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

Syrian Civil War detailed map

Three editors:

• Lists129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coneleir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

keeps re-adding challenged material into the Syrian Civil War detailed map, and refuse to provide an inline citation to a reliable source when they do. It is explained how to add an inline citation on the map here. I have tried to explain that they, according to the verifiability policy, have that burden, but it's like they don't want to listen. See e.g. this diff which is a revert of this edit. Note that Lists129, after several requests, did provide a diff that included a citation for Jubb Hamad, but no one have ever provided any source for Abu Mendil (except from maps which we can't use according to the Rules for Editing the Map), and they never use inline citations. See also this, this and this discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a bit:

• On 23 September, I removed Jubb Hamad ash Shallal from the Syrian Civil War map. Ref. diff
• On 27 September, Lists129 readded Jubb Hamad. Ref. diff
• On 28 September, I reverted Lists129, asking for a source. Ref. diff.
• On 10 October, I removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff. Lists129 restored the material without a citation. Ref. diff. I started a discussion about Restoring unsourced places. Ref. diff. Pbfreespace3 restored Abu Mendil, making a duplicate listing of the village. Ref. diff. Note that none of the sources given are valid (Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.).
• On 11 October, I reverted Lists129 and the duplicated listing of Abu Mendil Pbfreespace3 added. Ref. diff and diff. Coneleir reverted me. Ref. diff and diff.
• On 12 October, I removed Abu Mendil again. Coneleir restored again. Still no source given. Ref. diff.

So. "Jubb Hamad ash Shallal" are now marked as IS-held on our map. That is sourced by this tweet, but you have to find the diff manually to check it. Its here. "Abu Mendil" are now listed twice on the modulpage, and as far as I know, no RS have ever been given. It was added by Pbfreespace3 on 15 July. Ref. diff. The source given in that diff does not even mention the village. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Some questions:

1. Is it vandalism to remove information that lack an inline citation to a reliable source, as they claim here? If not, is it harassment to repeadedly mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism?
2. Does the burden to demonstrate verifiability lie with the editor who restores material as the verifiability policy says?
3. Should challenged material be restored with an inline citation to a reliable source as the verifiability policy says?
4. Is it disruptive editing to repeatedly add and re-add material that does not satisfy the verifiability policy?

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, ping me when this report have been deal with. Thanks. Bumping thread. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Niele~enwiki have removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff, so that is ok. However, I would be nice if an admin could clarify if and how the verifiability policy applies to the map. It's largely based on self-published tweets and as a reader you are not even able to check what source it's based on. What's the point of having "Rules for Editing the Map" if nobody enforce them? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Erlbaeko: I assume this was never replied to because any edits made to that "module" are difficult as hell to understand or follow for almost anyone. However I've had to involve myself in issues with this map before and I know it can be a source of problems. The overarching "law" is even simpler than the specific module rules though. Deleting contentious unsourced content is not problematic or disruptive, certainly not vandalism. The burden of proof does indeed lie on the claimant, i.e. anyone adding, re-adding or asserting anything is required to provide verification. "Challenged" material should be restored with a reliable source, obviously. Restoring unsourced content after it has been removed is edit warring and disruptive editing that is usually dealt with via blocking. And yes, it is absolutely disruptive editing to repeatedly add any material that does not satisfy WP:V, even if it's "true". Please feel free to contact me personally if any of these problems continue. Swarm ♠ 05:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Swarm. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2

User:Felsic2 is an agenda driven POV pusher who is desperately trying to add a body count or murder, death, kills to as many pages as possible. He has even created a POV pushers guide to doing so (User:Felsic2/Gun use) in clear violation Wikipedia:Advocacy. In his latest edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms [1] he claims his position is supported when it is in fact heavily opposed (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms). I recommend a permanent firearms topic ban and the deletion of his POV pusher guide (User:Felsic2/Gun use).--RAF910 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Whew. That's a lot of personal attacks without any real support. I suppose that RAF910 could be called "an agenda driven POV pusher" who is desperately trying to prevent some type of information from being added to firearms articles. However he won't find me making a bunch of edits of the type he's describing. I've enaged in discussions anywhere I've made potentially controversial edits. FWIW, the community supported the edit the SIG MCX, in a well-attended RFC, Talk:SIG MCX#‎RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? RAF910 is mistaken when he says I claimed support for the change to the Wikiproject style suggestions. Rather, I noted a lack of opposition for the change and a lack of support for the existing text, which is contradictory to the actual Wikipedia guidelines at WP:ADVICEPAGE. I request that RAF910 stop making personal remarks about myself and other editors on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive and prohibited by WP:NPA and by specific ArbCom edict. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. One person's POV-pusher's guide is another person's essay touching on important aspects of policy. It is not a great surprise to see a division such as this, and I doubt it'll be healed anytime soon. But there's no incident here for admins to take action in response to, beyond what seems to be a complete mis-use of this board by RAF910. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't to the level that I see sanctions, but looking briefly at the essay and their actions at the WikiProject, it seems pretty obvious there is a POV in play here. I would remind Felsic2 that we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or shove our ideas against consensus. If that essay was put into meta space as it is currently worded, it wouldn't be long before it was pushed to WP:MFD as political advocacy. It does look like you are focusing purely on an anti-gun agenda, as I sample some diffs. There are plenty of over zealous pro-gun people as well, but that isn't on the table. People who swing from editor to advocate tend to have a short career here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few cases where I've seen this issue come up (I don't really edit on military equipment or firearms). But when I have seen it, I've always been astonished by the arguments that are willing to trample so blatantly over voluminous and high quality sources. I think the objection, stated or unstated, is that if a weapon's use in shootings is included in the article on that weapon, it casts the weapon in a bad light, and/or promotes gun control legislation. Such an objection looks like pure WP:ADVOCACY. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone is coming in and their goal is to either add the weapon on all crime articles, or remove it from all crime articles regardless of consensus, that is advocacy in equal measure and violates policy. There are times when it is relevant and when it is not, which of course is a talk page issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Dennis Brown: - I don't want to violate any rules here. I appreciate the guidance. I looked at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It says:

...we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [and] ...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.

The material I've sought to add to articles is all reported in mainstream media and books from reputable publishing houses. It is not original research. Just the opposite - it represents the majoritarian view. With rare exceptions, the only time individual firearms are mentioned in mainstream media or scholarly publications is in relation to a crime. By excluding that information, we're saying that firearms articles can only use sources like hobbyist magazines and manufacturer websites. Some editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms have been trying to forestall consensus seeking on article talk pages by inappropriately using a project guidance page to overrule the views of individual editors,[2] and by refusing to seek consensus.[3][4]

What is the best way to address pro-gun advocacy which subverts Wikipedia content policies to exclude what some perceive as negative information? Felsic2 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the entire entirely, and probably will still miss it if you get indef eventually because of it. We don't publish every fact just because there is a source for it. WP:RS is only one policy, like our policies on advocacy are not the only policy on neutrality. And most importantly, you seem to think that the written "rules" are what matters at Wikipedia. You would be wrong. All that matters is consensus. The written version is simply based on the consensus. What matters is practice and how it is enforced, not an individual's interpretation of the written policy. Wikipedia is unique in that. Trust me, if you only spend your time doing what you have done so far, you won't last long. If your focus is to counter pro-gun bias, you won't last long. If you manage to turn it around and instead focus on writing neutral articles, then you will do fine. Countering any perceived bias on a full time basis is advocacy. Think about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that Felsic like to endlessly badger his fellow editors on the talk pages. Also, if you fail to respond to one of his comments or answer one his questions, he believes that "Silence equals consensus."[5] and will then make whatever edits he sees fit.--RAF910 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I have always sought to achieve consensus and have offered compromises based on WP policy. Stating, as you have done, that compromise is impossible and that you intend to prevent consensus by objecting without explaining your reasons is tendentious. Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay and not widely accepted. It would be foolhardy to rely exclusively on an obscure essay, which has no basis in enforcement. You can't just cherry pick parts of policies or essays to justify your actions here, you have to actually learn what real consensus is here, on a global scale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn the ropes here. It's confusing to know which policies, guidelines, and essays have actual authority here, or if none of them do and a vote to determine consensus is all that matters. It's also confusing to know what to do in response to apparent activism - its not allowed but if it's found no one should oppose it? In any case, I'll keep using talk pages to work towards consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite Felsic "Aw shucks mister, I'm just learning the ropes" proclamation and a promise to adhere to consensus, he is currently ignoring consensus and edit warring on the AR-15 variant page [6][7][8] and continuing his Wikilawyering on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the oddball article title. I've repeatedly raised the issue on the article talk page. No one has provided a source showing it's a common phrase to encompasses the material in the article. If you care about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms then participate there. Please don't cast asperesions or assume bad faith. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is now forum shopping on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council where he acknowledges that "Members of the project are averse to any changes" to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page.[9] Yet, he still pushing his agenda and still refuses to accept that he does not have consensus to make the changes he wants to make.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Wikiproject Firearms is misusing a style advice page as if it was a content guideline. Yes, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE that is an example of WP:OWNERSHIP. And yes, the Wikiproject Council is an appropriate place to raise concerns about Wikiprojects. It'd be great if you were part of the solution. Felsic2 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is to never revert more than once. Just make it a rule you stick to, before the community forces it on you. Then you will use the talk page and seek consensus sooner, before you upset people for edit warring. Many editors do this exact same thing to keep the peace and to make it clear they want to work with others. It is very rare that I will even revert twice, maybe once a year. Instead I post on the talk page, wait a week, and if no one replies, I assume I can revert again without issue as I have given a good faith effort to communicate. If in doubt, don't make the edit and use the talk page. Of course, if you use the talk page to advocate a particular bias, it is still a problem. Worry less about written rules and more about how people actually do things here. That is all the advice I can give you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is also incompetent on the firearms subject matter. His latest edits to the M16 rifle page[10] indicate that he either still believes that the ArmLite AR-15, Colt AR-15, and the M16 rifle are the same guns or does not care. Despite being repeatedly told by multiple editors, for many months, on many different talk pages that they are different firearms. He also, now seems to believe that the M16 and M4 are completely different firearms. Even though both the M16 and M4 pages make it absolutely clear that the M4 is nothing more than a shorten version M16. As a result he removed a reference,[11] which he clearly made no effort to read, because both the M16 and M4 were mentioned within. He also, seems to believe that AR-15 gas operated piston models are AR-18 variants[12], when they are completely different firearms designs made using different materials and completely different manufacture processes. He also removed a vast amount of referenced materiel from the Automatic rifle page.[13] Because, he apparently does not understand that all Assault rifles are Automatic rifle despite being repeatedly informed of such. This editing style is highly disruptive and forces knowledgeable editors to continuously waste our time and efforts to correct his edits.--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited at all since my last comment, which is a bit of warning, so I'm likely to wait and see what he does moving forward before taking action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that Felsic finally realizes that his own edits are not helping his case. At this point, he is fairly confident that no action will be taken against him. So, he going to take a few days off. Wait for this ANI to expire and begin again with a vengeance when the spotlight is off.--RAF910 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I see some tirritating edits/commentary at the AR-15 variant talk page, but not all of it from Felsic. It's pretty obvious that we have a couple of experienced editors who can't see eye to eye. I do not approve of Felsic's way of behaving themselves on the talk page or in the article--those CN tag edits to the lead are uncollegial and disruptive. I hope they will listen to Dennis Brown whose advice is, as usual, reasonable and and helpful. Thank you Dennis--and you're right, if they keep this up they will be headed for a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

RAF910 is bringing up content disputes, including edits he's reverted without discussion. I'm trying to be collegial by using the talk pages to seek consensus. I'm not sure which policy I'm being accused of violating or what I've done wrong. @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown:, could you please be more specific about what behavior I need to change? Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not up for digging through diffs again and that isn't always fruitful. I've given you some advice above, Drmies has endorsed it, I suggest reading through that again and simply slowing down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, if it's advice rather than a warning that's fine. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic, the problem I see with your comments on the AR-15 talk page is that especially the tone of some of your comments irritates some of your colleagues there, and I think that your undiscussed move of August 2016 came across as uncollegial and set the tone for the rest of the discussion. As I indicated, that editwarring over the CN tags, that's not helpful either. You've been on that topic for some time now; it is probably time to start a well-advertised RfC. Now which policy? Sorry, but if you want me to wikilawyer in response, I'd say WP:5P4 or something like that, since such lengthy discussions easily become disruptive, and the edit warring easily is. So I don't understand why you made this edit, unless it was to make a point. Your argument is "AR clones are called AR"--start that RfC, and may the best argument win. One of the things that talk page needs is fresh eyes. For the record, I do not (yet) see evidence for the statement that Felsic is a "desperate" "agenda driven POV pusher". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of irritated too, by the constant attacks. As for the "AR-15 variant" issue, we've actually made some progress today, because a couple of the editor have made explicit that their concern is simply with trademark issues. I don't know why they didn't say so weeks ago. I've asked for input about what guidelines apply to aricle naming in this case. You're right - this will probably conclude with an RFC. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2 either can't understand the advice they're being given, or doesn't care what others think, as evidenced by this post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms today where they feel that no explicit objections equals support, in spite of being told in this thread that it isn't so. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm using the talk page to work with editors to find a compromise we can all agree on. But a lot of the responses have been stonewalling. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Stonewalling is a way to tell you that they don't see any need for changes, and counts as opposing your proposed changes. And posting walls of text to wear other editors down until you get your way isn't "working with other editors to find a compromise", besides, people there, me included, don't want a compromise, they want the text to be left as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think those comments describe one part of the problem very clearly. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Am I guilty of making personal attacks? @Miguel Escopeta: has twice accused me of personal attacks,[14][15], including once when I asked for an explanation. I don't want to attack anyone and I feel this editor is mislabelling legitimate editing. Am I in the wrong? If so I'll apologize. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Are you trying to change subject here, and make yourself look like a victim? If you feel Miguel Escopeta has made anything sanctionable (which I, after reading the diffs, don't feel he has) bring it up in a separate thread here or somewhere else, but not here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The subject of this thread is my conduct. I'm not asking for any actions agasint @Miguel Escopeta: - I'm asking for a review of my own behavior. Frankly, I find Wikipedia policies confusing and I'm not sure if I've actually done something wrong. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You have done a lot of things wrong, so if you haven't done so already (which I doubt you have since you continue doing the exact same things you've being criticised for...) I suggest you read the text above in it's entirety, starting at the header saying "Felsic2", and continuing all the way down to here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk
      • I don't see any violation of core policies. A complaint which starts out with personal attacks and continues with misstatements not a sober assessment of problems. Felsic2 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sparkie82

Sparkie82 is being/has been very disruptive. Just recently they came to my talk page and accused me of harassment. They put "ass" in their edit summary when they made this edit, but I didn't notice this until a few minutes ago [16]. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive and it's not the first time this user has been disruptive and exhibited WP:BATTLE like behavior. Last month they edited one of my comments on a talk page. And although neither of us violated the WP:1RR, Sparkie82 reported me for edit warring which would have been perfectly fine if they didn't do exactly what they accused me of doing a few days after reporting me. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed the Sparkie at one point was removing disputed content having to do with the infobox on a daily basis as not to break WP:1RR. In his defense though there may have been a prior consensus in August. I had already asked for full protection which was granted for a day or so [17] but this does not seem like it has worked. I urge editors to wait for the RfC on the talkpage to close (Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle), hopefully an admin will put this issue to rest by closing it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Now Sparkie82 says they are going to ignore me and that they are done with me [18]. There's currently an active RfC we are both involved in and ignoring me could disrupt the consensus building process. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's juvenile and not really conducive to a collaborative effort. Blackmane (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and I'm afraid that if the admins don't do anything about it this behavior will just continue. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This user has been removing people from the lead infobox in United States presidential election, 2016, subverting consensus in this discussion. While I re-add them, this user accused me of disruptive behavior while asking me to undo my own edit as to avoid being blocked as per the revert rule. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So far it looks like none of the admins are going to address this issue/tell the user not to call me an "ass" anymore.. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with JT Leroy page

JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikimedia, I've noticed vandalism of the [JT Leroy] page. The quality of the page has been sacrificed because of personal vendettas, and maintaining the scholarship of the page seems to require tedious maintenance. I have spoken to the individuals implicated and would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to someone regarding this matter. Ideally, a brief in-person discussion in San Francisco would be the most efficient way to clear up and resolve the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:855C:2C00:9822:FACF:A50B:E20B (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for our older readers: is this some gangsta-stylee threat to take it outside?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is going to meet you in person. If you could explain the specifics of the problem (and maybe avoid the florid prose), that would help. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think OP is asking to talk with someone at the WMF. Could someone explain to them how to contact the OTRS volunteer team instead? There's an email address for that but I don't remember where to find it. That's the right channel if you need to discuss a problem like this privately. If it doesn't need to be private, it's best to just say here what the issue is. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The OP should read Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and Wikipedia:Contact us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, No this is not a "gangsta style threat," it's someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and process... I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread. I just want to help figure out a solution to this issues I've seen on this page. Here's an example:

On October 14, NVGDAO13 added this quote (with citation):

She later commented, "I had survived sexual and physical abuse and found a way to turn it into art [...] Having struggled with issues of gender fluidity when there was no language for it, I created a character both on and off the page who modeled this as yet to be named state of being."

