Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Padenton (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 25 May 2015 (→‎Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki

    CLOSE
    I'm closing this discussion because the argument has rambled on in a confusing manner, the allegations are not supported by diffs and quite frankly the discussion has grown stale with no consensus. The statements demonstrate content issues not actionable behavioral issue. Deletion reviews should go to WP:DRV and content disputes should go to WP:DRN. Perhaps a WP:3O would prove helpful. ANI should be a last resort after all other attempts at DR have failed. (non-admin closure) Atsme📞📧 02:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This was moved from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Sorry for starting in the wrong place. Not easy to get your footing where the right place is. Thanks to User:TransporterMan for pointing out my error.

    I would like to draw your attention to [[1]]. The editors that proposed this deletion have been running their own personal vendetta.

    This deletion request is, in my opinion, a vendetta against my arguments to keep the article NIM. [[2]] by Padenton|✉  and Msnicki (talk) who have tried to retaliate by deleting a slew of articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by Padention and Msnicki. Notice from a comment in the comment in the Nim deletion discussion how many articles are now missing.(Written by Itsmeront 23:06, May 11, 2015‎)

    Also note in [[3]] when the vote when against them Pandenton 'Msnicki' decided to inappropriately push the issue [4] "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me. Please take it to DRV if you think it has any merit.--Ymblanter (talk)"

    This is just another long run of actions that should have wikipedia editors to consider the modivations of these editors.

    Itsmeront (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The article you made as a memorial for your friend does not establish his notability and his notability is in question, which makes it perfectly fair game to be nominated at AfD, especially since searches do not establish his notability either.
    2. Those were all deleted fairly, you're welcome to talk to the closers and seek deletion review. Otherwise, get over it and stop re-posting this everywhere hoping someone will care, because they won't. I doubt even Trustable cares. You're welcome to ask him/her.
    3. I have NEVER edited on Ymblanter's talk page, and the history proves it, so don't accuse me of stuff I have never done. The vote also didn't "go against me", it was no consensus for both the AfD and the deletion review.
    4. It's nice that you notified Ymblanter on his talk page. But you failed to do so for myself and Msnicki as you are required to do in any editor dispute.
    Can someone close this as there isn't a single honest thing Itsmeront has said and this isn't even close to being the correct venue? Though he's been forum shopping on this already a fair bit. ― Padenton|✉   04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I corrected the reference above and attributed the blackmail to Msnicki. I also added a notice on both of your talk pages. Dr. Raab was was notable on his own, he was the heart and soul of a very large open source community, the deletion request is a tatic and harrassment. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese for previous warning and collusion and the following on Msnicki (talk) page:

    Please stay as far away from me as you can. If I do something wrong, surely somebody else will notice and take care of it. You do not need to try to police my activities or to make frivolous accusations that I started an attack page. Really? The nerve!

    [diff] Content was deleted after I pointed to it.

    Itsmeront (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the link to ( Trustable Talk) I do think that the comments from Caroliano are very useful and should also be reviewed.

    @Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

    Itsmeront (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Itsmeront: Not sure why you're linking the Roscelese enforcement request I brought to ArbCom, it doesn't support or serve as an example of a single claim you've made. All it shows is I'm a responsible Wikipedia editor that seeks admin assistance when an editor with previous restrictions reverts 1 1/2 weeks of a new editor's changes, possibly providing insufficient explanation. But here's an idea: how about you stay out of discussions you know nothing about? It seems more likely that you are the one with a grudge here, if you're digging through my history looking at every discussion I'm involved in. Is your goal to link to random discussions involving responsible acts by those you've accused in the hope that the reviewer of your claims will not read it and judge us guilty based on our being in those discussions? I said ask Trustable if he/she cares, not ask Caroliano. ― Padenton|✉   14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    section deleted by request of EdJohnston. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything above copied and pasted by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) (this line written by Padenton)

    Statement by Padenton

    Once again, I'm not sure why Itsmeront has chosen to stalk me to unrelated discussions about which he knows nothing and then claim that I am the one harassing him. I am certain that EdJohnston would be happy to comment on taking his words so wildly out of context. My statement on Itsmeront's complaints regarding me and Msnicki can be found here: [5]. I don't have the time nor interest in making sure Itsmeront has accurately quoted everything I said above (given the proof shown that he has made false accusations towards me before), but you can read my statement at that link. Once again, I am requesting this be closed with a boomerang of some kind for Itsmeront for the reasons I have already mentioned in my responses at that link. ― Padenton|✉   18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with User:Padenton. It makes no sense that User:Itsmeront has done a cut-and-paste from an unrelated posting about ARBGG at WP:AE#Roscelese and brought it here. Unless Itsmeront is willing to revert his copying from AE, my suggestion is that an uninvolved editor should collapse that material. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi EdJohnston. Thank you for your comment. I have removed the material you found non-sensical. The point I was trying to make by including it was that Msnicki and Padenton attack people that disagree with them with an "I'll show them", attitude that I find harmful to Wikipedia. One would NOT reasonably expect reprisals after making a successful argument in support of an article. Attacks against articles that have been adjudicated previously and found to be notable are now brought up for deletion, by the same two people. Other articles mentioned in an arguemnt that were notable, see: WP:N#TEMP are being recommended for deletion on mass. And in my opinion, deleted while nobody is looking, out of spite, or lust for reputation or power without proper research or consideration. I was hoping to show a pattern of this behavior with other users experiences, but I understand your point and hope that others with similar experiences will speak up. I doubt that Wikipedia would want to discourage argument by allowing over zealous editors to fight people that disagree with them with personal vendettas. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny that despite everything you've done, you still seem to think that Msnicki and myself are the ones with the vendetta. This "I'll show them" attitude you claim I have is baseless. And far more harmful to wikipedia is your lack of integrity and repeated attempts to falsely accuse me of things I haven't done, your dishonesty in cherry-picking and taking comments out of context, and your attempt to canvas editors you see disagreeing with me in order to start a lynchmob:
    1. Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page
    2. Cherry-picking comments of a completely unrelated discussion you know nothing about that I am participating in and copying and pasting them in here (especially without making it clear that they are excerpts from a completely different discussion)
    3. Failing to notify editors who you are complaining about which I had to remind you of at Editor assistance.
    4. Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere (This is called a vendetta, you hypocrite) as you did here: User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki.
    The deletions of the articles on the list Trustable made in the Nim AfD. Let's discuss that for a minute.
    1. You brought up the complaint that I nominated several of the articles Trustable mentioned for deletion in the Nim AfD.
    2. You brought it up in the AfD here: [6]
    3. You brought it up here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki
    4. You are now bringing it up here in ANI.
    And all this time you fail to realize that Trustable fully supported my taking those articles to AfD. I notice you didn't notify Trustable of the new discussion.
    That almost all of the ones I nominated ended up with a consensus to delete proves that other editors were unable to find evidence they met the notability guidelines, and that the AfD was warranted. The only articles that I nominated and remain from that list are:
    Clearly, based on the above, people didn't agree with you that slashdot, reddit, ycombinator, and github are reliable sources nor that they establish notability.
    Newsflash: Just because you want to give your friend a WP:MEMORIAL, doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia, and any editor on Wikipedia is fully within their rights to dispute the notability. ― Padenton|✉   22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response From Itsmeront (talk)

