to try to see if the two are the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Arashinc

There has been a discussion on my talk page, on User:Arashinc talk page. I have added referenced information which has been reverted because Arashic says "I am friend of John Connolly (guitarist of the band). I asked him about the credits back in march 2015" and "I disagree with you in this case. U r giving people wrong information. Those songwriting credits r completely false". The changes made by me have been referenced and I am offered to add/assist with alternatively referenced items with disagree with the additions I have made. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note User:Arashinc is now in violation of WP:3RR at Angel's Son and other articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Are they? I don't see a 3RR violation at Angel's Son. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you give a diff for the comment? I'm not immediately seeing anything to indicate a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for Angel, my mind was on the difference between text and infobox. The problem covers the whole of the Sevendust song articles.

Some are at second revert, some are already at third revert, for instance Driven (Sevendust song), first revert, second revert Please note shows as a revert of Niceguyedc, but includes my edit. third revert.

Discussions at his talkpage have been deleted here and here. The full discussion on my talkpage are there to be seen. Not sure COI is an appropriate accusation - I think it was somebody pretending to know somebody they don't - see first post on my talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Rpo.castro

Rpo.castro is engaged in edit warring at S.C. Braga B, S.C. Braga (beach soccer) and File:Sporting Clube Braga.png SLBedit (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You may want to consider reporting this to WP:ANEW. GAB^Hello! 01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of non-free-use rationales on File:Sporting Clube Braga.png and subsquent file removal from articles S.C. Braga B and S.C. Braga (beach soccer) by SLBedit (talk · contribs). I've tried do discuss that on File talk:Sporting Clube Braga.png but seems its just SLBedit (talk · contribs) going on with his point of view without support (as in the past over and over again).Rpo.castro (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I explained why you should not use that logo in more than one article. You are kinda obtuse. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just write your opinion, while I remarked the lack of support of your statement. Myquestions are still unanswering.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP editor

An IP editor has repeatedly made an accusation that I'm lying relating to the BLP on Pam Bondi.[146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151] He may disagree with me, but I've provided a number of reliable sources that support what I say, proving that this isn't something I made up. The IP has not, however, provided evidence to the contrary, let alone anything that would justify calling my a liar. He has been warned several times on his talk page [152], [153], on the article talk page [154] and at the BLPN [155]. Editor notified here [156] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Los Osos High School

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

---

• Los Osos High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An incident at a high school, suggesting racist vandalism in the school's yearbook, has received some press coverage. I removed a good faith addition of the item as WP:NOTNEWS [157]. It has been added several times, though, with less commendable tones [158]; [159]. I'm not sure if there's enough activity to justify page protection, but mostly I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page and have redacted the poorly-sourced content in question. Nakon 03:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nakon. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and personal attack

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

---

User:69.112.141.14 should be blocked for vandalism and for making a personal attack on another editor (me).

I ran across the first vandalism at Feminism and equality. After reverting the edit, I checked out the user's talk page, where I noted several warnings for vandalism over the last couple of months. After checking all the user's edits, I decided to use a single-warning template, since nearly every edit by this user had been a particularly harsh form of vandalism.

Today, the same user left me a personal attack (which I deleted) on my talk page.

I don't think this person is planning to help the project much; a block would be appropriate. — Gorthian (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support it seems like this IP shouldn't only be blocked for Personal Attacks. He has only made POV vandalism in his six edits in the last two months. It seems the user is not hiding a very strict anti-third-wave-feminism agenda and there is no reason to assume he is WP:THERE. I support an indef block.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• IP anonblocked for 3 months. Widr (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Spam blacklist is a pain in the arse

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

---

Philip DeFranco has been vandalized but I can't revert the vandalism as the last good revision contains archive.is, which is on the spam blacklist. Admin assistance required to remove the vandalism. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edits and removed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. It honestly makes no sense to outright block instead of just warn for edits that contain blacklisted links as it's just waiting to be exploited by vandals. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you undo instead of reverting you will get an edit window in which you can also make other changes, such as removing blacklisted urls, before saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?) on the ANI project page

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

---

Here is the exact text and structure of the users requesting that User:E.M.Gregory be blocked/topic banned for BLP: Diff of vote Diff of vote (Particularly Huldra)

• This restored a blatant BLP violation, claiming that a named living person advocated violent attacks on Armenians when the source said no such thing. Calling it both well-sourced and significant when reverting a removal that specifically calls out WP:BLP, which I note says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. is a violation of both WP:BLP and basic common sense. This is typical of this users work here. ----------Comment by nableezy

• I can confirm that it is indeed an outrageous BLP-violation; E.M. Gregory writes "due to his advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" ...which is absolutely not in the source. However, the source is in Swedish (yes; I can read it), can E.M. Gregory even read the source? (Not that it is any excuse if he cannot.) ------Comment BY Huldra

Making an accusations that the E.M. Gregory restores BLP violations, and purposely leaving out that right afterwards, E.M. Gregory self reverted, by adding a new reliable source and entirely corrected the text that is BLP violation, seems like filing a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment.