Before the day was over, "76.21.32.54", stripped out that quote and the one that followed (also cited):

Writing for The New York Times in 2016, Albert noted, "I meet a lot of young people and they're shocked that it was an issue to even have an avatar. Because they've grown up where you have multiple fully formed avatars."

Today NVGDAO13 undid the deletion and explained,

Laura Albert created JT LeRoy -- eliminating her comments is vandalism.

I know there is some general media controversy over authors using pseudonyms, avatars, etc. I have a strong personal opinion that for anything published as fiction, the identity of the author isn't something the audience has a right to know or claim, and any avatar or pseudonym offered to represent the author is fair game as association with a fictional work. It's not a court of law, it's literature, entertainment, art. Anyways, my personal opinion aside, I think the editing war on this page is getting out of hand for NVGDA013 to handle, who is trying to maintain the page with credible sources- and it's especially unfair to Laura Albert. No matter whether you like or dislike Laura Albert, or agree with her- her quote in The New York Times is a quote in The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.35.0 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating comments is vandalism? I'm not sure you quite understand how Wikipedia works. Also, IP-hopping doesn't help matters either; you might want to register an account. One thing you are correct about, however—the same users (NVG13DAO and and one more who hasn't been around in over a week) keep edit-warring even after being warned and blocked; not to mention after the article had been protected. Perhaps longer blocks and stronger protection are necessary? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm- A brand-spanking-new IP account with exactly ONE edit and it's at ANI. I wonder whose sock you would be? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloha27 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick update -- a reply from Aloha27: Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• IF you're going to quote me, at least have the decency to quote verbatim:

"::(talk page stalker) Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"

And my response: Aloha27 is deliberately trying to obfuscate what they have done. The links given above are completely unrelated to what Aloha27 did on October 15. Huon's edits have nothing to do with Aloha27's October 15 undoing of my edit, which was vandalism. Instead of hiding what they're doing, I insist once again that Aloha27 either explain in what way the original text that was on the page had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This kind of dissembling has to stop, and the page has to be repaired -- and protected from further vandalism.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that this topic seems to have become somewhat decentralized and spans the article talk page, as well as a couple user talk pages. (The users were already involved, so WP:CANVAS was not violated.) I've twice advised the editor who did it to keep the discussion here. No further comment further comment on the discussion itself. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does constitute canvassing, as it falls under spamming territory. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

NVG13DAO, you need to realise that Aloha27 does not edit in good faith. On 25 September he vandalised Universal Time. An editor removed the non - existent word "timezone" and replaced it with "time zone". Aloha27 added it back. He also changed the reference to "Oxford University Press" to "Oxford Univ Press". At Taurus (astrology) on 9 May an editor corrected the dates during which people are born under the zodiacal sun sign of Taurus to "April 21 to May 21". On 23 May an editor clarified the reference thus:

... the western dates are 21 April to 21 May, the Hindu dates are 14 May to 14 June and the astronomical dates are 14 May to 19 June. (source).

On 31 May Aloha27 commenced an edit war in which he reverted 22 times, stopping only to template another editor claiming he was edit warring. 20 of those reverts were made in the space of 85 minutes. At Hindu calendar on 25 May an editor changed "repeats twice" to "repeats" as there was only one repetition, "name is been given" to "name has been given", "months is equal" to "months are equal", "every 3rd year" to "every 2.71 years", "solar year have" to the singular, "can be deduces" to "can be deduced", and "many south Indian region" to "many south Indian regions". On 29 May an editor changed "names ... remains the same" to "names ... remain the same", "this is been" to "this has been", and "referred as" to "referred to as". The following day Aloha 27 reverted, introducing markup errors for good measure. The same day an editor repaired the article under edit summary Why did Aloha27 revert this and then introduce reference errors which the bot had to fix? 26 minutes later Aloha27 undid the corrections.

His vandalism spree that day included Old Style and New Style dates, where he inserted a claim that in the first half of the eighteenth century Britain was using the Gregorian calendar while her American colonies were using the Julian calendar. On 28 May at Munnuru Kapu an editor removed the phrase "Ex. minister" and replaced it with "Ex-minister". That was changed back during the vandalism spree. Also on 28 May he vandalised Robert Gibbon Johnson, contradicting a reliable source which stated that he did not serve in the New Jersey brigade prior to 1794. 86.151.49.241 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time that Aloha27 has removed comments critical of himself. In his own words:

I'd be very hesitant about throwing sockpuppet accusations around lest you find yourself WP:BOOMERANGed. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

مصعب (talk · contribs) has moved Category:Palestinian terrorism to Category:Palestinian political violence, and likewise changed all usages in 163 articles and 8 subcategories. By the way, he actually used Category:Palestinian political violence. with a dot, but I moved that. I propose to revert this unilateral move as being highly POV and a non-discussed circumventing of WP:CFD. User:مصعب has argued that the category should be named just like its main article Palestinian political violence, but 1. It remains POV 2. It remains non-discussed and circumventing CFD 3. There is no such rule that we rename categories or articles just so that they should match. 4. WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. And before that i contribute in unifying categories like category:nitrogen cycle with their main articles and no one tell me that this is wrong exept now and i fell that there is a bias in this position. That's all. Regards--مصعب (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here.---مصعب (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No category should be moved without going via the speedy process or a full discussion, so the change should be reverted. I will do this shortly. Number 57 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

but the rule is very clear: From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. And it is a conventional rule. Can you give reason for reverting without discussion? At least if i am wrong please explan the policy. And it is more benifecial to discuss the naming befor just moving the category another time without reason. If my move is wrong because there is no discussing then your moving is the same because there is no discussion--مصعب (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@مصعب: It was wrong because editors are not allowed to move categories without using the WP:CfD process above, and if editors do things like this without discussion, then it always reverts back to the status quo – no discussion is needed. By all means request a move via the speedy route if you feel it meets the criteria. Number 57 12:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that since the move is contested, the speedy rename process is not an option, only a full Cfd discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes -- IP 173.79.122.37‎

This particular IP has been consistently inserting entire movie plots as episodes into this article, despite multiple reversions (all of them on my part, so block me if you must, I apologize for not coming here sooner). I have warned him on his talk page to stop (forgive me again if there was a template I could have used for that purpose). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are definitely way over 3RR. Best is to discuss the issue on the talk page. The plot summaries don't look excessively detailed to me--they're each a couple of paragraphs. Some of the text appears to have originated on Wikia in 2010 or earlier.example If that's where it came from, then it's CC-BY-SA so we can use it with attribution. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not what's happening though -- he's (or, he was) inserting plots from the various direct-to-DVD films (such as Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire) into the list as if they were actually episodes of this show. He seems to have stopped now though since I warned him on his talk page. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than leaving those obnoxious and threatening templates, it's nicer (AGF etc.) to just explain that movies aren't episodes, so the movie summaries should go in the movie articles instead of the episode list. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I did explain that to him via edit summaries; mayhap I should have done so on his talk page as well. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Another idea is to just move the descriptions to the movie pages yourself and let them know. It also looked to me like some episode descriptions got reverted as well, but I didn't understand the issue at the time that I looked, so I might have misunderstood. I barely remember that show and didn't realize it had such a following. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Straight-to-DVD movies are not the same as episodes of a TV series, so if Black Yoshi is right, then the edits in question are very close to being unambiguous vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. The only reason I say "very close" is because, given the subject matter, it seems likely that the IP is a child making vandalism-like edits in good faith (i.e., no vandalistic intent). Blocking someone for reverting a child making unconstructive edits that don't technically meet the criteria laid out on WP:VANDAL ("a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia") would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That said, using the IP's user talk page to explain, politely, why their edits are being reverted, would be preferable. I personally don't like the warning templates, since using them on experienced editors is an insult, and (the way they are worded) using them on new editors is not very welcoming, but Black Yoshi can't be blamed for doing something that I personally disapprove of but which almost everyone does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as anywhere near vandalism. It's likely to be solvable with some friendly discussion if the IP hasn't given up on us. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, but the exact wording of 3RR assumes that a child making disruptive edits because they don't know any better is not a significant problem. It would definitely be better to engage in friendly discussion than to edit-war, but the same is true for persistent vandalism (technically in the latter case semi-protection is supposed to be sought). What I am saying is that when we have someone making disruptive edits because they apparently don't know any better, we should treat what is technically a 3RR-violation the same way we would if the edits were vandalism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When I looked earlier there had been no attempt to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. Black Yoshi mentioned some edit summaries but that apparently didn't work and maybe wasn't noticed. An even more collaborative approach (as mentioned earlier) would have been to just transfer the movie info to the appropriate articles, and leave a talk message thanking the person for the contributions while explaining that they had been moved. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right. That's just not what I was talking about. I was saying that there isn't really any reason to block the OP (despite their own saying "block me if you must"). They technically ran afoul of 3RR, but the vandalism exception to 3RR doesn't make sense unless we also apply it to cases like this one. As you said, the material was copy-pasted from another wiki, so while it is OK to re-add it to a separate article, it shouldn't be a requirement to know about Wikia copyright licensing to remove it. If it had been copy-pasted from a non-free source, it would have been a serious violation to remove from one article and add it somewhere else. So Black Yoshi's not having done that from the start is not a point against them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge they were copy/pasted from the Wikipedia articles on the films. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Springee and Dennis Bratland (again)

This will be the third ANI thread involving these two in recent weeks (the first two: [19][20]). Both complaints had tl/dr issues and got archived with no action. The situation appears to have snowballed into some very disruptive edit warring at wikiproject automobiles - [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].

I was sympathetic to Dennis' side of this dispute in the previous ani threads - but at first glance I don't see how Dennis' removal and edit warring of Springee's talk page comments can be justified here. See also the multiple warnings and accusations of harassment on Springee's talk page that start with this diff and subsequent edits. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3RR doesn't prohibit removing blatant harassment. Anyone can see that these long posts are intended to draw a long reply, to which Springee adds his own long reply, in which he ignores the previous answers to his questions, and repeats the same questions as if he hadn't heard. He expects me to go on this merry go round indefinitely. Springee edits Wikipedia only to fight battles, nothing else. I know no other editors want to see another thread like that. It's badgering, and policy is to remove it. I did so as a favor to all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm done with this. I'm sorry that I would like Dennis to actually explain his POV and explain why he feels that the RfC on the automotive project page doesn't have a clear consensus etc. I regret restoring the comments he deleted of mine and, though I didn't notice it, I had no right to restore his comments to the talk page if he wished to delete his own comments. I would suggest implementing the remedy suggested in the original ANI, neither Dennis nor I are allowed to initiate complaints about the other anywhere other than ArbCom. I apologize to the editors who have to deal with this issue again. Springee (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DBrown SPS and User:206.125.47.10

I am at a complete loss here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex is the fifth time the IP placed a deletion notice on an article, one minute later DBrown SPS creates the deletion discussion page with a !vote opposing the deletion, then the IP completes the nomination. I am assuming there is some connection between the two editors, but I can't quite nail it down.

I asked DBrown SPS about it and received a non-explanation here.

The discussions involved are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Dex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinylz (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javotti Media (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heartbreak Kid (mixtape), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex.

The IP is one of several that have been used to place fake block notices on DBrown SPS's talk page.[31]

It seems clear to me that the IP is a problem, but I can't seem to figure out how DBrown SPS has been immediately on top of the deletion nominations. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 72 hours. Either the IP is hounding DBrown SPS or they're the same person creating drama. If it's the latter, the hard block will hit DBrown SPS too, given how stable the IP has been over the months. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France

Disruptive Infobox edits in the Battle of France article by User:KevinNinja reviving an old dispute. Please scrutinise. Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, which should be discussed and resolved on the talk-page. The contested edits do not seem very controversial to me, but both of you need to mind the 3RR-cliff. No admin-tools required, IMHO.Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody currently edit-warring on that article is aware of WP:EW. It is, after all, only a month since Dennis Brown fully protected the article after another edit war (also involving Keith-264), stating that 'If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff.'