    My numbering doesn't match yours. Where there is a direct answer I have quoted your comment.

    1. "Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page "

    • I have already corrected the record that it was Msnicki and not you that was accused of attacking an editor. I know you have read it, and seen the correction but even after it was corrected you mentioned it 3 times.

    2. "Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere"

    • Notifying users and editors is what you told me to do. I don't see this as canvasing.

    3. Your actions to delete the articles were in retaliation to users that disagreed with you. I see no real research. Having other editors not want to take you on, I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. complaints were ignored by you:

    @Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

    and instead you attacked people that dared to disagree with you. See: User_talk:Caroliano Canvasing warning.

    4. Not knowing where to air these issues is not the same as an attack against you. You have been citing quick close because this is not the right venue for this complaint. You could have pointed me to the right place instead of letting me flounder around. TransporterMan was nice enough to let me know.

    Your words:

    @Caroliano:Trustable did nothing. I'm the one who nominated them, as anyone should for any article that does not meet notability guidelines. The only reason these articles have not been nominated before is because no experienced editors had come across them, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a notability fallacy. If the article can stand up to scrutiny, it will remain. If not, it never deserved to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Stop acting like someone is being hurt over this. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

    This to me is an attack against someone making a claim that blanket delete requests are not in Wikipedia best interest, both in terms of a hostile response, but also hostile actions in your warning, and deletion requests.

    About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable. I hope that you will be also be defeated in this AFD by editors that are more reasonable and less hostile then you. Your arguments against NIM are not the same as the augments here. Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, and your argument against Andreas Raab even less. My biggest complaint is not about these two articles Nim and Andreas Raab. My complaint is your attack against people that argue against you. Wikipedia needs to be open to volunteers, and free of these types of attacks so that reasonable discussion can take place to improve the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. Itsmeront (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to respond to these in the order you presented them.
    • The correction doesn't change the fact that you attempted to do it without checking your facts, which still seems to be a problem for you as you have continued.
    • Read WP:CANVASSING. Notifying editors you have accused is required by WP:ANI policy. Notifying editors involved in a specific dispute is allowed by WP:CANVASSING. What you did was notify editors not involved in any way with this dispute, solely because you thought they would rally behind your attacks on me. This is called WP:Votestacking and is inappropriate canvassing.
    • I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. Those "other editors" have trouble understanding wikipedia policy. You have yet to show a single AfD where I did not properly research. You didn't mention them here because you know that they do not support your claim. Otherwise you would have no need to dig through in-progress discussions of no relevance to this dispute.
    • Once again you have provided no evidence but your incessant whining. I don't care that you don't see "real research", as far as I have seen you will lie or use any fraudulent information you can to malign any who disagree with you. Anyone with common sense can guess that it would be wrong to pick and choose comments from disputes elsewhere, and paste them in here without even knowing what the dispute was about.
    • Caroliano deserved the canvassing warning, again, read the policy here and get over it.
    • Forgive me if I don't have the time to help you whine about me to every person on Wikipedia that you can. Especially when reading the top of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests could have easily told you where to go.
    • When you went to Trustable's talk page looking for anything you could dig up to attack me on, did you happen to notice the discussion before that post? Yeah....funny you don't mention that.
    • Sadly, the say-so of a "friend of 10 years" isn't enough to support the claim that "About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable."
    • Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. This is how it works in academia. Anyone can write a paper and papers are not enough to grant notability, especially when they have low citation counts. You can read more about it at the policy link I provided at the AfD, WP:ACADEMIC.
    • Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, My argument for the deletion of nim was that it wasn't notable. I'm sorry that you assumed every single person disagreeing with you wasn't a programmer (false) and therefore shouldn't have a say in the AfD (also false), and that github, slashdot, reddit, and ycombinator are reliable sources (yet again, false); but your inaccurate assumptions are not my problem.
    • I am normally sympathetic towards new users, it was not too long ago that I was one myself. But my patience runs out when those new users refuse to read policy, make false claims against other editors, and bring up cherry picked discussions from another editor's history(which they know absolutely nothing about) in the hopes it will prejudice others against someone they disagree with. Wikipedia needs to be free of editors like that, you add absolutely nothing to the site and you have no interest in working with others when they disagree with you. Plenty of new wikipedia editors have little trouble reading about wikipedia policy when they're informed of it.
    • This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. I have no turf. I'm just not going to sit here and take false accusations from you. Shocker. ― Padenton|✉   23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommended close

    Anyone is free to browse through the Nim, Andreas Raab and MX Language AfDs or the Nim DRV that Itsmeront complains about (I wasn't in any of the other cited discussions) and confirm that I've been consistently respectful, that my arguments have been consistently policy-based and that I've dutifully avoided responding to any of Itsmeront's silly taunts of vendettas and other nonsense. I've argued in good faith for deletion based on lack of reliable independent secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Itsmeront has argued for keep based on primary and self-published sources and popularity in social media and claimed without any plausible basis that the reason Padenton and I don't accept that as evidence of notability must be because we have it in for them.