There appears to be a lot more on Huldra's selective reporting/not reporting history but won't go off topic (yet). CaseeArt ^Talk 07:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given that E.M.Gregory amended the work to make it BLP compliant the same day (3rd May I might add, 6 days ago): reliable source, wording reflects that used in the source etc. What is the problem *now*? Waiting 6 days to report something as a BLP issue clearly indicates it was not that big of a problem or you would have done it sooner. Leaving out the following diffs where the issue was corrected, as Caseeart points out above, is highly suspect. Firstly it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material, secondly its just highly intentionally misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is like Blue, the detective in Auster's Ghosts, constructing stories to explain the void that is his subject, Black. If you two are going to construct theories to explain the actions of 2 editors in good standing you could at least make the effort to use more robust reasoning before you cast aspersions. I realize many people enjoy imagining things about other people, but alternative theories should be considered, assumptions examined and Occam's razor deployed before writing things like "Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?)" and "just highly intentionally misleading". And what in the name of fuck is this "it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material"? They did employ "edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material" exactly as Nableezy described, edit warring is "typical of this users work here", and it wasn't until several hours later that they noticed that they had, once again, made an 'error' i.e. a very serious BLP violation, one of four, only one of which they acknowledged as an 'error'. Why no theories to explain why it was so hard for E.M.Gregory to see or care about their 'errors', their multiple BLP violations? Why no cognitive dissonance induced by the impossibility of reconciling the blocking reason given by the admin with the statement "a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment". Anyway, I'm sure Huldra and Nableezy can speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Its not anyone elses job to go hunting through EM Gregory's edit history to evidence Nableezy's accusation. If Nableezy wants to demonstrate an ongoing issue with BLP violating edits they need to make that case with diffs. As it stands the complaint *here* is both stale (the problem no longer exists in this case) and has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence. Asking for a block for one edit that has already been corrected without showing the correction is just iffy on multiple levels. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-read the ANI report, specifically, my initial 4th diff, E.M.Gregory's statement starting 'The error I did commit...', my statement starting 'It's good to see that you corrected your errors', Nableezy's statement and consider whether it is true or false and what kind behaviorial non-compliance it explicitly describes, consider the size of the set of alternative explanations for why Nableezy didn't post until yesterday, and consider why Huldra, as a Swedish speaker, might comment on the diff. Then consider whether the 500+ active admins had sufficient information to make a decision about E.M.Gregory's policy violations or whether the "complaint *here*...has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it *is* one sided. When you make an accusation that someone made an outrageous BLP violation and dont also include that they corrected it the same day, it is a ridiculously one-sided presentation of the facts. If you dont understand that, I cant really explain it any further to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, Sherlock, my problem was with that edit, in that it was an explicit violation of WP:BLP's prohibition on simply reverting to restore material that an editor has claimed in good faith is a BLP violation. That BLP specifically requires that if the material is to be reinserted without modification it must be discussed and a consensus for it achieved first. E.M. Gregorys edit violated that prohibition, regardless of what happened after that. E.M. Gregory did not do discuss the material (the talk page for the article remains blank), and for that reason that specific edit was a violation of the policy. Not to mention that the material was initially added to the article by E.M. Gregory himself prior to being removed by me. Toodles, nableezy - 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well technically yes that would be a violation of the BLP policy, but since the sourcing was amended 2 minutes later and the wording in the article was amended 3 hours later - before anyone thought to remove it again as a BLP issue - and it has subsequently stayed in the article for the last six days, it is not exactly a pressing incident is it? If you think E.M. Gregory should be banned from BLP's, make a discussion on AN laying out diffs that support your case. Since blocks are (allegedly) not punitive, blocking someone for a past BLP violation that they have since corrected would be punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

@Boing! said Zebedee: Can we re-open the case? I think there was a total misunderstanding here. This thread was (supposed to be) about blocking/banning users Nablezzy and Huldra, for a serious personal attack, and for attempting to trick an administrator into blocking another user.