There are some rather short memories there. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: I see all kinds of bickering on the TP, what I don't see is any consensus. The conflict has been brewing since last spring and bth sides have not reached (or moved towards) any form of compromise. Hence I still think it's an content dispute, with an edit-war as a result. Perfectly happy with the approach Dennis Brown announced. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not likely to protect again and will just block anyone warring. It isn't fair to other editors to keep locking it. KevinNinja needs to read WP:BRD. If someone removes material you add, it is up to you to take it to the talk page. The default is the status quo, so stop adding it back until something of a discussion can be had. I don't suggest anyone do anymore reverting until a discussion is had on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here sooner rather than later to avoid trouble, not cause it. At bottom the dispute is whether contents of the infobox should follow the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict, which is unambiguous. The details are in the talk page ad nauseam. Despite the clarity of its contents I have compromised by leaving in the asinine "Decisive" German victory (it was anything but, according to the informal and impressionistic RS survey, which was about 15:6 for German victory) and only removing the extraneous bullet points. Other editors appeared to have been willing to settle for that until last night's edits. I asked for scrutiny because by posting here I have created a conflict of interest, something which I took to be obvious. Thank you for your comments Dennis but I am of the opinion now that an outsider should dictate the contents of the Result criterion. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Then start an RFC on the talk page, that is the best way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear that it would be pointless, as some of the comments above demonstrate but thanks for the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: No. Lots of articles have almost no community oversight and the "status quo" was the work of one editor who is ignorant of our content policies. As I said above, this is a general point, and does not appear to apply to Battle of France article. As for your last comment: Umm... why would you wonder about that? ANI is filled with non-admins who comment on a larger number of threads they are not involved with than I do. Many of them aren't even helpful or observant, and look like deliberate trolling. Indeed, in the past you have closed threads I was involved in apparently based on the opinions of such users. At least, unlike several others I could name, I look at the evidence and try to deliver an honest opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's a general explanation of why I feel free to comment on threads in which I am not involved. As for my specific motivations for getting especially involved in the past 2-3 weeks, it's a little complicated. I figured if I helped resolve a number of threads that appeared later than mine, someone would take notice and help me out with the Korean grammar-fascist who's been trolling me. This plan didn't wind up working out for me (the hread got archived a few days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience but so far it has only multiplied the number of people taking sides. I noted on the BofF talk page that I was going to wait for 24 hours and will think over your suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in taking sides, and given what DB said above, I'm not really inclined to comment on this thread any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dennis Brown, my version is a revised one with suggestions made by editors in the past (ie what points should be kept as important), and my version is also an improved version of what has stood FOR YEARS in the past. Keith keeps undoing for no apparent reason, and although I want his feedback, I obtain none. So, please stop wasting my time with this Keith, thanks... (I'll also note that there is no reason for you to undo my stuff, since result sections in multiple other GAs use pointers)

So to summarise, please stop creating conflict out of nothing, especially when you provide no reason for undoing my peer approved edits. KevinNinja (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean Dennis? KevinNinja ignored your suggestion to read WP:BRD and replied with broken record. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See my edit on BOF/Talk: "You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have."

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from.

  If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. Jbh^Talk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a specific thread or part of a thread which shows differently, which the later threads do not invalidate, please link to it and I will reconsider. Jbh^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You could look here [32] or [33] (as an example of WP:uncivil that I'm trying to avoid). The facts are that the RS and the infobox criteria are indisputable. The Battle of France was a German victory partly because it was but mostly because most of the RS consulted put it like that. Plenty of editors agree but you'll have to look back to at least Archive four to see it. My and Kevin's historical opinions are irrelevant as I frequently point out. I want the RS view in the infobox according to the Template:Infobox military conflict criterion for result. Quite why anyone made a fuss in the first place I don't know but it has obscured the issue and the editors who are in consensus about German victory and no bullet points. Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there which changes my opinion. Right now consensus is against you. I suggest that you either drop it or start an RfC. The best option, in my opinion, would be drop it - if there are enough people who agree with you the change will be implemented anyway. If you think dropping it guarentees a "wrong version" that is a very strong indicator consensus is against you. Jbh^Talk 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Doing a little sampling, KevinNinja's version of [34] does seem to be common if you go back in time, which would indicate the burden is on Keith-264. I would remind Keith-264 that WP:4RR refers to *any* reverts, not just the same revert, and you are at 3RR as I write this. None of this required an admin, just looking at public diffs. As a fellow editor, I would read policy as saying leave the three lines in (which is the current state) and have a discussion or RFC. Even if a consensus decides to leave it out next week, nothing is damaged by it being there for now, as it does have support simply by having been there a while. Now, please move the discussion to the talk page, we are really done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble but the talk page and RFC will be futile; either the Template:Infobox military conflict: Result matters or it doesn't. I suggest you go back a little further in your sampling. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dennis Brown here (if not his opinions near the top of the thread regarding the general applicability of BRD and "implied consensus", and the precedence of BRD over BURDEN), and have gone ahead and opened the RFC. I am neutral on the result, and will probably refrain from further comment on the page. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[35] Request a ruling on the propriety of this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ruling"? I'm not a judge, I can just give opinions or take action on policy violations and I have no idea what the problem is. If it is just because he said "for fuck's sake", I would say you are being overly sensitive. I've said worse, we all have when frustrated from time to time. Under no circumstances is that a violation of WP:NPA and I don't see it as particularly uncivil. It is just peppered exasperation. We don't censor here, after all. The content seemed to be his opinion regarding your edits and the problem they are causing. And they may be correct in stating you are working towards a topic ban. Was it something else I missed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a figure of speech "for fuck's sake". I told you an RFC was futile now you're proving my point as well. Please stick to the point, which is that the latest outburst of abuse is the latest in a series, enough is enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Keith, you really don't get it. I feel for you, but you really don't understand. Someone saying "for fuck's sake" might not be optimum, but it isn't an attack, it isn't abuse. Sometimes people say words like that here. I think many would find that less offensive than your badgering at the RFC. Even when proof is put in your face, you argue against it, such as the long standing consensus at the article. You really are on the way to a topic ban or block, make no mistake about it, because people are tired of arguing with you when you won't listen to their perspective and simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your opinion. (ie: WP:IDHT) Maybe Wikipedia isn't for you, I don't know, but at the rate you are going, that choice will likely be taken from you before too long. As for the RFC, just glancing over the comments, it seems to be moving along just fine. Whether you think it is a waste of time or not, that is completely meaningless. This is how we do it here, so it is best to get used to it if you want to stick around. I'm a bit weary of this thread and you dragging up new offenses that aren't offenses, so I suggest you ponder the advice given here and just let others give their opinions in the RFC, and stay out of it, as you've already given your opinion more than once there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In view of you insulting my intelligence, threats, personal abuse, intimidation, failure to WP:AGF and flagrant bias I decline to engage further with you. Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of how summarizing a whole article into a single word, for the sake of filling an infobox' parameter results into an intractable edit war. (1) The Westfeldzug (10 May - 25 June 1940) was decisive for the French Third Republic (who disappeared) ; (2) The same Westfeldzug was not sufficient to decide the issue of WWII, because the issue of a World War is decided at the World scale. Both of these assertions are clear, and unchallenged. Why not trying "result=decisive, but not sufficiently"... or simply avoiding this parameter ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not try not opening another front in the interminable discussion about the BoF infobox here. This is properly a discussion about which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience, not whether the German's victory was decisive or merely a victory (or, according to one Keith, something that is so very far from a victory that it needs to be explained in the aftermath section.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Pldx1: leave me the hell alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Tagishsimon. I will not deny that "which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience" is an interesting question. But, in my opinion, a better question would be: "what can be done to contain this kind of mole-hill battle" ? Here Westfeldzug was not one battle, but a whole campaign, i.e. something between a simple battle and the whole World War. In the infobox, "result" is supposed to be a shortcut for "result_of_the_campaign". On the contrary, in 2016, "decisive" is not read as "in 1940, Gamelin has taken a gamelle (=a French bowl)", but as "this decided, at least in part, the issue of WWII". For the bulleted list, one can argue that "allowed the Ostfeldzug" was one of the main results of the Westfeldzug. And so on. Since there cannot exist a single word that summarizes the whole situation, the best fix is to remind all the contributors of this simple fact. Thus, "result=German victory" with the footnote: "for more details, read the article" appears to be the best way to avoid a further re-ignition. Solutions are supposed to be preventive, aren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz

First of all, please read the discussions of User:Signedzzz and User:RioHondo about the obvious possible WP:CoI and WP:BIAS. Just recently, I have been accused by User:Signedzzz of the so-called 'death threat' on my post on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive, because I have followed all instructions from him regarding the use of tags. I have also viewed his revisions and how he delete some sourced contributions and replacing it with the negative ones, that may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:COI.

User:Signedzzz: Huh? Excuse me 'po', but I'm only 15 years old, contributing for WP:NPOV maintenance of Wikipedia, and I think you're an adult already, and you're accusing me "death threat". Seriously, are there no any excuses to remove those tags aside from accussing me of 'death threat'. So childish on your part. Nakakabastos. So scary, because my conscience can't endure that. Okay, back to "false accusations" (read first the WP:BULLYING, WP:NPA):

• First time that I have put those tags on Rodrigo Duterte article, because of your discussions with User:RioHondo on several disputes of content, with mentions of WP:CoI.
• Then, you removed it with a summary of "tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk".
• I've added those tags again and left you message in talk page to tag specific sections, but you have removed those tags, with a summary of 'death threat is no explanation', and removed also the talk page 'need of tags' section, with a summary of 'remove death threat'.

"PS: Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not."

— User:PogingJuan, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags

So now, guys, is the quote above a "death threat"? No, It's just a friendly reminder. Like User:Hariboneagle927 said, "it is a reminder for users to be accountable for their edits", because we can be blocked by admins if they found out that our contributions have conflict of interest. It is true that all contributions here in Wikipedia may be seen by both Wiki and non-Wiki members as they can also edit or create an article. Also, I based the quote on the following quote by User:RioHondo:

"Your (User:Signedzzz) September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history."

— User:RioHondo, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Death squads

Wait, for Signedzzz to have interpreted it 'to include Davao Death Squad', which is one of the topics of the discussion, is a foul. I have no any affiliation and will never have on those extrajudicial killers. have now explained my side. Now, this bullying made by User:Signedzzz is truly unjustifiable on the rules of Wikipedia. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in fact has a problematic behavior and is intent on turning the Rodrigo Duterte article into a WP:COATRACK. He has been engaging in edit wars with anyone who he sees are trying to add or defend "pro-Rodrigo Duterte" edits, in the article on Rodrigo Duterte. It is evident in the tone of several sections, particularly on Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (really? A viagra comment to introduce his personal life?)

I first called him out after his attempts to delete whole sections of sourced positive content September 14 1,2,3,4. Since then he has been adding his POV sources, most recent of which is his edits on media killings by inserting out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him.5.

He also turned our section dispute (of where certain sections must be placed in the article) 9 into an accusation of removing them entirely. 6. In another disruptive edit, he left a note saying "Revert pro-Duterte changes" 7. Really? Anything thats favorable to the person in the BLP is not welcome in his own BLP? But he continues adding his anti-Duterte sources and no one removes them. About his accusation of death threat against the complainant, he was called out in the article's talk page by another user for making that accusation and was told not to delete the post as it was rude, but that ended in another edit war apparently.

The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a laugh, albeit unintentionally. I was intending to ignore this, but I would just like to point out that I wrote little or none of the article sections linked above. If some admin could block the OP, or failing that explain to them the basics of when, why and how to tag articles, that would be helpful. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also I am out of reverts so could someone remove the offending talk page section right now please, thank you. zzz (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess no editors have heard of the dog-whistle concept (all the rage now in the Philippines, personified by the subject of the article ...) I was discussing this earlier and I was told "Yes it obviously is, and the fucking [geniuses] at Wikipedia won't be able to understand", so I'm not altogether shocked. It's identical to a death threat, it conveys no (other?) useful or valid information, but "you can't prove it" :( zzz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To the OP, please learn how to link to diffs and sections. It's very hard to follow your evidence when you don't know how to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Links were prepared, User:Someguy1221 ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP is too long, but I did make a sincere attempt to read it anyway. None of it makes much sense, and the English is terrible. I've only once before encountered a user who randomly started writing in another language when their point didn't seem to be coming across in English. I can't see any evidence of a bad-faith death threat accusation (or any death threat accusation for that matter). I "Ctrl+F" the words "death threat" (which the OP placed in quotation marks) on the linked talk page, and they do not appear there now. If they have been removed, then a diff should have been provided. Both PopingJuan and RioHondo may be showing signs of WP:CIR issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The death threat accusation is in an edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the words were used in an edit summary. I do think the wording PopingJuan used is problematic, and it is not difficult, in-context, to read it the way Signedzzz did, as clarified in their following edit summary. I think the way we should deal with these kind of "borderline death threats" should be similar to how we deal with borderline legal threats. clear statement by the user who posted the offending material tht they did not mean this as a threat should be issued, and if such a statement is forthcoming neither user should be blocked. Since it does not appear any statement was made before this ANI thread was opened, Signedzzz should not be sanctioned for attempting to remove what they, in good faith, interpreted as a threat, but since the opening of this ANI thread counts as a de facto statement that no threat was intended, Signedzzz should refrain from further mass deletions. The specific text about people off-wiki seeing the material about death squads should be removed, however, as it is very likely to be interpreted as a threat and the de facto retraction took place on ANI rather than immediately below. If any more edit-warring to reinsert the offending material takes place after this is done, those who reinserted the material should be blocked; if Signedzzz again removes text that does not look like a death threat, he should be block (although reverting any further attempt to reinsert the implied threat is acceptable). I would also caution PopingJuan to be very careful about their wording in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The death threat accusation is just the most recent of his WP:BADFAITH behavior. As with most of the user's dealings with other users in the page, it started from an edit war on appropriately tagged concerns. 1,2,3. Apparently, the user does not see any issue with his edits despite the multiple concerns i brought up on the talk page. It's this pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring and treating the articles mentioned as a battleground that indicate the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. One only has to look at their page histories to see his WP:POINTY edits and how he's basically WP:OWNed them. I just stopped editing in those articles to avoid getting into trouble with someone who does not intend to collaborate and who has a declared conflict of interest. And I commented here only because I was tagged in the discussion. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RioHondo have explained about it on the above,

"The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 [originally titled "I am sorry for my country") that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles."

— User:RioHondo, this very noticeboard section

~Manila's PogingJuan 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For more information on the subjects tagged, Senator Leila de Lima is the staunchest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration, especially the declared 'war on drugs'.. 1 2

User:Hijiri88: I've removed Tagalog words and eng translations of it (originally italicized) are the replacements. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@PopingJuan: Yes, I read those already. Posting them again does not answer my question about COI, nor does it explain what that has to do with the death threat issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 Hijack the thread? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure my comments were directed at the WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:BIAS issues that were brought up by the complainant above against the user. And because i was tagged in this discussion, i just had to explain that. As i said, the user admitted his connection to Leila de Lima, an anti-Duterte politician which explains his anti-Duterte edits and hostile behavior in all the articles i mentioned above. It's this pattern of behavior (edit warring, reverting "pro-Duterte edits", malicious accusation) that has lead to this conflict as far as those articles are concerned. The fact that he continued with this problematic editing for a month in those articles with little resistance means every ounce of WP:AGF was extended to him. But AGF can only go so far. That is why i am not surprised with this death threat accusation coming from the user. And again, I am only explaining the dispute with regards to those WP policies that were brought up. I am not "hijacking" this discussion or whatever you'd like to think.--RioHondo (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The actual subject of this thread is the borderline death threat on the talk page. It's clear-cut and already resolved. If you want to accuse Signedzzz of tendentious editing, you should start your own thread. No one is still reading at this point, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING. Only you and your friend see it as a 'death threat'. Everyone else sees it as a pattern of bad behavior from someone who does not want his edits to be questioned or challenged, despite the obvious violations of WP policies. And edit warring to achieve this end.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Signedzzz and I are not friends. We have interacted once before, and while we were kinda-sorta technically on the same side in that dispute, the same was true of virtually everyone involved. Also, please read my comments more carefully. I never said I thought it was a death threat. While acknowledging PopingJuan's statement that it was not meant as a death threat, I said I thought it looked like a death threat. You and PopingJuan, both of whom appear to be non-native speakers, seem to be the only ones who don't think it looked like a death threat. The portion of text that looked like a threat has been removed -- why are we still here? Seriously, if you have evidence of tendentious editing on the part of Signedzzz, I would be happy to look through it, but so far you have given me nothing (the diff of him coatracking the article was something I had to go and dig up myself); and even if you present evidence in this thread at this point, chances are I will be the only one to read it, and I'm not an admin. You should draft your evidence off-wiki or in your user space, and open a new ANI thread when it is ready. This thread has already gone way past WP:TLDR with bullshit about whether PopingJuan meant his comment as a death threat or it merely looked like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 A classic example of WP:POV RAILROAD. If the user really saw it as a serious death threat, he would have been first to report it here or to emergency@wikipedia.org per WP:CIVILITY and WP:BULLY. But the user made the accusation in the middle of an edit war with the OP and only thru an edit summary, nothing more. If you think only the OP and I think it is not a death threat, check the Talk page history.--RioHondo (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should check the page history yourself. User:Hariboneagle927 basically agreed[36] with me about the sentence at the end about people off-wiki seeing the commentary being open to interpretation. The only difference is the degree to which we thought it inappropriate -- Hariboneagle interpreted it as PopingJuan apparently intended, while I interpreted it the same way as Signedzzz. Signedzzz's removing the whole thing again[37] was, in my opinion, inappropriate, but he has already essentially agreed to refrain from doing so again (I think he thanked me for one of my posts where I said he should), and I have said that he should be blocked if he does so. PopingJuan's jumping in and reverting Hariboneagle[38] without any explanation was definitely out of line, and his lack of contriteness here indicates to me that he is likely to do it again. Your own choosing to read so much (Signedzzz being insincere) into Signedzzz's not going to the trouble to research normal practice with regard to perceived threats is ... actually pretty disgusting. You should drop that train of thought immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