    I think this silliness has gone on long enough and recommend that this complaint be closed with no action beyond a warning to Itsmeront that making unsupported allegations of vendettas and repeatedly questioning other editors' good faith constitutes a pattern of WP:Personal attacks. It's not helpful and it's not allowed. If it happens again, Itsmeront should face a block.

    Here at Wikipedia, we settle questions of whether, what and how to report based on WP:CONSENSUS. It is normal for people to disagree and that's why we've created everything from talk pages to deletion reviews where editors can present their evidence, explain how that satisfies the guidelines, argue for their position and seek support. It's also normal that even after an outcome has been decided, that not everyone will agree. Consensus does not require unanimity and we are all entitled to our opinions disagreeing with an outcome. All we ask is that you assume good faith and that you focus on the arguments and the evidence, not what you dislike about the other editors you may disagree with. You're entitled to your opinions about other editors; you're just not entitled to post every one of them.

    Without clear evidence in the form of actual diffs, it is never helpful to speculate about the secret nefarious motives you suspect someone might have for their position, especially when their stated reasons are in fact all clearly guidelines and evidence-based and the real issue is that you just don't agree with the guidelines. It's also not helpful to cite irrelevant nasty things that others have said about someone. Who cares that someone else said something disrespectful? Itsmeront needs to find something that I said that was disrespectful. Itsmeront can't because it's not there. I behave myself and it's time Itsmeront started to do the same.

    That's really all I have to say on the matter. Msnicki (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Resposne by ItsMeRonT

    Both Msnicki and Padenton have been using Wikipedia editorial policy as a stick to poke people. I understand that Wikipedia editors are very important and I agree with the fact that deletions are a very necessary fact of life, lest Wikipedia turn into a garbage dump. The evidence is clear that the two editors that went after NIM is a way that seemed entirely unprofessional, then even took the close to Deletion Review, then took their show on the road against the person that argued against them. I thought there attitude so unprofessional I asked that:

    Again I would like to state that it should be against Wikipedia policy to aggressively use Wikipedia rules to stifle argument, and then to retaliate by going after other submissions of people that argue against you is just plain wrong. That is not a good example of being a good Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs)

    WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, anyone who wants to look at this deletion review or the AfD will clearly see that it is Itsmeront with the vendetta. If you look at the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_(programming_language) Itsmeront repeatedly insisted that slashdot was a reliable source, and that anyone who disagreed wasn't a programmer, here is one such diff where he did so. [7] Anyone who disagrees with Itsmeront must either be unqualified or bullying him. Anyone who shows him policies, consensus, guidelines, they all interfere too much for him, they must be wrong, or the person showing them to him is retaliating against him. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what he got called out for at Wikipedia talk:Notability after attempting to "filibuster" his POV that it's wrong and unfair to demand reliable independent sources to establish notability. Not one person in what is easily the most relevant forum for this question agreed with him. He also continues to make accusations of bad faith. I really wish he could learn to behave himself. I am very weary of this individual. Someone please close this. Msnicki (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggested Resolution by ItsMeRonT

    I've reviewed some of the comments and work of both Padenton and Msnicki and I find their work to be in general quite useful. I wouldn't want to ban them or stop them from working on Wikipedia since volunteers that dedicate so much time are quite valuable.

    I ask for the following:

    • A sincere apology on my talk page from Padenton.
    • A sincere apology to User_talk:Caroliano from Padenton
    • That Padenton and Msnicki not be allowed to submit NIM for deletion or participate in the augment against it in the future.
    • That Padenton have a warning placed on his account that he has been overly zealous submitting articles for deletion. And that if mass articles are submitted again he could face further sanctions.

    I hope I've presented my case in a calm an thoughful way. Thank you for your consideration. Itsmeront (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sigh. Once again: the Andreas Raab AfD wasn't in retaliation, you are not the center of my world, neither is the WP:MEMORIAL you made for your friend 2 days after his death. I don't apologize when I've done nothing wrong. Your inability to understand the notability policies after being informed of them several times and your clear vendetta against anyone who disagrees with you, do not deserve an apology. It is not my fault or problem that Nim and your friend Andreas Raab are both of questionable notability, and you can't just have people barred from an AfD because they disagree with you. ― Padenton|✉   20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline and Clarification

    I was incorrect that the tagging of Raab was after the AfD Nim. I didn't notice it until 5/9 and assumed incorrectly (but justifyably) that it was retaliation by Msnicki. It is clear from this timeline that Msnicki is overzelous in her objection to articles, but since the tag on Raab was done on the same day as NIM before We had talked it was obviously not in response to the NIM incident. The same can not be said for Padenton, who has been extreemly overzelous in deleting articles without proper research, a number of which are now missing with no documentation on any process, and attacking people the disagree, including Caroliano, and myself. I am also modifying my suggested resolution.

    Date . Msnicki Padenton Caroliano Itsmeront
    26-Mar Raab Tagged by Msnicki
    26-Mar Nim AfD by Msnicki
    27-Mar Caroliano joins Nim AfD
    29-Mar Padenton joins Nim AfD
    29-Mar Trustable Votes keep and cites other languages
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Picky
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Little Interpreted Language
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Seph
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Halide
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Roy
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Plaid
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Join-calculus
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Objeck
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Nemo
    31-Mar Padenton AfD OOC
    31-Mar Padenton AfD Cl4
    31-Mar ? AfD Slave Programming Lanaguage
    31-Mar Padenton AfD PureScript
    31-Mar ? AfD MCTRL
    31-Mar ? AfD SmallScript
    31-Mar ? AfD Wigzy
    4-Apr Padenton AfD Napier88
    4-Apr Padenton accuses Caroliano of Stalking for comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ooc 4/4 adds warning on Caroliano User_talk:Caroliano Caroliano frantically responds on both
    26-Apr Ymblanter closes nim AfD
    26-Apr Msnicki complains to Ymblanter
    26-Apr Ymblanter response to Msnicki "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me.
    26-Apr Msnicki Deletion Review NIM
    3-May RoySmith closes Nim Deletion Review
    3-May Msnicki complains to RoySmith
    3-May RoySmith responds to Msniki "I suggest you drop the WP:STICK and move on"
    6-May ItsMeRonT starts Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Suggest_WP:NSM_noteworthy_based_on_social_media
    9-May ItsMeRonT sees Msnicki tag on 5/9 and starts improving Raab article
    11-May Padenton AfD Raab
    11-May Ormr2014 suggests to ItsMeRonT to remove negative comments about Padenton and Msnicki from Raab AfD
    11-May ItsMeRonT opens Editor Assistance Request removes negative comments AfD
    12-May TransporterMan closes Editor Assistance Request and suggests Admin Incidents
    13-May ItsMeRonT opens Admin Incident 5/12