“Nobody is going to face admin action for a BLP violation that they, themselves, rectified a few hours later based on a reliable source, six days ago.” Thanks for confirming precisely the problem! User Nablezzy and User Huldra intentionally tried tricking an administrator Ricky81682 into ‘’’taking action’’’ and blocking/banning E.M. Gregory. They reported a 6 day old serious BLP violation edit, and they purposely left out that E.M. Gregory already self reverted a few hours later and rectified the problem. Not only is this a personal attack but this shows dishonesty on the ANI page in order to block (pro Israeli) users. It’s like walking into a police station and committing a crime. This is also dishonesty towards administrators, and is disrespectful and not fair to the involved administrators who already volunteer so much their time and effort to resolve other user’s disputes and ANI’s, - because now the admins need to spend extra time digging through every single claim being made, as it may be intentionally false and misleading. CaseeArt ^Talk 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if he rectified that edit. The bigger problem was the nonsense talk page comments of "Why aren't we talking about so-and-so's hatred of the Jews?". Are you seriously going to defend that kind of editing? Double this with the nonsense about you not dropping the Shabbazz attacks, and I'm not seeing anything but a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, at least there is a confirmation that the actual action had nothing to do with those two last misleading claims - and I will drop it per Ricky81682. Regarding the attacks it was made clear that, that history is only to be brought up if the attacks will persist. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the actual close. It was not a one-sentence summary. (A) I was concerned about the talk page comments. (B) EM Gregory changed it from living person advocating something to associating with advocates which is an indication that it was inaccurate and (C) then called it an "error" that should be ignored based on the total scope of his contributions which is absurd. It was clearly inaccurate and that is no mild difference. The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it. And a month-long topic ban in my view is being extraordinarily generous given the absolutely vile and inappropriate talk page comments for an editor who have been here long enough to know what is and what isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Added strikethrough on request for clarification. I also think that it was overly nice when you gave the user a chance to rectify themselves and then waited patiently a very long time. I've never interacted (directly) with EM Gregory but I could discuss with the on their talk page.- CaseeArt ^Talk 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it." Blocks are not punitive remember. If you are genuinely advocating someone should be blocked for what *might* have happened, that is beyond punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone can revert a close of mine if they think I have made a mistake or disagree with it in any way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Harizen20 adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi

user:Harizen20 is adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi, in spite of repeated requests not to do so - please help. Ssriram mt (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Unhedge

Hi, I have an issue with User:Unhedge. His editing history seems to suggest that he may have a WP:COI, and when I try to talk to him about it, he is rude and refuses to answer my question. He told me to stick to my area of competency, among other things. See my talk page. --TJH2018talk 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:TJH2018, thanks, glad you reverted my comments which you took as personal attack (and then subsequently deleted from your talk page) even though you were rude to begin with. Let others be the judge. Everyone edit wikipedia for one motivation or another, as long as they are unbiased and do not rely of unsubstantiated sources (like magazines). My references are based on official documentation, where as you reverted my work despite me leaving comments demonstrating the reasons my version is far more accurate based on official documentations. You didn't bother to understand nor read in detail the subject matter you were editing. User:unhedge 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

unhedge - I don't see where TJH2018 was rude to you; can you please explain? What "documents" are you referring to in your response above? Are these secondary reliable sources that can be peer-reviewed and verified by the public? If not, this sounds like original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, as well as no original research. These guidelines may address your concerns and help you understand which sources constitute as acceptable, and which do not. I also see that you may be involved in an edit war on Imperial Pacific. Be very careful; as violating the three-revert rule can constitute edit warring (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). Please take time to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page before making any more changes there. Failing to do so will result in a block being placed on your account. I will await your response here regarding the documents that you're referring to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a public company stub, the reputable sources are exchange filings which I have included on the talkpage. And User:TJH2018 reverted the work without communicating and then accussed me (the original author) of being rude. The said article already has a long standing version of it in Chinese.unhedge 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit? You seem to have a major conflict of interest here. Please see WP:COI. If you work for this company, you must disclose this, as well as if you are getting paid to edit. --TJH2018talk 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He just got blocked for a 3RR violation. Also, you are completely rude. You cannot tell an editor to 'stick to your area of competency.' That is just an insult, and how would you know what I know anyways? TJH2018talk 17:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018talk 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Comment from yesterday: "You are excused, there is already a well documented version of this in Chinese https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%9A%E8%8F%AF%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E6%B4%8BStick to stuff you know.unhedge (talk) 5:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) thanks"

TJH2018 - Lets not infuse the situation by becoming angry and butting heads with him. I understand that it can be hard at times (trust me... haha), but remember that we're here to assume good faith, look past "rude comments", and try to assist wherever we can. When we stay calm and professional despite what comments are thrown at us and lead by example, it will usually result in him doing the same. When you respond to him with things such as, "Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit?", it only makes the situation worse; remember that we're here to be as peaceful as possible, no matter what :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Agreed. I feel like Spock. TJH2018talk 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018 - HA! Love it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ecoboy90

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

---

Could someone check their edits Ecoboy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and possibly block them (temporarily) since they seem to be causing various disruption over the long term. Feinoha ^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw, The user's last edit few edits finally seem to make sense so I don't think there's any need for admin action at the current moment. Feinoha ^Talk 19:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Pocketthis making legal threats