However you try to justify the user's behavior, it was still done in the middle of an edit war and using that same talk page accusation just to revert the OP's edits--"death threat is no explanation"01 02 03. That accusation itself falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, especially when the user is trying to misrepresent actual edits just to discredit the other editor. He's done that in the past as I have explained in my initial comment.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, an edit war took place. Yes, accusations were made. Yes, both sides made those accusations. The most recent inappropriate revert was by PogingJuan. Signedzzz has said he will stop reverting. PogingJuan has not, and neither have you. You are now the one trying to claim that Signedzzz was in breach of this or that policy or guideline, and therefore you and PogingJuan must be in the right. It is perfectly obvious that Signedzzz was acting in good faith when he read PogingJuan's edit as a threat. You can say what you want about how he should have emailed emergency services rather than removing the offending text, but that's beside the point. I should clarify that I have not read your initial comment: it was 442 words long and I could tell from the first few words that it had nothing to do with whether or not there was a death threat issued. If you want to sum up your problems with Signedzzz, I suggest you be more concise next time. ANI, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is voluntary: if you are too verbose, no one will read what you write. I went out of my way to read the mess PogingJuan posted at the top of this thread so I could respond, and I didn't feel like expending more effort on the unrelated mess you posted.

And there is also the problem of what on earth you are trying to accomplish here. Do you want an admin to block Signedzzz but not PogingJuan or Hariboneagle for the already-concluded edit war? Blocks are preventative -- if two parties in a three-way edit war (Hariboneagle and Signedzzz) have already agreed to a compromise, then the only preventative block would be one of the third party (PogingJuan). Blocking Signedzzz because you think he was wrong to make the initial revert is not preventative, because he has already agreed that this was wrong and only removing the text that looked like a threat was the way to go.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"the article must be reviewed to address BLP violations" is not an issue for ANI. I have posted on BLPN for. You don't need to thank me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to at least say Arrigato. :) But WP:AAEW and WP:NOTHERE, particularly disruptive behavior pattern and battleground, still fall under this ANI thread I think.--RioHondo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said on BLPN, no one is reading this, but you're welcome. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: First, the one who accused me of 'death threat' is Signedzzz. He removed the section I've placed and wrote on the summary as 'remove death threat'. You may want to visit this one. By the way, I saw your contributions on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte, also stating of the summary that "removed pointless borderline death threat threats". I'm not going to revert it back as I'm tired. I've explained on the OP that this one is not a death threat, and just a friendly reminder that we may be blocked by admins if they found out that our contribs has a conflict of interest or it's written in a non-neutral PoV. Now, about CoI. You said in a question, "Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte?" He doesn't like Duterte and like the critic De Lima? Well, I don't care, it's his/her business. But if it's affecting on how he write articles about the said subjects, and when he starts writing within a PoV, deleting other sourced contributions and replacing it with anti-Duterte contribution that's pretty much wrong as it is violating rules. And he has been deleting the tag of Template:POV, asking me what's the basis, and now I've answered and I just reminded, then now I am being accused of 'death threat'ing a Wikipedian. That's it after all. I hope you understand my sentiments of writing with neutral point of view, with User:RioHondo. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You did post a death threat on the talk page. Whether you meant it as a death threat is irrelevant, because that is how it was interpreted, and this interpretation had merit. The portion of your comment that constituted the threat has been removed now. You should be more careful going forward. Can we close this thread now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close PopingJuan posted what looked like a death threat, and Signedzzz attempted to remove it several times. PopingJuan has clarified that they did not mean it as a threat. The offending text has been removed. There seems to be an ongoing (good-faith) content dispute, but that is not something ANI can or should resolve, at least until evidence is provided that it is anything more than a content dispute. Both RioHondo and PopingJuan have insisted that this is more than a content dispute, but have not provided any evidence. They have been advised to regroup, organize what evidence they have, and open a new thread later, if they so choose. The "death threat" issue discussed at length in the top half of this thread has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I and Riohondo have given you links on Signedzzz's edit, showing the most possible non-neutral POV. why should we close this ANI, if there were issues like the most possible POV-edits of Signedzzz? Do you really think, it's only the WP:BULLYING that I am continuing this fight for, despite of busy schedules outside Wiki? No, this started once and for all, because of POV edits of Signedzzz, proved by me and RioHondo using links we have posted on ANI. I think we need other contributors' opinion regarding the issue. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:: Another thing, if that the alleged 'death threat' was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags. This time, you really have to answer this, @Signedzzz:. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or else, I have to tag Signedzzz as incompetent as since the time this ANI has started, I haven't see any explanations of Signedzzz about his non-NPOV edits on Duterte and related topics. And wait, what is his rationale on, my humble opinion, this non-sense reply of him: "If some admin could block the OP,"? ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Give it a fucking break already. Signedzzz was wrong to remove your whole post rather than just the bit that looked like a threat. You were wrong to reinsert the bit that looked like a threat. Signedzzz has said he will no longer attempt to remove your whole post now that the bit that looked like a threat is gone. Why the hell are we still here, apart from your stubbornly wanting to continue discussing a content dispute on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the frustration of being accused of making a death threat, (it is the lowest form of 'argument' in an edit war that borders on harassment if you ask me), we can still discuss these issues in a civil and polite way and not have to resort to shouting (bold letters) or saying the f word as User:Signedzzz did above. Having said that, is this 'death threat accusation' really just an isolated incident that stemmed from misunderstanding? Or is it part of a growing pattern of abusive or hostile behavior on the part of the accuser? I have laid down my own observation of the user and i say here: i saw it coming. Remember this started with a simple POV tag to the article. It wasn't like deleting any of the user's numerous questionable contributions to the article.01. The user reverted the OP saying it was unexplained 02. As the user continued editing the article, the OP then restored the tags saying discussions on talk page enough for declaring the article with 'NON-NPOV' and has a 'systematic bias03. Again, none of his edits were being reverted but just the tags which IMO, are reasonable given our disputes in the talk page. The user again rejected it and asked the OP to tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk04 When the OP did and provided a link to the talk page discussion as requested by the user05, the user then out of nowhere accused the OP and reverted him with a casual note: death threat is no explanation06. Was the accusation then a legitimate grievance? or an argument in an edit war meant meant to silence the OP? Even without context, the accusation was still made in the midst of an edit war which puts the accusation in question. And then when you consider the history of the user's behavior in the article, this pattern of disruptive behavior, it tells us it is false and a harassment against the newbie OP, as I myself have experienced with the user.--RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Duterte is a seriously badly written tabloid-like (over written trivia, under written hard content) article on a vile individual, a true monster. I can imagine that in that environment/on that topic the merest implied hint of a death threat could have serious inplications, and even something unimplied can be easily misinterpreted as being one. And people actually worry about a few offhand words said by Donald Trump! Compared to Duterte, he is a saint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation. User:Hijiri88 already posted those article concerns on WP:BLPN which I hope will really clean up or straighten out those neutrality and coatracking issues raised. The anti-Duterte user has been editing that article more than any of us here so he knows what he was doing and what he was getting himself into. Despite the controversial nature of the person in the BLP, it hadn't been this hostile an environment and in fact people have been editing the article freely with both pros and cons being accepted in good faith. It all changed when those mass deletions of pro content and replacement with all negative trivia took place. Since then, edit wars became frequent with the user now questioning every pro edit. He continued editing at his will though. Neither the OP nor I deleted any of his edits except the time i reverted his deletions. The article talk page is proof of this long standing neutrality dispute so the user has no reason to edit war on simple tags. Or cry foul and make baseless accusations in doing so. I hope your article on Donald Trump is not as hostile though :).--RioHondo (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Constant harassment by User:The_Banner

I made an edit to Sean Connery, delinking his nationality in accordance with WP:OVERLINKING due to Scottish being a major nationality. User:The_Banner reverted me with no explanation, and then proceeded to stalk my edit history and revert eight other edits of mine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), even though all of them followed the MOS. I informed him that his behavior constituted wikihounding and harassment, to which he responded, "Get over it." He has continued to stalk and harass me on my talk page, and is now trying to accuse me of personally attacking him, even though I never did so. I suspect he is doing this because he is aware of his own uncivil behavior, and is now trying to lie and paint himself as the victim in order to distract from his uncivil conduct. User:The_Banner has twice been blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", with two different admins noting his "battleground mentality", and one admin noting his "absolute refusal to engage in discussion". It is clear that his behavior has not changed in the slightest. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is true that i came across this overly aggressive user through this edit on Sean Connery. To my opinion that is no overlinking as User:Wash whites separately claims (For easy of use, I will shorten his name to WWS). So I reverted the edit. A short time later he again unlinked [[Scottish people|Scottish]] ([39]) this time with as comment major nationalities are not linked in opening sentence. As it constitutes no nationality nor overlinking, I reverted again. Again, reverted by WWS. So, I started a discussion on Talk:Sean Connery#Overlinking before reverting and pointing to the talkpage here. When pointed on the fact the "Scottish" is not a nationality, he just came up with another link to a guideline. Effectively, there was no discussion.

It is also true that I did look at a few other articles. Most of them did not bother me, but the use op "WP:PEACOCK" to my attention and after checking the edits, I reverted at F. R. Leavis, Lillian Hayman, Sadie Gray and J. J. Cale. In all cases WWS reverted those articles with a summary of reverted unhelpful wikihounding. I took issue about that and complaint on his talkpage. As a replay, he called my criticism harassment. Personal attack followed personal attack, while I tried to stay cool and calm. (see the talkpage)

At no time WWS tried to start a serious discussion but he continued in a very aggressive and bullying matter. I warned him multiple times about his behaviours, but to no avail. In the cases of F. R. Leavis and Lillian Hayman I opened a discussion on the talkpage. (The other two I did let go) And as you can see, it is now WWS who is going to my history to get extra info to hide his own aggressive behaviour. The Banner talk 21:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In a rather short time WWS accused me of wikihounding, harassment, being hilarious ([40]), stalking ([41]), playing innocent ([42]), stalking and harassing ([43]), lying and playing the victim ([44]), more lying ([45]), actively harassing and attacking ([46]), lying ([47]). Only about Margaret Sanger was a tiny bit of a normal discussion, although at that time he acted in a way that showed that he had no clue what he was doing, just policy-waving and accusing of censoring the article ([48]). The section he added is completely irrelevant and highly contentious, By the time of this writing, the info is already removed twice. The Banner talk 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You were accused of harassment and lying because you literally were committing harassment and lying. Your wikihounding, harassment, threat-making, and absolute refusal to remain civil are what started all of this, and now, like I said, you are trying to lie and play the victim in order to wiggle your way out of the consequences of your own actions. There was never a point in any of our interactions where you even remotely attempted to engage in a reasonable, civil discussion. Even when I clearly explained MOS policies to you, you ignored them and continued to harass me (as evidenced by your attempt to call legitimate use of the MOS "policy-waving", lol). —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of his aggressive and bullying behaviour. The Banner talk 08:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of his phony self-victimization and dishonest behavior. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So let me get one thing straight: looking up and reverting some of your edits is wikihouding and stalking but you going through my history is perfectly okay? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Going through eight different edits and reverting them with no explanation, then telling me to "get over it", then continuing to attack me on my talk page, then falsely accusing me of bullying you when I defend myself from your harassment, all constitutes uncivil behavior. So it makes perfect sense for me to check and see if this was a pattern of behavior for you. Me checking your block log is not even remotely equal to you stalking my edits. You looked through my edits in order to harass me; I looked through your logs in order to see if you had a history of harassing people, and you do. —Wash whites separately (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For a further example I have also seen Wash Whites Separately remove wikilinks for the same reason at Terry Wogan. I think the complainant needs to examine their own edits and the reasons stated for the reversion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not just Terry Wogan; WWS's last five hundred edits are almost exclusively the same edit (removal of linked nationality). And in no case ever with an edit-summary; I make no judgement as to whether this is an attempt to avoid cursory scrutiny for these edits, but policy is pretty plain on the need to use summaries. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary. I get attacked for using edit summaries, and I get attacked for not using edit summaries, so what's the point anymore? I explained to Richhoncho multiple times what the policy stated, and he still was bitter enough to find this thread in order to comment against me. I explained the policies to Banner numerous times as well, and he refused to listen. Even if I were to use the edit summaries, some editors simply refuse to listen. —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Explaining? The Banner talk 08:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I cited a policy that easily answered your question, and you just ignored it. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh, cleaning up overlinking is some of the most thankless work on this website... —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As is cleaning up BLP violations such as this which you have repeatedly inserted into the Jimmy Page article. You will *not* accuse/imply or otherwise intimate living people have committed a crime where they have neither been arrested, charged or even questioned on it. Multiple editors have attempted to keep that material to a neutral description given the sources involved, and your editorialising is a blatant BLP violation. BLP's are under discretionary sanctions, so if you continue to edit in that way, the next stop will be arbitration enforcement where I will request a blanket ban from BLP's. Then you can find something better to do than making suspiciously bot-like edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As is dealing with needlessly hostile editors like yourself who make disgusting threats upon the slightest editorial opposition. It's the unstable hotheads like yourself that make this community feel so unwelcome. Funny how you're so passionate about combating intimation, but then you baselessly intimate that my edits are bots. *None* of my edits are bots, thank you very much. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression I made a threat. I said you will not editorialise on BLP's and accuse living people of a crime or you will end up at arbitration enforcement. It was not a 'threat'. It was a description of the consequences of you continuing to violate WP:BLP You will follow the BLP or you will find your editing of biographies restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And you seem to be under the impression that I gleefully run around habitually violating WP:BLP, when all I did was mention that he committed statutory rape because the source said he committed statutory rape. I thought it was within boundaries since the source stated it, but I made this thing called a mistake. You're not even using the word "editorialise" correctly because I never included my opinions; I only included what was sourced. Anyway, I made the appropriate corrections, so my editing of biographies will continue. :) —Wash whites separately (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Without condoning the edit warring by either side, I think that the edits by Wash whites separately that were linked to above were generally helpful and should not have been reverted. Wash whites separately comments that, "I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary." I consider that an inappropriate attitude. An informative edit summary and a link to a relevant policy or guideline is always appropriate when making an edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we're done discussing the (alledged) shortcomings of the OP, can anyone comment on the actual complaint? Kleuske (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think the complaint is reasonable, and that it would be appropriate to politely suggest to The Banner that he leave Wash whites separately alone, and to warn both users against edit warring too, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not accuse him of wikihounding, stalking, harassing etc. what he did to me. But I do take issue to his aggressive attitude towards me. The Banner talk 00:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find the attacks and accusations here: User talk:Wash whites separately. I am unwilling to go down the same line as the OP. The Banner talk 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're unwilling to make accusations against me, but you are willing to do all of the things I accused you of doing. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a classic deception tactic. The Banner goes out of his way to harass me, and when I defend myself from his harassment, he accuses me of having an "aggressive attitude". Thus, he can be the aggressor and paint himself as the victim at the same time. Given his two prior blocks for harassment and battleground mentality, it's not unreasonable to suspect that this tactic is what he has done to other editors in the past as well. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What is to be done here? I do not think at this stage there is any point in calling for sanctions against a specific editor. Rather, both editors should be advised to avoid edit warring and to stay out of each other's way as much as possible. If that suggestion does not help resolve matters, then further action may be required, but at this stage there is nothing else that can be done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25

• JoetheMoe25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Racism in Israel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I don't believe I've ever encountered JoetheMoe25 before yesterday, when he added original research to the lead of Racism in Israel, violating WP:LEAD in the process. I reverted his edit, saying in my edit summary that I was assuming good faith. He undid my reversion with the edit summary "Your name gives away your bias." He also started a discussion at Talk:Racism in Israel, although it addressed neither WP:NOR nor WP:LEAD.