    Itsmeront (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting close & archive

    I grow tired of these repeated allegations with 0 evidence to support his claims. Every single time someone shows policy or where Itsmeront is incorrect, he posts a new wall of text or an absurdly large table restating claims that he has already attempted, attempting to drown out opposition. His consistent refusal to read policy, refusal to tolerate anyone else's opinion, refusal to provide sources for claims of wrongdoing, attacking editors for following policy. Evidence for these claims can all be found in the discussion above. This thread has been ignored long enough on this noticeboard and should be addressed or allowed to die, regardless of Itsmeront's attempts to revive the discussion by repeating everything he claimed before, in yet another large section, again with no evidence to support his claims. ― Padenton|✉   19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Padenton the evidence is clear and backed up by Wikipedia history. Feel free to update the table if you find anything that is incorrect or want to add something to it. The issue here is about YOU not about policy. So far, everything you said indicates that you believe you did nothing wrong. That to me is ample evidence that you need to be warned for you actions since if you truly believe you did nothing wrong someone of authority should point it out to you. Itsmeront (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I have done nothing wrong. ― Padenton|✉   21:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thank you for stating your position so clearly. Itsmeront (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Signing to kick back the archive clock. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management

    Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

    A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions.

    I first attempted to resolve this with User:Smalljim on my talk page. I guess we did not see eye to eye. I then referred it to DRN and COI. Neither of them felt it belonged on those pages.

    Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the DRN page and it seemed like the discussion was getting started. I don't know why the page was archived but I didn't see anyone saying that this was the wrong forum. Maybe @TransporterMan: can explain?
    In general though, I think it is a bad idea to copy whole articles into your sandbox and replace the actual article with your new version of it. For one thing, other editors can make changes between the time you've copied the article and the time you replace it with your new version and while those edits would be recorded in the page history, they wouldn't exist in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRN thread was closed by TransporterMan, not because it was the wrong forum, but because it was filed manually, rather than using the template for the purpose. The editors can refile using the template, or can continue discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but the discussion at COIN should be closed if DRN is started, to avoid conflicting discussions and forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have 2 things to say on the matter, both of which aren't key to the actual issue.
    Firstly, I felt it wasn't appropriate for WP:COIN because they said they didn't have a COI- so the issue didn't appear to be COI.
    Secondly, when you report someone to noticeboards, you are obliged to inform them- in this instance, I informed User:Smalljim about this thread, and the other ones at DRN and COI too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notify him on his talk page at 22:10, 12 May 2015, prior to your posting this. You must have missed it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was drafting the following, but I see I've been pre-empted. Posting now without full check, so E&OE !  —SMALLJIM 

    Emmanuel Lemelson is a hedge fund manager and, unexpectedly, also a Greek Orthodox priest. We have two articles: one on the person (EL), and one on his company, Lemelson Capital Management (LCM). Both have been extensively edited by Orthodox2014 (talk · contribs), whose only other edits have been to an AfD on the company, an AfD nomination of another fund manager, and a few edits to some related articles (example) and some other Greek Orthodox religious figures (example). This narrow focus has continued despite my suggestion in July last year that he could do something else to avoid the appearance of only being here to promote Lemelson.

    In the two articles he has employed promotional wording designed to puff up the subjects (see this version for example), and has packed them with excessive references, on which he has been called out several times (see User_talk:Orthodox2014#Failed_verifications, Talk:Lemelson Capital Management, Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Too_many_references and the LCM AfD). In July 2014 the LCM article was trimmed down to under 10kB in accordance with these opinions [8]. But on 8 Oct, after working on a pre-trimmed version in his sandbox, Orthodox2014 pumped it up again to 23kB with the edit summary "update new references/developments, remove a category", which in fact added only a little new info, and substantially reinstated the removed references.[9]

    On 29 April this year, I got round to cleaning up both pages again – a task that had been on my back burner for some time. Soon after, Orthodox2014 started editing a copy of his last version of the EL article in his sandbox,[10] suggesting that he intended to replace the live version with his preferred version again. His response to my enquiry indicates a strong sense of ownership. This is not the behaviour of someone who has WP's best interest as his first priority.