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

---

After an image they posted was reverted, Pocketthis (talk · contribs) made this edit, saying in the edit summary Explain "Image Spam" to me Chiswick Chap, and it better be good, or I'll sue you for deformation of character. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) then messaged him about the legal threat and Pocketthis responded with this clarification that it was indeed a legal threat. Aside from Pocketthis's continued aggressive attitude towards others, which is what brought my attention to this initially , this is a clear legal threat. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• This issue was settled before this guy Aoidh (who follows me around just waiting to start one of these investigations, quite childish actually) came here to complain about it. Chriswick Chap and I made our peace, so why this is posted here?... only Aoidh knows. One of my photos was called Spam on the public summary board in an article, and that is a first for me here. I told him to explain himself, or I would sue him for Deformation of Character. He took it as comedy, and then fixed the caption in the article. OVER. Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, not completely over, but mostly over. User:Pocketthis, people around here tend to freak out when legal threats are made, and you need to be really careful not to do that. It's often treated not as a "hey, don't do that" kind of policy violation, but as a "block indef until it's officially retracted" kind of policy violation. Chiswick Chap seems to not be too bothered by it and understands that this was kind of a silly threat made in anger, and as long as you understand that saying you'll "sue for defamation of character" or similar can get you blocked, then yes, I think we're done. But don't take the rule against it lightly, because it can escalate quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• (ec) Considering the exchange is already deescalated, there is zero point to stirring up drama on this board over it. Move along, please, and no other characters will need to be deformed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• I had no idea what I said about suing was against policy. I was just trying to get his attention, and to get him to retract or at least explain the word "spam". I thought he was implying that I made a fake photo. He has since apologized on his talk page, and I accepted, and made friends. I assumed it was over. I will not threaten to sue here again. Thanks for the explanation Floquenbeam, and thanks for ending this Laser brain . Pocketthis (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Attack page - Selim Mehajer

Hi all, it appears that Selim Mehajer was just deleted by the admin JamesBWatson as an "attack page", and redirected to Auburn City Council#History.

The page is not in any way an "attack page". Could someone please explain why this occurred?

Interestingly, as I'm the one who created it, I was not advised, warned or informed in any way that it was deleted. I'm surprised it happened, and even more surprised that an admin who sees what they consider to be an attack on another person wouldn't even leave a message warning that person of their behaviour.

What also concerns me is that it seems to be an end run around AFD. Selim Mehajer is a very prominent figure in Australia, and is constantly in the media for entirely notable things that he does. It was in office and is facing an investigation around accusations of conflict of interest, and will be before the courts on alleged electoral fraud soon.

Under the processes that are in place currently, deleting a page in the manner that just occured seems entirely out of process. Firstly, an "attack page" should surely be fixed if the article is of a notable figure, and if necessary someone with oversight rights should hide the revisions that slander the party involved. Secondly, if it is to be deleted, then my understanding is that it should go to Articles for Deletion - and in fact, it doesn't appear to be a candidate as a Proposed Deletion as there is a reasonable objection that Selim is notable enough for his own article. And thirdly, I left a note on the talk page explaining what I was doing, but the admin didn't do me the courtesy of responding to this.

I'm sure the admin was using their best judgement and felt their action was protecting the reputation of Wikipedia and the subject, Selim Mehajer, but I think this action was wrongly taken and I would request that it be reversed. Thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack pages are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G10. I've had a look at the deleted article, and it was entirely a criticism piece showing the man in a wholly negative light. It was written in an editorial style rather than an encyclopedic style, presented allegations as facts, and included a number of negative claims that were not supported by reliable sources. In my opinion, speedy deletion was entirely proper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand. The article still should exist on it's own though. If I was to review the issues and write a more neutral one, is that still possible? I largely took the material from Auburn City Council, I can rewrite it from scratch.

What in particular is the issue though? Also, why wasn't I notified that I was overstepping bounds? I would appreciate that, as a courtesy at the very least so that I can review and correct any inappropriate editing behaviour that I may be engaged in. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The main issue, as Boing! said Zebedee explained, is that the article appears to have been written about a person, and was written entirely with a negative analysis and criticism about the person. There were also allegations presented as facts and with no reliable sources provided. Articles written in this manner about living people will be reported and deleted immediately upon discovery. You're new here; and I understand that you probably didn't understand our policies in this situation. It's okay to make mistakes; we understand and we're more than willing to help you! I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's biographies of living people, neutral point of view, and identifying reliable sources guidelines, as they are relevant to this situation and will provide you with all of the information that you need. If you have any questions regarding the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to here, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and ask. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Understand the POV concern (though I hadn't intended on making it specifically an attack page, but I can see how it may have turned out that way), but every one of the citations was to a reliable news source. I sourced my material from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph and The Australian. I think (but can't recall) sourcing The Guardian as well. I also recall sourcing material from The Daily Mail, which was verifiable and accurate - even if that publication is not has a much reputation as the other sources. What reference was considered unreliable? Also, what allegations were stated as fact? The material I added did not do this, and the other material was taken directly from Auburn City Council#History, which I modified slightly. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, incidentally, I'm not that new around here. I do understand the policies and procedures pretty well. Just thought you should know... - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; I meant no insult. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense taken :-) I never read it as an insult, I just wanted to disclose that even though my edit history may be a bit patchy I'm a reasonably experienced contributor - I only said that to make sure I didn't mislead you in any way. In fact, your response was excellent and if I had been a newbie then I think I would have been informed and happy that I was being treated with honesty and civility.