I left a message on JoetheMoe25's talk page, cautioning him against making personal attacks. His reply was to tell me:

"Do not question a judgement I made from observation. Your pathetic Black Power bitching will also get you nowhere fast. I've dealt with editors like you in the past and I am certainly not intimidated by your threats."

He also replied at Talk:Racism in Israel (where I had replied to his message, explaining my concerns about OR and LEAD):

"Malik Shabazz, I suggest you be a man and keep your child-like ranting to yourself. The American Constitution did not guarantee freedom from slavery until 1865 and legislation was passed to abolish the African slave trade in 1808. Not to be prejudice at all, but even your username hints at anti-Israel bias."

"After reading that message you sent to my user page, I now laugh at how much of a hypocrite you are. Apparently, you can't keep cool either. The text clearly states protection based on race, sex and religion. Though I can't prove this claim, maybe protection of religion was the reason why godless Moshe Dayan didn't tear down the Rock of the Dome when he captured it during the Six-Day War. The Black Power movement is lost. Grow up."

I have asked him again to stop, and he keeps digging a deeper hole.

Will somebody please explain to JoetheMoe25 that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem adept at giving even better (or worse) than you get as shown here: What the fuck are you ranting about, JoetheShmoe? I'm talking about a Wikipedia policy called WP:No original research, which you violated by your addition of material sourced to a primary text. You also violated our WP:LEAD guideline. Would you care to address the substance of my message instead of making personal attacks? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)]] Motsebboh (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That came after three attacks from him. I still asked him to try to reply to my concerns about Wikipedia policy. Nowhere has he addressed them, or even explained why he reverted me in the first place. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, it's a good idea when when entering the halls of justice to do so with clean hands. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sensing WP:COMPETENCE issues here. See the discussion they opened on my talk page. It's very odd. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not being called a liar but JoetheMoe. Possible NPA? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Now reported at WP:AN3#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) after making four reverts in little more than two hours.
• The editor has prior warnings on his talk pages for personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Which Talk page, Malik? You probably already know this, but JoetheMoe25 = 75.72.35.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has edited from this public library: 204.169.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and according to this Sockpuppet investigation, Joe is likely several other colorful characters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to User talk:JoetheMoe25, where he's got warnings about making personal attacks from March 2011, June 2014, and August 2016. And warnings about edit-warring from March 2011, October 2011, September 2014, November 2014 (blocked for 48 hours), August 2016 (blocked for 1 week), October 2016, and a 3RR violation within the past 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked for a week for the personal attacks. (I note that the "What the fuck are you ranting about..." response was suboptimal, but was under significant provocation). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, I did not think I would see JoetheMoe25, after all these years. Yes, he is most certainly the account created after utilizing the IP address 75.72.35.253 for disruptive, unilateral behavior. Back in 2012, most of his dealings were with the banned user Zhoban, who I'd describe as being his frienemy and the most toxic individual I have come across throughout my last decade on this site. Malik Shabazz's civility has been dubious, but it pales in comparison to JoetheMoe25's conduct. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

KAvin

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

---

I was trying to avoid having to make this thread, but the problems are continuing. I am involved in a content dispute with KAvin (talk · contribs). This dispute has frequently been reduced to personal attacks, which KAvin has been warned about. I've been accused of malice. I've been wikihounded, I've baselessly been accused of bias. Today, I am apparently a "Wiki Nazi". Would someone uninvolved please have a word about personal attacks? agtx 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@agtx Nothing I have stated concerning your editing behaviour is untrue. If you take offence at the way you are described, maybe stop vandalizing other folks edits.KAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the edits primarily because unlike Agtx you provided no diffs but I doubt vandalism was involved. WP:vandalism has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia and calling something it when it isn't it's a good way to fail at ANI. BTW personal attacks aren't acceptable even if you claim they are true. Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"bias" appears to be in reference to the situation mentioned in the "malice" diff, and if what is meant is bias against white supremacists and a refusal to use "Democrat" as an adjective, then there is nothing wrong with having this bias, even if it is not technically a personal attack to point out that such a bias exists. The "wikihounded" diff is also, indeed, problematic, but I would be less inclined to call it "hounding" as to link this page. Monitoring someone's talk page for a week or so after one's own posting there is not really "hounding", but pinging another user involved in an unrelated dispute and attacking Agtx is certainly rather dickish. (The double-sigs are also annoying, but that's neither here nor there.)

Now calling someone a "Nazi" because they have a perceived liberal bias and bias against white supremacists is ... just about the worst. Reminds me of what this dick did to me a coupla years back. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.

Indef block, I say.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(@Agtx: Technical point, but if you were trying to remove the adjectival use of "Democrat" from an article, you shouldn't call it derogatory. Many progressives, non-Democrat Cenk Uygur and non-American Hijiri88 among them, agree with you, but devout Democrat Bob Chipman uses it a lot in a non-derogatory sense, so it seems to be a point of contention, or at least a derogatory term Democrats are trying to reclaim. You should say it is WP:SLANG instead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

And given that the user is arguing that "white supremacist" is derogatory and seems to hold a less-than-positive view of the modern Democratic Party (hence the use of "Democrat" as an adjective), it's not an AGF-violation to read into these edits the common right-wing historical revisionism that the GOP is now and always has been the party of tolerance and integration and it's the Democrats who are trying to hurt Blacks (because that was how it was in nineteenth century). This user is also an SPA. The more one reads into this, the uglier it gets. This isn't even like the Zaostao debacle a few weeks back where the fascist in question was pretending to be subtle about his racist intentions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This should hopefully be self-evident, but to be clear, I have not engaged in any vandalism. I did remove KAvin's attempt to insert themselves into a discussion on my talk page, which is not vandalism. agtx 04:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over KAvin's contribs, I have to agree with Hijiri88's assessment that it looks and sounds a lot like someone who is only here to argue that a group which sources describe as white supremacists who "intimidated or assassinated black leaders, and discouraged black voting at the polls" was somehow not white supremacist just because they might have had a few Uncle Toms in their ranks. I'll note that Markbassett is the only one who has contributed any sources regarding other (but still compatible) aims for the group and its non-white members. Between that and the Nazi remark, I'm highly tempted to block as WP:NOTHERE, though I would also accept that KAvin be topic banned from articles relating to American politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain what is meant by "KAvin's contribs" since this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to. I have provided sources to back up my argument, sources that are listed in the further reading, only to be told that those sources are not good enough to make my case. I simply wanted the qualifier "white supremacist" removed or changed to another less pejorative label, or none at all, since it is not needed, and does not adequately reflect the complexity of the political landscape of the late 19th century in the South. It inaccurately describes a group that actively recruited black members for the express purpose of swaying black voters to vote Democrat to defeat Republican/Northern candidates. However, I have been not been met with polite disagreement but with personal attacks and bias repeatedly. I attempted to take it to moderation in the hope a compromise could be reached to no avail. This has really gotten ridiculous. I have been insulted and maligned, and simply gave as good as I got. I have been scolded and been threatened with banning while the others have not. This experience has honestly opened my eyes to exactly what Wikipedia is...and its not what it is "sold as"!!!KAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

this is the first and only Wikipedia article I have ever attempted edit/contribute to Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by "SPA" and what User:Ian.thomson meant by "someone who is only here to argue". Your contribs clearly indicate that you are an SPA, and since you're not the kind of SPA who abides by policies and guidelines and engages in polite discussion, how you should be dealt with seems pretty obvious. Wikipedia isn't "sold" -- you didn't pay to be allowed edit it, and the community does not owe you a refund. If you want to advocate for white supremacist groups, there are Conservapedia and Metapedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So, basically, what you are saying is "newbies not allowed". As far as me contributing anything else, why would I do so, since my first contribution has been so viciously attacked? It seems pointless to me to try and add or edit something in another article, only to have it undone by someone else. Also, I am not "advocating" for white supremacy, I am advocating for truth and facts!!! If you think I am advocating for "white supremacy", its only due to your own bias and bigotry, and not relevant to my argument. Wikipedia claims it relies on people to help build it, but what I have found is that it apperently only wants people, who subscribe to certain viewpoints, to contribute, despite wheter their contribution is based in fact. Hihiri88, you are a prime example of what myself, and apparently alot of others, feel is wrong with Wikipedia. Also, I find it hilarious that a user who ends their name with "88" would infer that someone else is supporting white supremacy, especially since those numbers have a significant meaning in the white supremacist/white power movement. Take care now.KAvin (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

@Hijiri88: The Metapedia comment was out of line, his advocacy for historical revisionism is not that blatant. @KAvin: Responding to comments that offend you with more offensive comments makes you look like you can't handle discussions in a civil manner. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and thusly stricken. If it's any defense, I really have no idea what goes on on Metapedia or how it is different from Conservapedia. They both look repugnant to me. I also said the same thing to Zaostao a few weeks ago and no one pointed it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm happy to announce that KAvin has now officially joined the prestigious ranks of the users who have accused me of being a fascist because my username has "88" in it, despite the clear explanation on my user page that that is the year of my birth. I didn't even know that the numbers meant anything else until after I started using them -- above-average knowledge of the workings of "the white supremacist/white power movement" does not paint this user in the best light. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I could know about the significance of "88" to the white supremacist movement because I was born in 1971 and remember when white power skinheads attacked Geraldo on his tv show. Or it might be the fact that I was old enough to watch the film "American History X" when it came out. It might have something to do with me and my friends fighting off racist skinheads at punk shows in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm sure none of that matters to you, since you have already stated that I have "above average knowledge" about the white power/white supremacist movement, and, in your words, that doesn't paint me in the "best light". Regardless of what your opinion of me is, those numbers have a very negative conotation attached to them, like the Confederate Battle Flag does. You may want to take that into consideration, or just deal with folks thinking you are a white supremacist, as apparently from your comments above, I take it i am not the first person to think that of you due to your user name.KAvin (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

By "significance", do you mean "importance" or the older sense of "meaning"? Because if it's the latter, then you have no right to tell me what my user name means -- it means what I say it means in this context. If you are not yourself a member of the white supremacist movement and I am not either (and I am not), then why on earth would it matter what my user name means to them? And no one who flies the Confederate Battle Flag is doing so because of a quite common and expectable coincidence -- they know what it means, and it has never had an unrelated or innocuous meaning like the number 88 does. You are only the third person in my eleven years on Wikipedia to accuse me of being a fascist -- of the earlier two one did so while I was editing logged out (read: he did not know my username), and the other is long gone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@KAvin:, in all of your attempted article edits ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53]) you attempted to cite sources only once (rather broadly so, in ways that contradict academic assessment of the work), and otherwise censored reliably sourced information. On the talk page, you again broadly cited that book (or at least its title), again, in ways that contradict academic assessment of said book. You started the assumptions of bad faith in the discussion, claimed that your ancestry and hobby somehow makes you an authority on the subject, threatened to engage in meatpuppetry, engaged in the first real (and subsequent) personal attack in the thread (and are the only person to have done so), and overall refused to address or even acknowledge the numerous academic sources that others brought up to show that your interpretation of a book's title may not be representative of mainstream academia (or even of the very book you cited!). You have not been insulted, you have just behaved shamefully. You have not provided sources, you have argued that your misreading of a title of a single book somehow beats out a dozen sources specifically describing the Red Shirts as white supremacist.

Going through this point by point, I regret not blocking you indefinitely earlier.

KAvin, you need to either back off now and agree to a topic ban from American history or you will end up blocked indefinitely as someone who is either unwilling or unable to cooperatively work with others on this site. You don't even have to apologize for the continual tantrum that makes up most of your activity so far, you just need to back off from American history and go work on something you're not so fanatical about. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I actually own the Drago book, and there are several entries and accounts of black Red Shirts in their own words, on why they joined and what their resoning was for supporting them in the post Reconstruction South. I have been told by two(now three) editors that I am "misinterpreting" what I myself have read, and what at least two editors, admittedly, have not read. Now, as I defend myself against yet another attack, you say I should "move on" to another topic and you "regret" not banning me outright? I simply tried to fix a misrepresentation on a Wikipedia entry and have been insulted and maligned constatntly ever since. I suggest that if Wikipedia is only interested in certain folks contributions, that it state so up front. Maybe you can make a "Wiki Policy" that will let new users know what they may be in for if they contribute to an article. I did not start this out to make anyone mad, or start any "wars", as I have been accused of. I simply found something on an article that is improper, and have received nothing but grief and insults since I tried to correct it. I mean, if Wikipedia is a user based entity that relies on users to build it, then all users, whether they are newbies or old pros, should be treated with respect and their contributions taken into honest, unbiased consideration. I honestly feel that this is not what has happened with my experience here. Sorry if that "offends" you, or anyone else, but it is how I feel on the subject.KAvin (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

We gladly accept contributions from users who do not engage in the sort of behaviors I just highlighted. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND already spells that out, as does WP:Assume good faith, all policies already.

Again: do you agree to back off from pages relating to American history? Do not try to skirt the question, any response that does not answer this may be taken as a response in the negative. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So, the only thing that will make you happy is for me to contribute to subjects I may not have any interest in, and to avoid a subject I have spent years reading and studying? If that's what it will take to make you happy, I guess I'll do it, but please let me know what exactly constitutes "American history", so I don't end up stepping on anyones toes.KAvin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

A couple of good rule of thumb:

• If an article is listed in categories that mention the United States, American colonies, or any states contained therein, as well as categories mentioning history (including related terms like "era," "timeline," or "events"), everyone is probably going to consider it to be a part of American history. For example, Red Shirts (Southern United States) is listed in four categories that contain the word "history" in them, as well as a category containing the word "era" in it.
• If the article is within two or three degrees of separation from the History of the United States article, it is very likely to be considered a part of American history. For example, Red Shirts links to Reconstruction Era, which is also linked in History of the United States.