    Orthodox2014 has firmly stated that he does not have a COI. Four editors have expressed concerns that he does, as I set out on his talk page, and I think the minimum we need is a topic ban on these articles. He has at least recently expressed a willingness to edit some other articles.[11]  —SMALLJIM  22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps this should have stayed at COIN. The heading for the noticeboard states This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline . The question here is covered by the first part of that, whether the denial of COI by an editor who has only substantially worked on these two very closely related subjects should be accepted as settling the matter. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidentally, DGG, in 2013 you deleted an earlier version of one of the pages. I don't suppose this could be connected?  —SMALLJIM  16:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted as G5, Creation by a banned or blocked user (MooshiePorkFace or Morning277). I shall therefore not be restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The question I meant to ask – sorry if it was unclear – is do you think this editor could be related to that paid editor farm.  —SMALLJIM  17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred this incident to this page seeking assistance in resolving a dispute I have with User:Smalljim on the two pages referenced in this entry's heading. I am asking that he cease projecting ownership over not just these two articles but also my own sandbox, where I had begun work on some modest revisions to these two articles. His insistence that he has free range to edit both articles but my edits must be restricted to the talk pages is clearly a projection of such ownership and a policy violation. He also is violating good faith in projecting baseless, false allegations and additionally violating be bold in developing apparently his own editorial policy that new editors not be permitted to create articles (the policy of boldness suggests the exact opposite) and do not bite the newcomers in asserting his ownership, assuming bad faith, suggesting his edits hold more validity than my own, and in mass removing content and references (developed in full accordance with the citations guideline) without as much as an explanation. When he first complained that the articles had excessive references (never seen that as an editorial policy) a year ago, I even went back and reformatted all of them so they aesthetically appeared limited to three (as suggested in the citation guideline when more than three references are used in substantiating a fact).
    I reiterate my initial request, which initiated this discussion, that I be permitted to continue working on both articles in my sandbox and then move over edits when I feel comfortable that my revisions are improvements and consistent with all policies and guidelines; I have not yet reached that point. I also ask that User:Smalljim be instructed to treat me and my page edits with the civility required. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This case ought to be closed. It's evident, Orthodox2014, that the community is not interested either in your report or mine. I think the best resolution would be for you to refrain from editing these articles and (time permitting) work on something else, as you said you would – and I'll carry on fighting the vandals.  —SMALLJIM  20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree the case should be closed. I do not agree, however, that there is any reason that I should not be permitted to edit the pages. It was exactly that sort of page ownership (I will make my edits then falsely accuse you of having a conflict so you can't make revisions) that prompted my posting here. As I said I would, I intend to make some modifications and possibly additions that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and standards and then move them live when I am comfortable with them. In the meantime, my sandbox should not be stalked and scrutinized. I am, of course, willing to work on consensus edits with User:Smalljim or any editor, and I made that clear before referring this here. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orthodox2014: My primary reason for being on Wikipedia is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. Despite your persuasive words, the evidence shows that you have a higher imperative. But as an involved admin, without community support I can't do anything, and I'm not willing to spend any more time on this. You should, at least, heed the advice given you by User:Liz above: don't replace a copy of an article that's been worked on by others with one based on an earlier version of your own (as you did in October last year). That's not "work[ing] on consensus edits", that's ownership.  —SMALLJIM  20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My response and final requests:

    1.) User:Smalljim and I (the two editors involved in this dispute) have asked that the case be closed. I'd like to reiterate that request: Please close this case.

    2.) Let me respond, User:Smalljim, to your most recent post here because you continue to blatantly violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines in ways that are troubling (especially for an administrator). "The evidence shows that you have a higher imperative," you write me. Let's be clear: The evidence shows nothing--absolutely nothing--of the sort. That is a blatant violation of the assume good faith principle. You are not assuming good faith. You are engaged in McCarthy-like, baseless allegations that I have told you are wrong. The evidence is this: I created two pretty good Wikipedia articles that should have existed and didn't. I see both of those articles as having some room for at least modest updating and improvements, and I've embarked on a careful effort to draft the changes I am considering making. I am not employed by the subject. I have never met the subject. I have no investment or stake in whether his fund performs well or fails. I have no interest in seeing the article reflect positively or negatively on him. My singular goal is now (and has been) to begin doing some editing on Wikipedia--and to do that (as I have with these two articles) in ways 100 percent compliant with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When you allege otherwise, you are clearly not assuming good faith and you are alienating other users.

    3.) I have been responsive to your concerns and questions, including bringing the entire (baseless) matter here for evaluation by others. Your complaints and efforts seemed to me like harassment from the beginning. But continuing to make false, baseless allegations about me is clearly harassment and completely lacking in civility. You are harassing me and seeking, in your policy-violating efforts, to discourage my editing participation here. It needs to stop.

    4.) While you have besieged me with questions and allegations, you still have not answered the one question I put to you (first on May 7 and then again on May 9) [12]: Will you please declare your own conflict of interest on these two articles? Your obsession with them from the beginning and your effort to unjustly ban me from editing them are strong suggestions that you are conflicted. Not answering this question is a violation of many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including civility, ownership (I will falsely allege misconduct by others but not answer fundamental questions about my own behavior), etiquette and others.

    5.) Your insistence on reversing my edits, questioning my motives, trying to ban me from editing the pages, etc. is a clear indication that you are out to project control and ownership over the articles and make a point at the expense of this site--the point being that, forget the policies, you can throw your weight around and get your way because you spend all day, nearly every day editing Wikipedia (the motivations of that alone raise question in my mind). Even a cursory view of your talk page and history suggests to me that these are ongoing trends in your behavior here when you encounter those who dare to differ from you: false allegations against them, rarely assuming good faith, attempts to dishonor them in public forums like this, and bullying and harassing editors whose entire lives are not devoted to editing this site. These are policy-violating traits that should not exist in an editor, much less an administrator, but I will leave that to others to assess.

    6.) And finally a broader point and question: As we moved along in addressing your baseless allegations, it became clear to me that you fail to assume good faith by me because I started my account and immediately jumped into creating two articles that did not exist. But the articles on this site that so obviously should exist largely do exist, so the opportunity for a new editor like me is to identify subjects, organizations or people who deserve pages (based on notability criteria) and don't have them. That necessarily means diving pretty heavily into some narrow subject areas. You clearly object to this, but your objection is not what matters when the policies of the site are the exact opposite: To encourage new editors to be be bold and for other editors, in interacting with new ones, to assume good faith, not bite newcombers and be civil.

    As I move on to possibly creating new articles, they too might be on topics or subjects that, while notable, seem obscure. But creating articles--diving into a topic, assessing its notability, collecting references and ultimately writing articles consistent with all policies and guidelines--is what interests me most. That isn't to say I may not make more routine edits to existing pages, but it's not my primary interest. And it's nice to see that (while you clearly disagree with the policy) new editors are actually encouraged to be bold and can create new pages. If you do not like that policy, I am sure there is a methodology for you to suggest it be changed. But there is a big difference between your views and this site's policies. In my particular case, I am a new editor who has created two new and pretty good articles (completely permitted and even encouraged), I created a username that tangentially could be extrapolated to be at least vaguely applicable to the subject articles I created (probably a bad idea in retrospect, but completely permissible), and (despite your allegations) I have no conflict of interest--none at all--as it relates to these articles.