I do want to ask where I went wrong given the response by Boing! said Zebedee. I don't believe that the text has any material that presented allegations as fact because I took pains to actually make sure that allegations were stated as allegations. I don't mind being told that the article was slanted too negatively, and was thus deleted, but I think I do (politely) object to being told that I presented allegations as fact, when in fact I didn't.

FWIW, I'm not outraged and accept the decision of the admin who deleted the article, however I thought it would be reasonable to appeal the decision on AN/I. I have notified the admin that he is mentioned here under the listed process, I hope that is alright. I suppose I should note that my only criticism of the admin who deleted the page was that they didn't notify me what they had done, at the very least because I was initially confused about where my edits got to and also because I thought that editors who are violating guidelines and rules (even inadvertently) should be at least advised that their editing practices should be altered. I wouldn't have taken offence, and even if I had then it would still have been the polite and civil thing to do. That's my only real issue at this moment, it looks like the decision itself was in line with current policy so I apologise to the wider Wikipedia community for having stepped outside the established norms of editing. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am, however, rather upset that this has been flagged for speedy deletion under the C7 criteria by WWGB, especially as I'm actively working on it. Isn't it normal to allow someone to keep working on the article to show notability before tagging it for speedy deletion? I don't understand how this person is not notable, they aren't just notable in Australia - they are notorious! The amount of media coverage about serious allegations around the deputy Mayor of a major Local Government Area (City of Auburn) within the state of NSW is extraordinary. I mean, he has an AFP investigation for electoral fraud happening right now, amongst other things. A whole special article was written up on him in the major national Australian newspaper, The Australian. I just don't understand how this tag can have been put on the page in good faith. Did the editor not see the talk page? - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of Salim Mehajer who, like a Kardashian, is famous only for being famous. He had a lavish wedding, so do many others. He has no convictions, so charges should not be mentioned according to WP:BLPCRIME. Being a deputy mayor is not sufficient for notability per WP:POLITICIAN. An article cannot be entirely negative. So what is left to write about? What we have, IMO, is a serial self-promoter who has found his 15 minutes of fame, but who has very little in real achievements that could form the skeleton of an acceptable Wikipedia article. You have indicated the scope of the problem with your first pass at the article: all that can be said is he was born, was educated and became a deputy mayor, none of which establishes notability so far. I wish you well, but I think if anything balanced and meaningful could be written about Mehajer, someone else would have done it by now. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We agree to disagree then. I think it's quite notable that he has faced court proceedings many times, pretty much was the main reason the council was put under administration, is currently facing charges of electoral fraud by the Australian Federal Police, and a variety of other things which are notable enough to make every major newspaper write serious articles about him. He still has serious questions to answer about his tender for the John St car park, which is still being investigated. Like I have said, I am happy if you want to take it to AFD, but I think I've established his notability. I'm fine with you disagreeing, but given you want the article deleted for notability perhaps you should take it to AFD? I'm happy to do this myself if you'd like, but I'm concerned it might be viewed as POINTY. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Letsbefiends is quite right in saying that he/she should have been informed of the deletion. Normal practice is that the person who nominates a page for speedy deletion informs the creator of the page of the nomination. It would have helped if I had checked whether that had been done, and on seeing that it hadn't, informed Letsbefiends myself instead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I appreciate you saying this. - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Hijiri88