These are not hard-and-fast leash lines, common sense applies. For example, the Cornbread article is mostly safe to edit as long as you stay out of the history section. Likewise, Brassica juncea would appear completely safe unless you added stuff about its traditional role in traditional Southern cuisine (though contemporary Southern cuisine may be fine). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not a new editor KAvin claimed above that he would have made edits to other articles if his "good-faith" edits to this one article had not been so poorly received, but this simply isn't true. The KAvin account is new, but looking at the page history it's pretty obvious that the same person was making the same edits via various IPs over the past year and a half -- in fact these edits, and the reverts of these edits as "unsourced" or "vandalism" make up basically the entire history of the page since early 2015.[54][55][56][57][58] If the KAvin account is either blocked or TBANned, the page should be semi-protected as well, as it seems unlikely to stop for the foreseeable future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So now I'm being accused of editing multiple times, even though I just recently signed up to Wikipedia, and this was my first edit.? If what you folks really want is to ban a new user, just say so. I'll leave of my own accord and leave it to you "pros", so to speak.KAvin (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

• @KAvin:, @Hijiri88: both of you stop it.

Hijiri88, it is entirely possible that KAvin knows what 88 means for white supremacists for the reasons he gave, and that the IPs you listed are distinct individuals acting for diverse reasons. Only two you listed were from SC, and from rather distinct parts of it. There is a type of American southerner who does not know how to reconcile pride in their homeland with its terrible history, and many of them turn to historical revisionism without realizing they are empowering white supremacists in doing so. They are not deliberate racists, they just can't accept that they need to take responsibility for something their ancestors did or don't see how to do so without rejecting their mixed heritage. I am from South Carolina as well, so I've met plenty of them. While I could imagine that KAvin is an IP-hopping white supremacist until I have better evidence I have to assume that those IPs are from distinct individuals and that KAvin just doesn't know how to handle the South's shameful treatment of black Americans.

Since KAvin has agreed to a topic ban, this should be the end of this discussion so long as he does not continue the same behavior in other articles and does not violate the topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, Ian. I have thought it over and, after my experience here on Wikipedia, I will do my reading and research of American History in forums where the members are not as biased and hateful as they are here. Even though you claim I have never been insulted on here, I have in fact been, and that is confirmed by other folks who have read this exchange that are not involved in the "Wikiworld". You say you are from South Carolina, and you have met plenty of people that just don't "know how to handle the South's shameful treatment of black Americans.", and, I'm sorry if you don't like this, that is extremely offensive to myself and alot of other people. I'm not sure exactly what I am supposed to apologize for, since I have never mistreated anyone, black or white, in my life, but if I did in fact hurt someone, I would be man enough to apologize to them for it. Maybe you feel that the South has something to be sorry for, but alot of folks disagree. And if your main issue about the South is slavery, then let me remind you that the entire United States had slaves, not just the South. I imagine that does not matter to you, but it needs to be said. So, I won't waste my time doing research on Wikipedia and being held to some Draconian ban on the subject of the history of the nation I was born in, raised in, and currently reside in, to satisfy people who have a wanton bias aginst certain regions of that nation, and its people and history. Take care.KAvin (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

Ok then, my apologies -- to Hijiri88. I was born and raised in South Carolina, like many of my ancestors, one of whom is buried on the State House grounds (Swanson Lundsford). My mother has traced our family's genealogy for centuries, since colonization and back to Europe. If you don't think that slavery (which the South fought for), the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and resistance to desegregation are something to apologize for, you have completely failed to understand either what those things truly were or else lack basic human decency. I have been hoping it's the former, but your continued bullheadedness is making me fear the later. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

More insults directed at me, this time from an "administrator"? Okay, its not surprising. It simply solidifies my conclusion about exacly what kind of "society" Wikipedia actually is. I appreciate you setting that straight for me. However, I don't feel the need to apologize for things that occurred in history that I had absolutely nothing to do with, but if you do, well that's your perogative I suppose. I am proud to be a Southerner, and particularly a South Carolinian, and refuse to succumb to the "Southern Guilt" that it seems alot of folks expect people from here to express. As I stated, I treat folks the way I would want to be treated, and if I do, or have, wronged someone, I am man enough to apologize to them. I am sorry if you disagree, but being a Southerner doesn't make one "automatically guilty" of hurting anyone, black or white. If you feel otherwise, thats your issue, not mine. Another reason that I prefer the more civil discussions to be found in other forums is that most folks don't use the "tongue in cheek" insults that you, and some other editors on Wikipedia, seem to resort to when talking with a person that they don't agree with, or for whatever deluded reason, think they are somehow better than. I really wish Wikipedia could be a civil place to share information on, but unfortunately, its shown me it is a very harsh and uncivilized community, if you don't adhere to to the prescribed "agenda". You have a good one now.KAvin (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin

• I'm blocked KAvin for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HERE and WP:IDHT. Looking simply at the first 10 edits is telling, with patterns that clearly indicate there is a bias at work, and that this might not be their first go around here. He has wasted a lot of time and it isn't fair to other editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia, as it seems obvious that KAvin has a singular mission here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Aydinsalis

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

---

Aydinsalis has started threads on Jimbo Wales's talk page about the same topicseven seperate times and it's really annoying. He needs to drop the stick, but although many editors have told him to stop posting about it, he ignores them. This is getting disruptive, and something needs to be done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it's disrupting all the useful, productive stuff you usually find on Jimbo's talk page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well its Jimbo's talk page, if he wants to ban someone from it, he can like any other editor. Personally I have some sympathy from someone who is getting the run-around by the WMF and at Meta, so if he wants to badger Jimbo, let Jimbo sort it out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let Jimbo sort it out. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo knows what the matter. No doubt, he will make the right choice. In addition, he will answer this question: "How long to wait and what to expect?" Aydinsalis (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm blocking this user temporarily. Look at their contributions; in any other situation this would be considered indef-worthy harassment. They've been extended a high level of patience and attempts at reasonable communication, but since August have refused to listen to anyone, drop the stick, and stop harassing Jimbo on his personal page here, even after he clearly stated he was unable to act even if he believed the user's claims, which he said he doesn't. This kind of behavior is not ever tolerated indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 21:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-admin closures at WP:DRV and administrator Cryptic's block of me

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

---

S Marshall (talk · contribs)
Cryptic (talk · contribs)

WP:DRV reads '"A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. WP:NADC 'No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus.'

Despite those WP policy and guidelines, S Marshall has a history of closing DRVs. Just the other day he closed one here[59] as no consensus. As a improper closure I reverted it[60] with a quote of DRV in my edit summary.

Administrator Cryptic came along and undid[61] my revert without a edit summary. Didn't know this User at all before today. I reverted[62] with the additional mention of NADC.

Cryptic reverted (Without edit summary) again[63] and went ahead and blocked me[64] without warning, without an explanation either of why a DRV closure was proper instead of improper per DRV and NADC. Technically, S Marshall's closure was done incorrectly on a third point because he doesn't put a NAC template on the DRV discussion he closed.

As this log shows[65] Cryptic is a regular DRV participant. They should therefore be familiar with the rules for closing DRVs and non-administrator closure rules. As a regular at DRV, and a administrator who should know wikipedia policy but freely admits NADC closures of DRVs are occurring, should they be blocking an editor for applying a WP policy the administrator ignores in that area? WP:INVOLVED?

Why couldn't Cryptic just close the DRV as an administrator rather than block a User? The Rambling Man called[66] his actions a bad block.

When Cryptic finally explained[67] why he blocked me they wrote- You frivolously and repeatedly reverted a discussion closure, closed by a user with whom you'd previously been in conflict. Cryptic, per here[68], is referring to this[69] as a conflict.

Since when is ignoring a Wikipedia policy and a guideline frivolous? The administrator who undid[70] my block wrote here[71]- " Editor reverted a closure twice (for an arguably reasonable reason, it seems to me - I certainly don't see it as frivolity

Also consider Crytic's statement here[72]- "Rather, you haven't made any case for reverting User:S Marshall's closure besides that you don't like his opinion." Cryptic ignores my multiple mentions of DRV and NADC in both edit summaries and on my talk page. Sounds like WP:IDHT.

Administrator Cryptic made a bad block and is apparently enforcing something there is no consensus for and directly contradicts wikiepdia policy and guideline. Non-administrative closures at DRV also needs to be addressed since they are being done when DRV clearly says only says administrators. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with Nadcs at DRV if they followed the guidelines. The one I cite above by S Marshall clearly doesn't. No consensus should with the rare exceptions of WP:NPASR be determined only by administrators....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are mistaken regarding policy: except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question. is part of that policy as well, and the written policy is only a reflection of consensus, which is the real policy anyway. Generally speaking, I don't have an issue with S Marshall closing discussion since he qualifies and I bet most admin agree. Asking for a review of a specific DRV should probably be at WP:AN. This should also be there, since it is an administrative issue more than community issue. As for the block, that is a separate issue. I probably wouldn't have blocked but that doesn't mean much as I'm not the standard for which anyone is measured. You might could argue he was too quick on the trigger, but you were wrong by double reverting on an administrative board. You should have talked to the admin, not just reverted him in a second revert, which looks disruptive even if that wasn't your intent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• If your reversion of a close by a non-admin was then reclosed by an admin, complaining that you were subsequently blocked for warring over the closure is hardly going to get anywhere. Since you didnt actually raise any argument about the close other than 'an admin didnt do it', once an admin did it, you were just being pointy. WP:Consensus is the over-riding policy and where a discussion is going to be closed with a result that requires no admin tools, there is no requirement an admin do it. (Except to appease the Admin knows best! crowd) Provided they are experienced in the area and determining consensus. Which S Marshall is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Welcome to the rules are descriptive not proscriptive conundrum. Traditionally DRV has enforced an admin only policy because it used to be the case that the vast majority of DRVs would be closed by the same admin - although the identity of said admin changed organically over time as DRV regulars left and were replaced. The rational was to do with consistency and providing a satisfactory final outcome for complainants that there was no ambiguity in the close/outcome in what is supposed to be the final appeal. Over time participation levels decreased and although Roy Smith does an excellent job of closing DRVs, he still likes to comment leaving a rump of DRVs needing closing and no active admin available to do the necessary. S Marshall has been a DRV regular for eons and like a couple of other regulars (Hobit is another) can be trusted to get the close right and not break the wiki. Probably the text on DRV needs updating. I'm sorry you got blocked because you clearly think you were doing the right thing. I personally wouldn't have blocked but there you go.. Wikipedia is full of inconsistency. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Just a comment as the unblocking admin here. I thought Crytic's reverting of WilliamJE's unclosing twice with no edit summaries and then blocking with no prior communication was poor form, as was the subsequent accusation of frivolity - we shouldn't assume another editor knows we're admins or understands our actions if we don't actually say anything, and we should assume good faith. Having said that, I think WilliamJE's second unclosing was poor form too, and that after the first one was reverted then a discussion about it somewhere would have been the right way forward. When I unblocked I commented in the log that I thought the block was excessive, but I don't think any other action is called for now - all we need to do is encourage all parties to act more like little Fonzies and talk to each other nicely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've seen this AN/I, and I intend to restrict my participation in it to just this one comment. Thank you all for saying such nice things about me. Experience with WilliamJE makes me feel that he's very alert to perceived double-standards. I expect he might read the opinions above as giving him latitude to close DRVs, since he's an editor of no less experience than me; this is a point on which I think you might usefully reach a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• He is, however, not an editor that has "extraordinary experience" at the venue concerned, as you do. I agree with Spartaz above; personally I probably wouldn't have blocked him, but he can't say that there wasn't a previous dispute between you (there clearly was), and I don't see him reverting any of your DRV closes before that date, so IMO there's nothing else to do here except to suggest that (a) WillamJE doesn't do that again, and that (b) the language at WP:DRV is made clear. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The language at DRV is plain and clear. It says administrators. I did nothing wrong, explained my actions, Cryptic reverted me two times without saying why then slapped me with a block not one of you has defended. He had ample opportunity to field an explanation at my talk page or address why what I did was wrong BUT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. @Dennis Brown: would have done a edit summary or addressed me on my talk page as would have any other proper acting admin. If Cryptic wasn't an administrator, he might have been termed the disruptive one because of his blatant failure to explain why he reverted in two consecutive edit summaries.

What is wrong around here except the usual circling of the wagons. Early this year an administrator did what another administrator called 'This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia' and after the offending administrator said 'I had been fighting a cold was given a free pass[73]. In accordance with that judgments would be handed out on the basis of duress[74] and of what magnitude it was, the drums should be banging for Cryptic's head but it isn't going to happen. I don't say I want action based on my personal issue but at the same time it makes a good case for their being a double standard around here when Cryptic's actions are brushed under the rug which is what is going to happen.

Good faith edits that adhere to WP stated policy around here gets a editor blocked and nobody wants to do anything about the administrator responsible. When someone says there is an administrator problem around here, there's a mountain of proof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• As is often the case, William could have handled this better, but his mote doesn't excuse the beam. Dennis makes the relevant point that non-admins can close discussion but note that if you read Wikipedia:Deletion review, you will see that this page is called "Administrator instructions" (see upper right corner.), and you will encounter the term "admin" or "administrator" thirteen times before you see the reference to non-admin closures. That doesn't mean it isn't there (although curiously, the text Dennis cites is from a different page), but when you read Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator... it is understandable that you might think closure should be made by an admin.
• The non-admin exception lists two conditions:
  1. has not been closed in good time It was opened 8 Oct and closed 16 Oct, only one day after the minimum, so not applicable
  2. patently obvious The closing statement included the language well-argued points on both sides (emphasis added). While the close decision may well have been valid, the very words do not suggest it was patently obvious
• If all editors followed best practices, I suggest that S Marshall should not have closed it. It neither meets the timing criteria, or the patently obvious criteria.
• The next failure to follow best practices was William, who should have raised the issue with S Marshall, rather than simply reverting. I AGF that William missed the reference to non-admin closure after the 13 mentions of admin. Please note that William included an edit summary with a reason for the reversion (subsequent events show that it was technically flawed, but anyone reading the edit summary should know why William reverted.)
• The next failure is more egregious. The reversion was Good Faith, if technically flawed. Admin Cryptic should not be reverting William's closure without an explanation. The edit summary is perfunctorily description, with no useful explanation. I see no sign of a discussion initiated on William's talk page.
• William then reverted Cryptic's reversion. Per best practices, it would have been better for William to open a discussion, rather than simply revert. In his defence, William did include a relevant edit summary. Cryptic should have read it, and if Cryptic's reversion was based upon the fact that William excerpted part of the guideline and missed the non-admin exception, that should have been explained, rather than simply reverting again.
• The most egregious failure was the decision to block. We aren't talking about an insertion of liberlous material in an article, we are talking about re-opening an internal discussion. We block to stop damage to the encyclopedia. This did not come close to qualifying, especially in view of the lack of warning.
• I agree with the unblocking.
• I'll go further and say this is an example of why I think we should have a block expungement policy. While William may worry more about his block record than some think is warranted, I am sympathetic to the view that some editors care about their block record. This block should not have happened, yet it is in his "permanent record".
• While this would be a lot cleaner if William had handled it differently, I'm not ready to propose that we simply move on. Admins need to be accountable, and need to be held to a higher standard. While I am not sure what should happen next, I think something other than "William. you're unblocked, so just shrug it off and get back to editing" should be the next step. (If nothing else, let's look at our guideline. I'm in favor of non-admin closures of some things, but a DRV is close to a last step in a process, and perhaps it should be absolutely admin only.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Being fairly blunt, edit warring with an admin over a close is seriously poor judgement. There should have been more communication on both sides, but let's not raise a lynching mob over a block that did have substance to it. The block was fine, as was the unblock. If this isn't closed soon, this is going to turn into yet another argument about whether non-admins should be allowed to make closes they're technically able to implement, and we really don't need to reopen that issue. It's been rehashed multiple times. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• An editor can undo a contested NAC they feel is procedurally improper. However, if an admin restores the close, it should pretty obviously be taken as an administrative endorsement of the close therefore rendering the procedural concern moot. Edit warring with the administrator who does so may technically open you up to a block, even if you don't feel you deserve it. @Cryptic:, I trust you can reflect on a questionable block. That being said, your use of Rollback to revert obvious good faith edits quite simply constitutes an abuse of your administrative tools, and per WP:ROLLBACK, an administrators privileges can be stripped altogether over misuse of Rollback. This is a very basic feature granted to admins and many users, and surely you must already know that what you did is considered an abuse of the tools. Please take care to only use your tools as prescribed and remember that Rollback is an anti-vandalism tool. Swarm ♠ 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I strongly disagree. As explained, I think William could have handled it better, but I think the close was unwise. The block was not fine. Keep in mind you are talking about a block of an editor with 80k edits, who reverted a questionable close and cited a guideline (incompletely, it turns out, but the citation means the reversion was believed to be within policy). The block of an established editor came with no warning, and no justification. If that is now the definition of a good block, I'm outa here.