    You write that, "My primary reason for being on Wikipedia is to further the interests of the encyclopedia." My own experience with you (and apparently the experience of many others) has been the complete opposite. You create (in your mind) your own policies, you bully and complain whenever anyone stands up to your baseless allegations and impermissible creation of your own policies, and then (even when--as has been the case twice now) your strongly-held opinions are rejected by other editors who definitely are committed to the betterment of Wikipedia, you just forge ahead, stalking user's pages (as you are mine), inventing your own rules (editors you disagree with should not be allowed to edit pages), and leveling false allegations against other editors, as you've done here yet again. I see no evidence that "the interests of the encyclopedia" are your predominant interest, or any interest. Your predominant interest is very clearly your bullying efforts to try to get your own way. I ask that it stop, and I ask that others ask this user--who somehow became an admin--to stop. If this sort of behavior is permitted and not challenged, that will be to the ultimate loss of Wikipedia. New possible editors will have no interest in participating. Existing ones will leave or be too timid to be effective. And hard-headed, "my way or the highway" editors will be left to manage a declining site with four million articles.

    My incident here should now be closed. As I knew was the case, User:Smalljim has no basis to restrict my editing of these or other pages, but I brought it here in the interest of civility and obtaining the input of others. In closing this, I ask that User:Smalljim be counseled on his approach--namely, that new editors are allowed to create pages (not just a policy, but something encouraged); he needs to get used to it. New editors may choose a username that somehow can be interpreted to have some relationship with the subjects he or she edits; that too is permissible and not a basis to question motives provided it complies with the username policy, and (as with other editors) we should not be forced to come to these forums on baseless allegations and someone else's view of what policies should be, as opposed to what they actually are.

    Thanks to all for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To Orthodox2014, as an uninvolved party, please note that many ANI sections are "closed" only by the discussion fading away, and the item being archived with no final judgement being pronounced. I think archiving at ANI is set so that items are archived after about 3 day since the last comment. So your adding a new comment, two days after the last one, delays this item being finished in that way. I personally don't see that there is any obvious other "close" to be implemented here, so letting this fade away is the right way to end it. Just don't comment further and this will go away. --doncram 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise I was such a malign influence on Wikipedia. Sorry everybody.  —SMALLJIM  18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    History of the WWE - Long-running edit war

    • User:RealDealBillMcNeal and User:Rebelrick123 have been engaged in an on-and-off edit war on this article since February. The general gist of it seems to centre around the names of the "eras" involved. The first revert in this long-running sequence came on the 6th of February, where RealDealBillMcNeal (henceforth referred to as RDBMN) reverted a bunch of edits from Rebelrick123 (henceforth referred to as R123) with the edit summary of "Removing waffle." This edit war lasted another two days before the page was fully protected for a week. Since this rime, R123 has been blocked thrice for edit warring and personal attacks, whilst RDBMN has been blocked twice for exactly this kind of behaviour (both times ending up with their talk page access revoked). It's hard to say who is "right" in terms of the content war; both editors have had people intervening on their behalf as more than just reverting to the status quo (the latter is all I've done), and I've seen sources support both sides of the story. But it's not just the edit warring which has been problematic, it's been the language and attitudes used by both editors - be it in edit summaries, talk page threads, or user talk page posts:
    • I think there's little question that RDBMN's attitude has been worse, but then again, the vast majority of R123's edits were done with either no edit summary at all, or were just "undid revision X by editor Y", which is no more helpful. It's also worth noting that, since February, R123 has barely touched any article that is not the History of the WWE article; and most of those, if not all of them, were to related articles (ie articles on wrestlers). RDBMN also has a history of being incredibly combative on other articles; four previous blocks for 3RR violations are a pretty good sign of that.
    • Just a further note to say that R123 has reverted twice more since the start of this ANI thread, and probably should face an immediate block on that basis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed solutions

    • I think we have to look at a few potential solutions to this problem. Short-term blocks don't work, and that's been proven. It's also been proven that neither editor is going to stop and discuss at this point. I can think of three solutions:
    1. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely topic banned from editing the History of the WWE article, due to the long-term edit war.
    2. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, under the standard terms of an IBAN.
    3. Both RealDealBillMcNeal and Rebelrick123 are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, for persistent battleground conduct, including long-term edit-warring and severe incivility.
    • I would support all three of these solutions in equal amounts, and personally think that option 2 should be enforced if option 1 is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely support #1 – an article ban seems like it's definitely necessary in this case. No opinion (yet) on #2 and #3... --IJBall (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine banning somebody from editing a page for trying to stop continuously disruptive editing that has marred this article for a long long time. Great patter. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've edit warred so heavily on it that you've been blocked twice for your actions on the article, and both times your behaviour was so out of line that you found your talk page access getting revoked. Neither of you is any better than the other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #1 and #2 (in the hope that we won't need #3). Neither party has clean hands in this dispute. Miniapolis 22:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #1 and #2(uninvolved non admin) The behaviour of both surely warrants the actions. AlbinoFerret 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #3 I have only had the honour of interacting with RealDealBillMcNeal and the behaviour extends beyond the article being discussed here, one I've never edited. The trash-talk was unacceptable. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground is not particularly enjoyable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #1 and #2 as option 1, but would not oppose #3 if the consensus became the two should be indef'd. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support #1. The two editors have only banged heads in the context of this article, so if they stay away from it it should make #2 moot. #3 is overkill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasoning behind #3; this is far from the first article that RDBMN has been problematic at, or their first edit-warring block; they have four priors, as well as a long history of extremely uncollaborative behaviour, and R123 is, at this point, essentially an SPA. Perhaps it could be argued to be overkill for R123, but RDBMN's history more than deserves such a sanction IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support RealDealBillMcNeal being topic banned from editing the History of the WWE for a time period such as a year. Rebelrick123 should be kept under surveillance. GregKaye 04:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: how can you support a topic ban for one party and not the other? Both have been equally as bad as the other, regardless of who is "right" content-wise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bumping this to ensure it's not archived without action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all three. The first is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be written out, but it's better to make formal. The second is also pretty obvious, as it will prevent potential revenge wikis talking from either side. As for the third, well, it's pretty heavy, but this is out the first time RDBM has shown himself to be a guy who tried to bully his way around. He needs to take a hike and not let the door hit him on the way out. R123 I'm less concerned needs a full ban, but as both sides display equally atrocious behavior here, they should get the same result. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kheider Adding stuff to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) to point to at AfD

    Kheider has been attempting to go against consensus in AfDs for minor astronomical object articles. After several AfDs failed to go his way, he made these changes to WP:Notability (astronomical objects) So that he could point to them at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald in this edit here, less than 30 minutes after adding the 'support' to the notability guideline. There is no consensus on the talk page and little discussion.