I have gone quite disgusted with the conduct of the above named editor, User:Hijiri88, including most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. Records will show that his first recent edits to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity also included disparaging remarks to the set up of those pages. Also, in recent history, he has made similar grossly irrelevant and counterproductive aspersions regarding my motivations elsewhere. Given his recently demonstrated "refusal to let go" (as one of the closing admins described it) regarding his recent Arbitration clarification and amendment request, now to be found here, and his other recent activity, including as well as his frankly repulsive, repeated requests and comments regarding others impugning their activities, including me at the thread first linked to, at AlbinoFerret in the AE request, etc., and his own violation of the ban there, I think that the time has come to perhaps again review whether this editor is capable of working in this system. I had mentioned in the Arb case that I was definitely of the impression that we were proceeding to the point of a site ban of him, and, although I am not in a position to judge whether these recent events are sufficient (and I myself doubt they are) I think it worth the time and effort of others to try to get through to this individual that, whatever his own tendencies to place absolute credibility in whatever his own opinion at the time indicates to him at any given time, the policies and guidelines of the project, including those guidelines regarding conduct, apply to him, and he violates them at his own risk. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I am unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type, and do not want to risk being blocked, and, on that basis, am not leaving one there, although I have added a link to his page here, which should ping him at least. I would however request that any individual seeing this leave the message, which, under the circumstances, I am not sure I am in a position to do. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering you do have a talk page ban and the discussion which lead to that had a fair amount of support for an i-ban, I'm not sure the wisdom of this ANI, but I guess it's your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I believe a review of User:Hijiri88's comments on the page first linked to would provide even more support for an i-ban. I think his comments on that page show that he has used it to, basically, do little if anything other than, disparage, cast aspersions, or rush to prejudicial judgment regarding my actions in that matter. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A two way i-ban is basically means that the community has been forced to intervene because two editors have been unable to learn to engage each other in an acceptable manner. It IMO should never be anything someone desires especially at it means your behaviour is going to be under a microscope and you create problems for yourself in the future when your paths happen to cross. If you feel an editor is behaving an unresonable manner to you, the best solution is often to ignore it, particularly when it can be ignored such as a case of a random talk page comment (as opposed to a reversion). If it can't be ignored, the best solution is still to respond as positively or at least neutrally as possible. Don't get me wrong, I know from experience how difficult it can be dealing with some who gets your back up, all I'm saying is you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and you never want to get in to a situation where an iban is called for because it means your behaviour is problematic. (Whether or not the other editor's behaviour is worse.) In any case, your initial request said nothing about an i0ban. It requested an evaluation of whether Hijiri88 should be here. The problem is given the history between you two, it's likely upon reading the beginning of this thread the immediate reaction of a number of people is going to be similar to mine: 'oh no, not these two again, I thought we already ibannned them from one another'. In other words, even if there is merit to restrictions on Hijiri88, there's a very good chance it isn't going to happen here because this request is tainted by the fact it's coming from you and given the long animosity between you too. If Hijiri88's problems are really as bad as you suggest and considering they seem to edit in some resonably high profile areas, it seems resonable to assume someone else will notice and bring the issue to the communities attention. BTW, looking at the thread you refer to, after a quick read of both your comment and Hijiri88's reply (and the other editors), I actually felt they had a resonable point. Later when I re-read your reply more carefully I noticed you did raise issues which seemed to apply to religions in general but these we IMO not so clear. This may be because your experience is mostly from a Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but a simpler response Hijiri88's comment would have been something like. 'I'm sorry but perhaps my response wasn't as clear as I expected. I'm targetting this site at all religions, hence my mention of "religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day". I'm sure there are other aspects of these religions, including saints for those that have them (even if they don't have dial-a-saint concepts) which could be covered. I'm coming at this from a Christian viewpoint so many of my examples were Christian, but this site isn't supposed to be Christian oriented and should cover other religious texts, practices, traditions and concepts in the same manner. That's why I'm here, to get people who can help me especially fill in the areas where my knowledge is lacking.' Actually the response you did leave isn't too bad, if you just cut out the early part. Getting back to what I said earlier, in this case I don't see why you couldn't have just ignored it anyway. If your initial comment was really as clear cut as you felt, people would have read it then read Hijiri's comment and gone what on earth is Hijiri88 on about?

Ultimately, while I have no desire to look in more detail, all I've seen so far looks to be the same as before: two editors who can't seem to resist sniping at each other to the detriment of wikipedia. While Hijiri88 has IMO made clear cut mistakes before in their dealings with you as I highlighted in the previous thread, in both cases neither of you were that far from each other. So really my question to you is, do you really want to force us to force you two to separate (i.e. an i-ban), or worse (frankly blocking both is always tempting when an i-ban comes up)? Or can't you just ignore wherever possible. And where you can't (mostly in edits to articles), responding as neutrally as possible, seeking help or waiting for others rather than allowing a 2 way fight between the 2 of you two develop?

Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @John Carter: Well, I'm not sure how you'll take this right after my criticism of you on a user talk page we've both recently commented on, but I reviewed the Wikipedia space talk page you linked and I don't see your complaint. You had a suggestion about something unrelated to Wikipedia (which, I'm interested in, by the way) and then Hijiri88 suggested you take it to the Christian wikiproject. I know that the history between you two may come into play, but you followed up on that with "I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me." I'll be honest, you look like the instigator. Except, of course, that with the history of dispute, the sensible and wise thing for Hijiri88 to do would've been to ignore the thread and move on.--v/r - TP 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: I know that would have been "the sensible and wise thing" for me to do, and you can ask Drmies for the emails where I told him about how frustrating it was having to do this sensible and wise thing when John Carter follows me to discussions I started and I have to just ignore it. It is extremely difficult to be "polite" (read: pretend there is no problem) when replying to John Carter after he follows me to discussions he wasn't involved in, or (like here) didn't technically join in a discussion I started but created a new thread immediately below my one that already wasn't getting the attention it needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• You forgot the allegations of stalking, which imho from a brief perusal of their editing history, appear to be the reverse of the situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I can be wordy. Sorry. John Carter is the one following my edits. Email me if you want the full story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

John Carter has been closely following my edits for over a year, and engaging in off-wiki contact with other users he considers to be my "enemies" for about as long. I don't want to go into the whole history (I was recently told in an email exchange with User:Callanecc that giving all the details on-wiki would potentially violate one or both of my TBANs), but I would be happy to provide them on request, by email if necessary. John Carter recently followed very closely on my tail to four different separate forums, and in two of them ironically accused me of following him. He has also repeatedly accused me of "following" him to the general area of Christian/Biblical topics, even though those are subjects I have a serious interest in off-wiki and have demonstrated such on-wiki countless times. I am really sick of dealing with John Carter's harassment, and I frankly don't want to go back and search for all the diffs at this time, but if anyone doubts anything I have written I would be happy to retrieve the evidence. I would be very happy with a two-way IBAN -- I requested it several times, most recently a month ago, but if John Carter honestly believes that my "behaviour" (read: continuing to edit an area I have been active in for at least three years) constitutes hounding, then I worry he might continue to accuse me of hounding him even after an IBAN is imposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Also: Mjroots explicitly told John Carter that he was not only permitted but "required" to inform me of ANI discussions like this one. His above claiming after this explicit clarification was posted on his talk page that he is "unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type" is difficult to believe. This, combined with his distinct history of reporting possible violations on my part on admin user talk pages (implicit block requests) rather than AN or ANI and not informing me, is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

IP address repeatedly vandalizing pages.

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

---

199.189.61.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly vandalized the Pat McCrory and Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act articles. First they added biased and insufficiently sourced information to these articles. These edits were undone and attention was brought to the user's page. The user once again added similar information, which was removed. The user was warned again and was directed to go to the articles' talk pages, but refused to do so. Instead, they resorted to removing entire sections from the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act article without reason. The series of warnings given to them by other editors can be seen on their talk page. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been reported at WP:AIV and subsequently blocked. Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Sock Master

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

---

Master Of The Socks (talk · contribs · block user) - Proposed Guide for Newcomers on Proper Evasion of Detection of Sock Puppetry at the village pumps, but now disrupting article space. [160] - NQ (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