@Swarm:I think it is a stretch to treat an admin revert of a revert as an admin endorsement of a close (I certainly hope no one uses such weak inference in any reversion I might undertake). Especially when accompanied by no explanation in an edit summary. Admins are expected to communicate. A reversion of a reversion with no edit summary is not communication, and the suggestion that it should be construed as an admin endorsement of a questionable close is ludicrous. If the admin meant to make that point, it should be affirmatively made. There is not yet an explanation on Williams talk page explaining why the block occurred. There is nothing asserting that the reversion should be treated as an admin endorsement of a close.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Nova Science Publishers

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

---

See [75]. This is a long term IP edit warrior with an axe to grind, but now we've got legal threats made. They have been warned before too ([76])Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a legal threat but a person reporting another party is going to initiate legal action. John from Idegon (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would take that to be a legal threat, of a sort. However, there doesn't seem any point in blocking a very dynamic IP so I've semi-protected the article for 3 months instead (it's been protected for the same reason twice before). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legal threat. I note Black Kite's observation regarding the IP being dynamic, and agree that blocking will ultimately serve no purpose and protection was the right action to take. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

multiple stub pages mirror main article

User:Dallyripple has created multiple pages naming individual Virginia Conventions that are merely copy-pastes of sections in the article Virginia Conventions without discussion or consensus, then systematically vandalized related pages by removing links to the main article. They take the form of "Virginia Constitutional Convention of (date)", such as 1829-30, 1850, 1868, 1902, or Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 I have begun reverting some of the vandalism, but he seems prolifically more adept at using wikipedia conventions than I can be. Any assistance would be appreciated, as it seems to me that unless additional research is conducted to justify a separate article, the article sections at Virginia Conventions should not be mirrored in separate stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Dallyripple is acting in good faith, and I don't see any evidence of vandalism. However, I can't see the value of copying the content from one article to create multiple smaller articles and to also add copied content to other existing articles. It certainly makes it hard to follow the chain of attribution for licensing purposes.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. This isn't vandalism, but it's not helpful either, especially as the sub-articles give no new information at all in some cases. I suggest that the new stubs be deleted and a mass rollback of Dailyripple's changes be applied. I would do this myself, but for some reason the mass rollback script does not work for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I will observe here that it would probably be better to do this all by hand anyway. However, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is working fine if you need a script. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that all the conventions have been broken apart, see Virginia Convention recently expanded by Dallyripple, a disambiguation page of some seventeen conventions, mostly unassessed, but most are stubs. The writer seems to be locked into the Revolutionary Era of historiography, since the lead says, “Virginia Convention generally refers to one of the five sessions of the Patriot legislature of Virginia, which is anachronistic to the other historical eras of Virginia’s history. The disambiguation page created by “Dallyripple" is also claimed on the user page of Bkwillwm, an early contributor to Virginia Conventions before its expansion.

@Mojo Hand, Black Kite, and The Voidwalker: Isn't the simultaneous posting of two editors for the same edit some sort of sock pupating? The article Virginia Conventions has been internally linked to a disambiguation page, Virginia Convention which lists articles that mirror the main article's subsections broken down into seventeen stubs by Dallyripple, whose contributions are automatically posted to Bkwillwm's user page as his contributions. There was no discussion or consensus to hide the main article Virginia Conventions. How is this change in article righted?

Okay, Dallyripple may be acting in good faith. Whenever the article becomes too lengthy, the Convention subsections could be broken out as separate articles, reverting to the summary list-like article of a couple months ago. The Virginia Convention of 1788 written much earlier and remaining a stand alone article, suggests the possible pathway. The first five, Revolutionary Conventions, could be their own article as they were before my expansion, rather than the recently innovated one-per-convention which results in a series of stubs, if pride of prior authorship becomes governing here -- but the unsourced puffery really had to go. In the meantime, there is no consensus for exploding the Virginia Conventions into seventeen stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of sock puppetry, and I don't think anything else needs to be done via ANI at this point. I do think we need additional discussion regarding the derivative articles, but that conversation belongs elsewhere and hopefully with DallyRipple's input.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Atlanta United FC

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

---

The article Atlanta United FC contains colour combinations in table headers that breach Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Color by a large margin. This undoubtably causes problems for colour-blind and otherwise visually impaired readers. An edit-war has taken place between Jamesmiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and two other editors, Walter Görlitz and BU Rob13; the latter two have attempted to fix the problem by substituting the plain colours that are used by default in wiki-tables. A report was made at AN3.

Unfortunately Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) then chose to fully protect the article in the version that breaches WP:COLOUR. Since then, the discussion at the article talk page now has four experienced editors agreeing that the colours used should comply with accessibility standards. At User talk:Ymblanter #Hey, I approached Ymblanter and reminded him that WP:FULL stated "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies". I also made it clear that when one editor is edit-warring against multiple other editors – and against our policies and guidelines – then full protection is a sub-optimal solution, especially protecting the "wrong version" when it breaches policy. Despite this, Ymblanter has declined to revise his decision on full protection, or to allow the article to be returned to a policy-compliant version.

Sadly, I'd therefore request admin action to override what I believe was a misguided decision on Ymblanter's part and either remove full protection, or revert the article to a form that does not breach our policies and guidelines. Since Jamesmiko has been given a final warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at User talk:Jamesmiko #Edit warring at Atlanta United FC, there is no good reason to make life difficult for visually impaired readers any longer. Thank in advance for your consideration. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, before I go to sleep, that I asked RexxS to mention that there was no talk page discussion before I protected the page, but they instead decided to take a battleground position and started to use language that they "offered me smth" and I "refused". The did not offer me anything, they ultimatively required that I unprotect the page, and when I disagreed started to threaten me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I did mention that the protection took place before the talk page discussion. Read up. As usual, it's always easier to attack the reporter with ad hominems like "battleground position" and "threaten me" than to address the problem of their own behaviour. Please justify your stance in keeping the article in a state that breaches accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I should be clear that I'm not supporting any particular color scheme; I have no dog in that race whatsoever. I was just calling for compliance with MOS:CONTRAST (in whatever form that takes). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite confused why we're here. RexxS, why didn't you just make a full protection edit request on the talk page? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Because that would be met with "why didn't you take it up with Ymblanter on his talk page first". I expected an experienced admin to see the importance of using full protection appropriately and of maintaining compliance with accessibility. Was I wrong to expect that? --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 It's worth noting that @EdJohnston: did not opine on Ymblanter's full protection after he warned Jamesmiko. That being said, a conversation consisting of "I think you're wrong", "I don't think I'm wrong" straight to "I know I'm right so I'm taking your decision to ANI" in a mere 3 posts is a bit aggressive isn't it? Blackmane (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, ANI is the correct forum to request administrator action - and that's exactly what I'm doing. Could I suggest, Blackmane that you direct your intellect to the substance of the arguments - breaches of WP:COLOUR and WP:FULL - and cut out the ad hominems on my actions? I'm just the messenger here. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Full protection on the wrong version for a short time is not the end of the world. However, since there is now a rough consensus on the article talk page to revert the changed colors, based on a fairly clearly worded accessibility guideline, and since the reason for the need to revert has been adequately explained to Jamesmiko, I don't see a problem with unprotection, and a note to Jamesmiko that he shouldn't change it back (there's really no way he's going to get consensus that the current color scheme doesn't violate WP:CONTRAST). Since Ymblanter indicated he's going to sleep, and since he specifically said on his talk page he'd be fine with unprotection if there was a consensus on the talk page, I'll go ahead and do that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated BLP violations by MatthewChown

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

---

MatthewChown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating the BLP policy at Cheryl (entertainer) by, for example, changing the name in the lead (diff) and adding unsourced (and incorrect) information about the subject having divorced their second husband (diff, diff). They have been given only warnings for this in the past by Livelikemusic (e.g. here and here), as well as warnings for BLP vios on a number of other articles (see their talk page's history for a full list), but the user has never responded to these warnings. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• User has continued to show, time and time again, that they are not here to edit constructively, despite warnings and continuing to violate BLP policies. livelikemusic talk! 00:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked for two weeks: repeated unexplained, unverified BLP edits. They were blocked before for the same thing a long time ago. If they don't change their ways the next such block might well be indefinite. MatthewChown, I hope you are reading this. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of blacklisted website

The website YuppTV.com is on the Wikipedia's black list for spam.

User:Kpintu keeps adding the site to the YuppTV article inspite of requests on his talkpage not to do so.

Diffs: 1 2 3

Request administrator assistance to deal with this case. Thanks. KhaasBanda (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Kpintu - Why are we repeatedly reverting edits to YuppTV and continuing to do so after being asked to stop? Also, I'm not sure of the reason behind the URL being added to the spam blacklist; it looks like an official site homepage of the company to me... (or at least one of them, given the different top level domain)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's being repeatedly added to other places where it doesn't belong then it probably belongs on the spam blacklist. However I'm fairly confused here. If it is on the spam blacklist, then it isn't possible to add it to the YuppTV article unless it's whitelisted there. If it's whitelisted there, which makes sense if it's an article on the site, then it being on the spam blacklist isn't relevant. If there are 2 or more official domain names for the site, I'm assuming there must be some guideline on which one to choose, but in any case it's surely a WP:Content dispute which shouldn't need to come to ANI. I don't see how either domain is more promotional than the other. The number of links to the site in the article should also be kept to those that are needed, but this applies spam blacklist or not. If one of the links isn't an official domain but something else, then this most likely doesn't belong, especially given the possible confusion. If this is the site which is blacklisted, then it probably should be removed fom thie whitelist. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The spamblacklist only blocks explicit links, which these links weren't thus they weren't hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean - Jo-Jo Eumerus. (forget that, I see now that "explicit link" means a coded link). It is currently not possible to add yupptv.com into the article as an active (coded) url. So I imagine it needs to be taken off the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, at least for this article. Is there no record of the reasoning why sites are placed on this blacklist? I don't think there can be anything wrong in making YuppTV.com a non-active link until it is removed from the blacklist. If so this ANI is a non-issue, as is the content issue (custom dictates that the .com one will be the main web address). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This user's not trying to add spam links, they're simply changing ".in" to ".com" on the website's article, with an edit summary, explaining that they're making a correction. As the company claims to be an American-based company that has expanded into India, it would seem to be nothing more than a good faith edit that makes sense. The .com variant should probably just be de-blacklisted. Swarm ♠ 23:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

comment: I located the addition in the blacklist log; the site was added to the blacklist in April 2008 due to additions onto multiple other articles (see: See WikiProject Spam report). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• The link is clearly blacklisted, but I'm not actually seeing it on any of the blacklists...anyone know how to remove it? Swarm ♠ 05:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Swarm: \byupptv\.com\b on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is the item that is triggering the blacklist. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't notice that. Since it seems there's a good reason for the site to be in the article it should be whitelisted, unless it's felt it's not needed to be in the blacklist anymore and it can be removed completely. Either way I agree including it as a nonactive link in the meantime is acceptable, and as said before its presence on the blacklist isn't germane as to whether it belongs in the article. Edit: Seems I was slightly confused. I was under the impression sites could be whitelisted for certain pages, but this isn't possible. You will need to find some specific page to whitelist, perhaps http://www.yupptv.com/about.aspx Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are the two relevant pages for submitting blacklist/whitelist requests:

• Proposed removals from the blacklist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals
• Proposed additions to the whitelist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

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

---

User:Tvx1 has been removing sourced content from the 2017 Formula One season article without cause and demanding that further sources be provided:

• 1
• 2

The source provided is considered to be reliable, verifiable and reputable, and it has been noted on the article talk page that publication the source quotes is of a similar reputable quality. Furthermore, the edits Tvx1 has been removing do not add anything to the page that is not substantiated by the content of the source. I can find no valid reason for the removal of this content except that Tvx1 believes it to be objectionable, which is close to a violation of WP:OWN. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You know full well that where contractual issues are concerned F1 is a rumour mill without equal. James Allen is certainly a reliable source, but he is reliably reporting that there is a rumour, not an official announcement. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, these situations have occurred before in almost directly comparable circumstances and as a consequence there is existing consensus (that you have been proactive in enforcing in the past) that we do not add such 'facts' to a page until confirmed by a source that is party to the agreement (i.e. the driver themselves or the team involved). Tvx1 removed the content because it is still only a rumour, and one that has come from a party with a direct financial interest in the outcome of contractual negotiations. Pyrope 06:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

2601:586:4400:A4E0:*

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• 2601:586:4400:A4E0:8964:B744:BA8F:9A3E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On 1982 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles: vandalism after final warning. Several of us aren't sure what to do with this guy anymore. Over the last several days he continually adds incorrect info to many many articles. It's an anon editor whose IP jumps daily. See: 2601:586:4400:A4E0:65B8:F630:93E8:157E...2601:586:4400:A4E0:FC92:8467:D3A6:A67B...2601:586:4400:A4E0:A009:2BE:4EF5:B64D...2601:586:4400:A4E0:65B8:F630:93E8:157E...2601:586:4400:A4E0:D84B:D043:4DBF:C3F2

  They have never answered any of us to stop so I don't know what to do. Can a range block of 3 days be issued over this IP? Maybe that will make him come to us and answer our queries. His vandalism has escalated to the top for several days now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The range 2601:586:4400:A4E0:* contains many non-tennis related edits so that range may be too broad to block. Are there certain articles which could be semi-protected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser needed please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't need to run a check, as this is almost certainly the same guy. The range is 2601:586:4400:A4E0::/64. Katie^talk 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, if the IPv6 address belongs to Comcast, the /64 is one subscriber. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have blocked that range for a week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I didn't notice this conversation had been moved here. I just wanted to make clear the reason I asked for a block was because I hoped it would get the guy's attention to talk to us at Tennis Project so we can tell him where he's going wrong with his mass name changes. About a third of his edits are good, a third not so good, and a third horrible. Thanks for checking into this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): if problems recur after the block expires, we can extend for longer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Iwachiw2001, block evasion, unblock requests