SSTflyer and AWB

SSTflyer (talk · contribs) recently began created thousands of controversial and unnecessary redirects in violation of AWB and Bot policy. Checking out his recent contributions, he has created "List of people named x" where x leads to a redirect page. Per WP:AWBRULES: "Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue." Last I checked, there is no consensus to create pages of this nature, in fact, consensus seems to sway in the opposite direction. Per a recent RFD discussion, a list of people named x redirect was headed towards delete before the creator mercifully tagged them for G7. (I'd take this batch to RFD, but with thousands of these, it's too unfeasible.) Another concern I have of these edits is the sheer speed in which they were created. He was editing at a rate of 50 edits per minute at 11:32, 9 May 2016. This is absurd. Per WP:BOTPOL: "bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds." Since this is obviously a non-urgent task, SSTflyer's edits should be limited to about 6 edits/minute. 50 edits per minute is way above these guidelines. With all this in mind, I have two requests: 1) that these controversial redirects be deleted and 2) that SSTflyer be banned from using AWB unless the specific task is approved via WP:BOTREQ. Thank you, -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought WP:MASSCREATION was only limited to articles and categories? Prior to my creation of these redirects, I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute, and there has never been any concerns about my speed of editing or my redirect creations. SSTflyer 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am on a mobile device right now, but I should be able to compile a list of redirects I created and place it in my user space later today, to allow an admin to quickly delete all of them using Twinkle. Unless there is consensus to delete these redirects, I do not want to request deletion of them yet. SSTflyer 02:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. At the very least, it'd make an RFD nomination feasible if that's the route we want to take. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list of redirects concerned: User:SSTflyer/hndis. I consider myself to be (somewhat) active at RFD, and I only create redirects if I think they may be useful to readers. In this case, if a reader wanted to look for a list of people with a name, these redirects would aid the reader during searches. None of these redirects meet any reasons for deletion at WP:R#DELETE. These redirects are harmless, and I think that deleting them would cause more trouble than keeping them. I also do not think that I have to actively seek consensus before creating redirects. After all, I do not have to seek consensus to create articles as long as they meet notability guidelines, so why should redirects be different? SSTflyer 03:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the list. Now that a(n) RFD nomination is feasible, I'll take them there as that's the proper place to discuss them. No, you don't need to seek consensus before creating redirects, but per WP:AWBRULES, you need to seek consensus to use AWB to do things that may be controversial. That's a huge difference. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB prior to the creation of this batch of redirects, and this is the first time I have been told that redirect creation using AWB is inappropriate. I have also seen other users, including admins, create redirects using AWB. If WP:MASSCREATION of redirects are to be disallowed per community consensus, sure, I will file requests at WP:BRFA and create redirects using a bot account. SSTflyer 04:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• SSTflyer - Just a word of warning - Incase you're not aware this bloke is probably the most disliked person on this place right now due to his creation of over a thousand redirects ..... I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong however if you're creating them at a fast rate like Neelix had then It may be a better idea to perhaps slow down alittle, Just my 2¢. –Davey2010^Talk 04:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After Neelix, I can't believe anyone would do this. Unless it's an approved bot, the mass creation of huge numbers of redirects by an automated process should be blocked on sight. Jonathunder (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Most redirects created by Neelix are nonsense, while I am actually aware of WP:R#CRD guidelines. That is a major difference. SSTflyer 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone creating lots of redirects (automated or not) is going to get the Neelix tag thrown at them. I guess the question is how likely is it that someone will type in "List of people named Henry Lopes" when looking for Henry Lopes (for example)? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Above, SSTflyer says "I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute". Being bold is one thing, but creating 17,528 useless pages without a central discussion on the merits is most unhelpful. The rules of AWB access appear to have been severely violated so access should be removed. Given the Neelix situation, my preference would be that people found to be mass-creating anything without extensive prior discussion should be indefinitely topic banned. The community cannot sensibly discuss the merits of 17,528 pointless redirects, so this action is a fait accompli which sets a precedent for anyone wanting to boost their edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Legacypac: has (correctly in my view) created a redirect discussion on one of the 17,528 at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10#List_of_people_named_Henry_Lopes. @Johnuniq: your comment seems correct on AWB access, but I'm just curious, what is the benefit to an editor in boosting their edit count?? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Abuse By Yamla

User:Yamla had been abused me for quite a while. he revert my editing work and He's such a abusive and possessive monster I've have ever interacted with. And therefore I'm absolutely not a sock puppet of my user account Moatassemakmal. He's not a wiki material and not trustworthy to others. Also his behavior became very erratic and aggressive and his anti-vandalism and irrelevant blocking was unsanitary. I regret all of you to remove him from Wikipedia at once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.119.214 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see the headline in Wired now: Wikipedia guilty of unsanitary blocking. 15 cases of salmonella reported so far.

John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Moatassemakmal has issued threats of violence as well as a death threat against Yamla just last month. At first, I could have put it down to incompetence, but going over the top in to threats is beyond the pale. I say just drop the site ban and be done with it. Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:80.245.197.109 on Talk:Synthesizer

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

---

On the Talk page of article Synthesizer, an IP user 80.245.197.109 (or similar addresses) secretly substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem, and he is doing a personal attack since one year ago. How to stop this long-term personal attacks by specific IP user ? I'm glad if you suggested me several advices or comments. --Clusternote (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is customary, nay, obligatory (and for good reason) to notify the user you are complaining about. I have done so for you. It is also customary to include a number of links to (alleged) transgressions and I note a glaring lack thereof. Moreover, a cursory glance at the talk page you reference, does not bring to light any personal attacks, let alone a pattern of personal attacks reaching back a year. I suggest you reconsider this ANI-request, since in my opinion, it's going nowhere, very, very fast. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is not entirely clear what Clusternote means, as his or her English is in places incomprehensible: for example, what is "substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem" supposed to mean? However, the following two facts are clear: (1) Clusternote accuses an IP editor of making personal attacks in the Talk:Synthesizer page, and (2) he/she claims that the IP editor has done something on that page "secretly". I have looked at every IP edit to that page since the beginning of 2003, and there is no sign of anything that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack, nor is there anything there which is done in any way which could be regarded as "secret". However, looking not only at that page, but also at related editing in other places, such as on Clusternote's talk page, I see that Clusternote has a long history of disruptive editing, including, but not restricted to, the following: persistently replacing perfectly good English in articles with stuff which is not English, and for some reason refusing to accept being informed by native English speakers that he/she has done so; showing an ownership attitude to certain articles; edit warring; refusal or inability to act collaboratively with other editors when there are disagreements; making unfounded accusations against other editors (this report being a case in point). Clusternote, if you continue to do any or all of the kinds of disruptive editing that you have been doing, you may well find yourself blocked from editing before long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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