@Someguy1221: blocked Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs) back in 2013-03-27. Today, within a very short period of time, the following users all requested unblocking due to the autoblock: Alexcia.haikalis (talk · contribs), Marlene12266 (talk · contribs), Mshuaib9 (talk · contribs), Nadiana19 (talk · contribs), Natiliaa (talk · contribs), PhantomTheifAlice (talk · contribs), Richard.Lopez (talk · contribs), Tahseenalam (talk · contribs), Vonp3dia (talk · contribs). I find this deeply suspicious, though I suppose it's not impossible that all of these users are unrelated. I'm not quite sure the best course of action here. Someone with checkuser access could do a quick check, though I imagine the Iwachiw2001 is largely stale at this point. --Yamla (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The original autoblock would have expired long since. I rather don't think it's a coincidence that, when Ponyo worked at cross-purposes with me and lifted the relevant autoblock while I directly blocked Richard.Lopez, Alexcia.haikalis promptly ran into the new autoblock. In general, all those accounts popping up at the same tame and acting in parallel does not seem like random chance to me. I'd advocate directly blocking them all for sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huon:, @Pharos:, @Mozucat:, @Doctorxgc: Now that I, an experienced user and trainer, am unblocked, I can actually comment here. Yay. There was no "random chance" because the accounts were coming from a very active Wikipedia college campus: LaGuardia CC-CUNY. So, it was not random: it is just IS and will happen. All of us here are experienced wikipedians running training sessions (and/or courses) with ambassador support. Many of us are in labs at the same time that run through the same servers. We all have presented at Wikipedia conferences (please feel free to check my User Page for links including a video of a few of us giving talks). None of the trainees or students are actively editing live content. Blocking new accounts from their own sandboxes is an aggressive move that stops training and frustrates new users to no end. Say goodbye to the next generation of Wikipedians. This actions is honestly making them hate it and I have to come up with on the spot work-arounds that in the long run will be more annoying to the admins. Why block sandboxes? That makes no sense. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And before anyone asks, yes, I can batch enroll. But A) I ask my trainees to get an account before a session, and B) that does not solve the problem of the Autoblock (which is clearly not working properly since this is a new problem). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Amy_0515 (talk · contribs). I'll place the unblock requests on hold. --Yamla (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Add HullIntegrity (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Following Ponyo's comments at User talk:PhantomTheifAlice and the explanation at User talk:HullIntegrity I'm going to undo my blocks and lift the relevant autoblocks (if I can find them). I'd still like to know how they happened to run into an autoblock for Iwachiw2001 if that account wasn't recently active - it's my understanding that autoblocks are meant to expire. If someone else thinks they should be blocked I won't object, but this does look like some class project. Huon (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird. I have no objection, but I kind of suspect the person behind Iwachiw2001 is involved. That's not remotely the same as saying these other accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, mind you. It could easily be that Iwachiw2001 is in the same classroom and just causing collateral damage. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the CU data fits with HullIntegrity's explanation, so that bit seems to be settled. As for the autoblock, Iwachiw2001g (talk · contribs) was created last month, so perhaps they tried to log on to their blocked account by mistake, thus triggering the autoblock. Based on the username alone, I'd guess that Iwachiw2001g is evading the block on Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To add another spanner in the works, it appears the new Iwachiw2001g account was created for legitimate use in a college course as opposed to created for disruption or purposeful evasion. Given that Iwachiw2001 was blocked after attempting to add himself to New York City mayoral election, 2013 over three years ago, wold it be worth extending WP:ROPE to allow them to proceed with their course? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm, obviously, not the blocking admin. Given the length of time which has passed, I'd be okay with that. It would have been better if the user had requested an unblock on their original account, but a fair amount of time has passed since the problems in 2013. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with giving rope here. If we turn a vandal into an editor, all the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the blatant amount of bad faith displayed by Iwachiw2001 towards other editors, I would advise against an unblock. I do not think that attitude is well-suited for a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Salvidrim! merging article without discussion or consensus.

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

---

Salvidrim closed an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gloucester_dory, to merge, against the little consensus present, and adding an unrelated article, not discussed at all to the mergers. Could you have a look?

This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. was posed to Swampscott dory's page; which you can see at a glance was not tagged for deletion, and which you can see at an only slightly longer glance, is not a close relative of the subject he wishes to merge it to. Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

1. AfD closures are normally contested at WP:DRV, not ANI
2. I've said in my closing statement that further discussion (on the target page) of the merge was welcome and may well result in a consensus following a different path. What you should do is make your point there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not watchlisting ANI in a hundred years so ping me if you need further information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why did you take this straight to ANI? Did you even try to discuss it with him directly? Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:DRV for how to contest a closed AFD. Which imho given DRV's general voting patterns, I suspect will come back with the same result. The discussion was open long enough, it had enough participation, and consensus was certainly clear enough based on the arguments made. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd hate to get carried into an edit war over this but Anmccaff keeps reverting the merge template which I added as an admin action as part of the AfD closure. I was just responding to a closure request from AN and I frankly don't care enough to get into a pissing contest while at work. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

IP userpage vandal

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

---

Could somebody please block this twerp and revdel the crap they wrote on my userpage? [77] Thanks. They appear to be here for vandalism purposes only and have been warned before. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week, edits revdel'd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

James O'Keef's page is being maliciously edited

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

---

  Due to recent media and political events surrounding James O'Keef his wiki page has been maliciously edited for political purposes.

Can his page be reverted to the state it was a week ago, and then locked until the election is over?

Here is his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5E1:9200:E0F4:D6C0:EAF0:C591 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Declined. There doesn't appear to be a a high level of disruption occurring with the article at this time. I don't see a need to apply protection to this article. Applying page protection in a purely preventative measure is not allowed; it is done in both a reactive and a preventative measure. This means that we do not protect articles purely because we think that disruption may occur; we protect articles when disruption is occurring and where it is needed in order to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Emigoonie

Can someone keep an eye on this new editor, and their attempts to add apparently defamatory material at Robert Mersey and elsewhere? The material appears to originate from this "entertainment" blog. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted Draft:William Mersey as a unsourced, wholly negative BLP and given the user a 4-im warning. They have previously received a final warning in August though so if anyone else wants to go ahead and block now I have no objections. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

On blocking User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts

• Muhd FUad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhd FUad/Archive

I am not sure this is the right place to report but it seems to me that the blocking of User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts was not duly justified as the only reason was using several accounts but there is no evidence of abusing or illegitimate behavior. Andres (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• User creates multiple poorly-sourced (or unsourced) stubs - and sometimes articles with no information at all apart from an infobox! - on various sportspeople of dubious notability. They are asked to stop (or improve the articles to show notability). They completely ignore this and carry on. Eventually, they are blocked. They then use sockpuppets not only to continue their disruption but also, in many cases, to re-create articles that had been deleted. If that's not an issue, I'm not sure what is. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants to have all articles sourced from the beginning. But for a newcomer (whose first language probably isn't English) it is difficult to realize at once what is expected from him. As far as I can see no personal message was sent to him, only unpersonal universal messages he needn't understand. And commonsensically it is difficult to understand why using several accounts is bad behaviour.

Wikipedia has a regular deletion procedure for cases of dubious notability. All articles that were noted on User talk:Muhd FUad are still there, they have been turned out to be notable and other uses have edited them.

I came across this via the article Getter Saar. Look at [78]. Yes, it is poorly written and contains unimportant information but it is sourced (though not referenced according to the rules) and it is not obvious it should be deleted. The only reason why it was deleted (even after substantial revisions by other wikipedists) is that the author has (or is thought to have) several accounts. And the only ever reproach (as far as I know) was that notability had not been established by the original author, not even bad writing.

I think we should try to contact newcomers personally and explain them how to improve their contributions. I think blocking and massive deletion is counterproductive in cases like this. Andres (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is very probable that the author didn't understand the messages (maybe even that he had been blocked and his articles had been deleted) and just kept trying again. I am not sure his behaviour wasn't bona fide. But the main thing is that he hasn't done so much harm as it has been done by deleting his articles and blocking him. Sorry if I am wrong. For me these procedures were surprising. If the others think it's normal then let it be. Andres (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand Andres' concerns and I sympathize. However, if an editor does not understand messages posted to his talkpage at all then unfortunately he is unlikely to be able to contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. It may still be that his contributions were made with good intentions. But, long term, his continuing to edit here would likely be disruptive if he cannot understand messages from other editors. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I applaud Andres raising this here, because it is only through such requests for review that we can understand when the English language Wikipedia might not be handling such matters as well as it should. The English language Wikipedia needs as many editors as it can get, so if there are problems with how new or problematic editors are handled, then all information and viewpoints are valuable and well worth reading. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• endorse block - what I am seeing is an editor who made around 2000 edits and used a talk page ... 5 times - see edit count. 4 of those talk edits were to their own talk page, blanking things (see history search); the other edit was blanking another editor's talk page. plenty of people who speak little english are ready to ~try~ to communicate. Muhd FUad is anti-communicative; ignoring and even blanking efforts to communicate, creating socks, and blanking SPIs (diff and diff through one of their socks) which are all signs of someone who doesn't want to be responsive to the editing community, and that is a requirement, not an option, of retaining one's editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's really hard to defend or justify his behavior.

The reasons cited for blocking didn't specify this. Andres (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants get rid of deceptive or otherwise malicious users. (Though it's probable that unfriendly and unpersonal treatment provokes them to exhibit their worst character traits.) But I see no point in mass deletion of articles. I think dubious notability, poor writing or imperfect referencing cannot justify this. If we delete the articles then the appearance of the topics will be delayed indefinitely and we don't use the contribution of a (though deceptive) user. Andres (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Clear legal threat by IP 113.199.138.241

On Governing Body Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
113.199.138.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed content with the edit summary: →‎ISKCON leadership: →‎The above statement is an offensive statement without any backing evidence against the respective individuals. As per the law, keeping such statements in this page may cause legal actions against the user who posted it.
This appears to be rather old content sourced by a book. Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked for 31 hours, but it is a cellphone IP so not sure what practical value it will have. Feel free to revert him if you haven't already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and other behavior by IP User:64.85.253.62

On the FIFA Club World Cup page he made six reverts in a few hours. He received several warnings on his talk page. He responded by launching this obscene personal attack. CUA 27 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've given a short block for the personal attack - feel free to contact me if it happens again after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Any admins around with email enabled for an urgent spot of protection?

Resolved

 – Marvellous. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A page needs move-protecting urgently. Asking on WP:RFPP or here will be a major case of BEANS. I can't log into my admin account while at work, otherwise I'd do it myself. If you say here that you're ready to check your email I'll give you the details that way. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Drop me a line if you like. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've caught Dank but if that doesn't work I'll buzz you instead. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of multiple copyrighted imaged

Lukesahota has repeatedly re-inserted multiple copyrighted images into Tuck Muntarbhorn after being warned of Wikipedia copyright policies.

• Insert [79] copyvio of [80] [81]
• Re-insert copyvio [82] of [] after it was removed.
• Re Insert [83] copyvio of [84] after it was removed.
• There are a couple more inserte/re-inserts in the history of the page but these should make the point.
• And they have done another one [85] copyvio of [86].

They show no indication of stopping and have now tried at least 4 different copyvio images. I think a block is needed here. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• All these warnings have come within a day of each other, so I don't want to block him quite yet. I've left a personalized message explaining the issue, perhaps better than a template does. If he does it again, then yes, a block would be in order as now he has been given plenty of notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like he has finally stopped. For a bit there it was like playing whack-a-mole with different copyvio images. Jbh^Talk 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Consulting?

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

---

I think that User:GreenMountainGate is a fairly obvious sock of User:Newtonslaw40 and is attempting to (ham-fistedly) game the system at this AFD. Note the striking similarities between these diffs: List of sources A, List of sources B.

I'd perform the block myself but I've been involved in the discussion at the AFD and want to avoid using the admin tools here as a result.

Danke, A Train^talk 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

Not all of the edits made by Geckonian.Rhydlr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) can be strictly described as vandalism, but the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This attempted edit alone is grounds for indef. agtx 20:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Now indeffed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Refrence hatting and reverts

I have started hatting references on long pages when User:The1337gamer started to revert me. I brought the issue to his talk page but he posted a warning to my talk page. I also got a message from User:C.Fred. I reverted them and posted to the village pump but they reverted me again. Marfyman (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm monitoring Marfyman's contributions due to his hatting (more on that in a second); that's how I saw this before/without being notified. Marfyman is using the {{hat}} template to collapse the references, which leaves a message about the discussion being closed. This is inappropriate for a reference section. It was bold the first time he did it, but he's now on his third attempt on several articles. That's starting to turn the corner to intentional disruption, not to mention that WP:3RR is looming around the corner. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Marfyman has made a third revert on Paul LePage (diff) and has been 3RR-warned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That said, would somebody else like to explain WP:BRD to this new user? He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to The1337gamer or me. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, how does an account which has been used for only one hour know about hatting, VPR, and ANI? See also WP:OWB#7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking for disruptive editing; this isn't an innocent newbie. I'll let the SPI run for the socking allegation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter which templates are used. Putting the refs inside a collapsible or scrollable box goes against MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Very odd, Good block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Given that sockmaster's long and infamous history, looking for sleeper accounts would be a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Cape Verde banner

I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the WikiProject banner for WikiProject Cape Verde. A few days ago User:Dthomsen8 edited several pages marked with the banner, assessing them but changing the banner for the WikiProject Africa one. I sent him the following message:

Hi there, Dthomsen8. I noticed you did a bunch of recent edits replacing the {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the {{WikiProject Africa}} one. Thanks for the assessment, but please fix them like this, because WikiProject Cape Verde relies on features of its banner that aren't implemented in WikiProject Africa's banner. Thanks, Waldir talk 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get a response yet, and I was considering doing the changes myself once I could find the time, but then I noticed that User:Wizardman had just deleted the {{WPCV}} shortcut and the {{Wikiproject Cape Verde}} convenience redirect as G6 (uncontroversial housecleaning). Now, I can can agree with the rationale, even though I would prefer keeping them, but following that action, he went on to replace pretty much all instances of {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the WikiProject Africa one, even after I attempted to explain why that's undesirable for the WikiProject. Meanwhile, he also marked the WikiProject Cape Verde banner template as deprecated, which I undid requesting such a change not to be made without prior discussion agreement, but he repeated the action anyway (page history). This is against the principles of WP:BRD, but I don't want to engage in a wheel war or any conflict for that matter. Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks in advance, Waldir ^talk 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't an ANI issue. You need to talk to Wizardman on his talk page first. ANI is a last resort and is focused on behavior of individuals, not content or format. There is probably a good reason why he has done this (he did give a summary) and there are probably venues to discuss whether or not it should exist, but it isn't a problem that needs to go before an administrative board that focuses on editor behavior at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians

• @SilentResident: I volunteered to mediate in a dispute that arose about points in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (if it is read right through) for the result and the details of the dispute. User:SilentResident agrees with me that a block or other serious sanction is needed against User:DevilWearsBrioni.User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third. Before resorting to the extreme of blocking DevilWearsBrioni, I prefer to see what consensus there is on the matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)