    Kheider also has been attempting to characterize Boleyn's attempts to cleanup the articles that failed notability as "genocide" at multiple AfDs: 1 2 3

    Edit(Added this numbered list for clarity and organization: 18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)) In summary, these are the policies that have been alleged that Kheider violated:

    1. by me: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as Gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits."
    2. by me: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)"
    3. by Boleyn(evidence included below): Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others'_comments "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."
    (end list and edit ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    At 20:45, 17 May 2015 Padenton reverted all 9 of my good faith edits to NASTRO and then called my edits disgusting and assumed bad faith on the NASTRO talk page. Then at 23:53, 17 May 2015 Padenton posted on my talk page accusing me of edit warring. I then explained my edits on the NASTRO talk page at 00:25, 18 May 2015. Then at 00:39, 18 May 2015 Padenton further harassed me by posting this unnecessary (assuming bad faith) ANI complaint. On the NASTRO talk page, Padenton replied back suggesting that the Astro wikiproject is not a proper place to discuss Astro guidelines even though NASTRO itself suggests taking such discussions to the project page. None of my edits to NASTRO were done in bad faith and the ongoing harassment and character assassinations by Padenton need to stop as he has failed to demonstrate how any of my NASTRO edits resulted in a change of outcome for any AfD. Boleyn, was aware by May 6th that "I am working on NASTRO as we speak". -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Notifying users who have been involved in the deletion discussions: Praemonitus, David Eppstein, Boleyn ― Padenton|✉   00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, you like forumshopping. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Changes_without_consensus. I would say you are the one out of line that can not support reverting my edits. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the 29 April 2015 version of NASTRO, it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them. If you were paying much attention you would also note that I am not supporting many asteroids in the AfDs. But I do have a right to express opinions and hope that users do not to throw out the baby with the bath water just because an article was created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "it says to "redirect" asteroid stubs, not delete them." Show me a single one that has been deleted in violation of that. "But I do have a right to express opinion" You do. What you don't have the right to do is unilaterally change a notability guideline to support your opinion. ― Padenton|✉   00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wow, you like forumshopping." Feel free to read WP:FORUMSHOP. If bringing the incident to WP:ANI was forumshopping, this noticeboard wouldn't exist. ― Padenton|✉   01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any heartburn with those edits to WP:NASTRO by Kheider. Those just appear to be adding clarification and refinement. Lower numbered asteroids generally have more sources available, and so they are worth checking more closely. I've also had to ask the poster to limit the number of AfDs so we have a chance to investigate properly, and he was kind enough to do so. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be inclined to agree with Praemonitus. I don't see Kheider's edits as drastically changing the guideline; rather, I see them as editing the guideline to reflect the current practice of not unilaterally redirecting the low-numbered asteroids. However, the diffs provided comparing Boleyn's actions to genocide are unacceptable, however, and were I uninvolved I would have already issued a strong warning for such behavior. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. It has been the result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and simply clarifies the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kheider is clearly very emotionally involved in this. My main concerns have been about him rewriting my AfD nominations (changing 'delete or redirect', which was my nomination, to just 'redirect', although he stopped when I warned him, I could easily have not noticed these changes being made. Although Kheider stopped, he didn't seem to acknowledge he had done anything wrong. There have also been a range of bad faith comments aimed at me by Kheider in the discussions which I have tried to just ignore and leave the discussions to be about the notability of the page in question. The comments about my actions being 'genocide' shows that Kheider has lost perspective on this (to say the least!). However, his opinions on the notability of the pages are of course very welcome. Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned on your talk page User_talk:Boleyn#A_barnstar_for_you.21_5, " I re-wrote 2 of your AfDs because you were asking for numbered asteroid deletions when NASTRO makes it clear you should be asking for a re-directs when dealing with asteroids." The problem was quickly solved and I have noticed you have changed your wording since then. Thank you. For the record, I was comparing the act of re-directing 15,000+ bot created asteroid articles to genocide which may be not the best comparison, but 15,000 is a large number. I am disgusted with Padenton attacking me at NASTRO, my talk page, and here without actually having a conversation about the content of NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor changes a policy, to support their argument in other pages citing that policy, it is very bad practice. Policies must be about «What is best for Wikipedia», not «How can I win my argument?» Spumuq (talq) 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how any of my edits to WP:NASTRO favored my argument for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald as claimed by Padenton. This has simply become character assassination by Padenton since he is a deletionist and took a strong dislike to the use of the word genocide. Padenton should NOT have reverted my edits at NASTRO and he is the one harming Wikipedia. Do we need to revert every edit to NASTRO since it was accepted in 2012? I know other people made minor edits to it without approval of a committee. -- Kheider (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big difference between most of those edits is that they weren't being made by someone taking a position at AfD that is generally against consensus. When you are debating a series of articles in an AfD debate, you should not be making any changes to the relevant notability guideline, unless you're fixing spelling errors/typos. It is also COMPLETELY inappropriate for you to be editing any AfD proposal in the way you did. And, to compound matters, you're trying to blunt-force in your own views as being Wikipedia guidelines, and edit warring in the process. If you keep this up, regardless of any "good" previous history in this area, you will have to be topic banned. Claims that you haven't drastically changed the guideline (by you or by others) are clearly wrong, when the passage of text Asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing as they are generally larger and have been known longer. Editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. was not previously in there in any form, and is obviously bullshit in part (you have no right to place arbitrary restrictions on how many things editors can nominate at AfD whatsoever). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact they are being discussed now does not change the fact that you tried to force your change in TWICE after being reverted. Also noteworthy is the fact that both editors who have cast a !vote have opposed your changes. Wake up and smell the coffee - your viewpoint isn't the same as the majority of other editor's, and you need to recognize that ASAP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As being discussed below, do not confuse my 50km asteroid proposal that is being opposed with my clean-up of NASTRO that has received support from Praemonitus, StringTheory11, JorisvS, and has been general consensus for quite some time. If anything is new, it would be the 10 AfDs a day rule, which Boleyn found reasonable when Praemonitus made the request. -- Kheider (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two thoughts:

    1. Kheider should probably be topic-banned from this area for a month or so until he calms down
    2. WP:NOTABILITY and its subpages aren't gold-locked WHY exactly? There's no need for anybody but sysops to edit them, particularly when editing them causes problems like these.

    pbp 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Even the editors against me say my edits to NASTRO were good. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors say that. I don't say that, nor do several other editors - your claim above is a barefaced lie (as can be seen from Padenton's comments on the NASTRO discussion which are staunchly in opposition to your actions, whilst David Eppstein has directly rejected your numbers-based change). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that they (including David Eppstein) are opposing my 50km asteroid rule, not the changes I made to clean-up NASTRO? -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that is not an entirely accurate analysis of their position? "A number is not a source and does not convey notability." rejects your attempts at arbitrarily defining notability for multiple sections with numbers you came up with yourself, not just the "50km asteroid rule". Padenton was also opposing your ownership of the guideline and associated articles - and it is pretty hard to come to any other conclusion. You are way too personally involved in this, you need to back right off and let other editors have their say. Just because you created something does not mean you can rule it with an iron fist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name a change that I made to the actual NASTRO guide that I do not have any consensus for? I never inserted my 50km proposal. There is a basically accepted consensus on the Astro project for treating numbered asteroids below 2000 differently. I am not aware if anyone is even against even that change. -- Kheider (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just pointed to a comment that is rejecting your arbitrary numbers, which, yes, includes that "numbered asteroids below 2000" thing. And besides, you're talking about a discussion for automatic redirecting, not one where asteroids below a completely arbitrary number are automatically assumed to be notable. Chalk and cheese. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I write all numbered asteroid below 2000 are notable? The general consensus for years has been to discuss the ones below 2000. -- Kheider (talk)
    I misread who made the post on the discussion thread with the laundry list of arbitrary numbers, so I apologize for that. However, the whole point of an AfD debate is to have a discussion - so there's nothing wrong with nominating it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, there's nothing wrong with that. Kheider's version says that below 2000 that's exactly what should happen, on an individual basis. Above 2000 has already been discussed and decided that, if they meet certain criteria, they can be redirected without further discussion. Of course, if someone would like a discussion, that can still happen. --JorisvS (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest archiving this thread as it is out scope of this board. Anybody can edit any page in Wikipedia including any guideline. There is nothing here that requires administrator attention. Ruslik_Zero 21:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruslik0: The allegations made against Kheider in this ANI are (Redacted) (See top instead, list has been moved to initial statement)
    Evidence for all these is in the arguments and links above. I could be wrong, I am not an admin, but I believe these are certainly within the scope of WP:ANI. If not, by all means show me where it should go and I will happily apologize and take it to the rightful location. ― Padenton|✉   03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is only for reporting specific incidents that require immediate administrator attention. General dispute resolution is outside the scope of this board. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruslik0: Sorry, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE seems to say that the place would still be here unless I'm misreading it: "If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." This is an issue about user conduct in this disagreement, and as much as a few editors may have chosen to respond to only say "I liked/didn't like kheider's changes" that isn't what this ANI was brought up for. Rather it was brought up for the allegations I made above. ― Padenton|✉   13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing to be done here. If it draws some attention to Boleyn's mindless attempts to redirect some asteroid articles instead of consolidating the information in those articles into comprehensive list articles and a rational organizing scheme, all the better.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is the place for that claim. However, I am still unsure how stubs with less information than JPL's completely free database with less organization would be more helpful in constructing the comprehensive list articles you want. ― Padenton|✉   05:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not for cleanup, however. There are lots of better free websites than Wikipedia, but none nearly as comprehensive nor as able to be continually improved. Thus the 10 minutes I just spent on 504 Cora will better serve humankind than mass AfDs which are effectively deleting content.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "AfD is not for cleanup" refers to WP:CLEANUP, not articles where the issue is the subject's notability, as you were told in AfD. See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cleaning up articles of questionable notability by deleting them or changing them to redirects is exactly what AfD is for. ― Padenton|✉   14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is debating that the information contained in these stubs could not be retained in list articles, yet it is being effectively deleted by stupid AfD drone behavior. The slavish devotion to whether a subject has a "page" vs. whether that content is available on Wikipedia in a digestable way to benefit our readers is ridiculous. It may well be that a ton of stubs is not the best way to display information. E.g., having stubs on every member of AKB48 is not a good way to present information. All I am demanding is that editors improve this encyclopedia if they wish to edit it.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence of indiscriminate information on minor planets of no significance whatsoever in separate articles doesn't improve this encyclopedia. It improves this encyclopedia to follow consensus, and that consensus is that most of these articles shouldn't exist. There is absolutely nothing lost here, this is complaining about nothing. Feel free to expand the list articles with the various numbers, all of which can be seen from the history of any of the articles (all of which were redirected, I haven't seen a single one deleted), or you can just use the JPL database (which is where all the information was scraped from in the first place). ― Padenton|✉   14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I demand that Boleyn rewrite List of minor planets: 1001–2000, etc. to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not Boleyn's slave.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are the one who wants to see the information, it is on you to make the table; you get to demand nothing. Boleyn is simply following the notability guideline WP:NASTRO, which was approved by community consensus. If you want to see a change, perhaps you could actually go to the appropriate forum (the talk page) and propose such a change, to see if it gets support, instead of here and on AfDs. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrroooonng. I am not making any tables, you are not making me a slave. I am demanding that Boleyn make these changes and expect them to be followed. If not, I will demand that an asteroid collide with Earth. At some point an admin will close these thread and my demands will certainly be fulfilled.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Milowent interaction ban

    I hate to propose sanctions against somebody who is clearly usually a productive member of the community, but I must here. Milowent seems to have taken it upon themselves to oppose every recent AfD started by Boleyn (see contribs here; search for AfD nominations). That alone would constitute some wikihounding and is subpar behavior, and then I saw Milowent's comment in this thread that was obviously a personal attack on Boleyn here, referring to himself as a slave to Boleyn and "demand"ing that Boleyn be "deleted" from Wikipedia in the most condescending way possible. I thought it was an isolated incident, but then noticed that Milowent has been plastering the same comment on multiple AfDs regarding asteroids, see [13], [14], and [15]. When queried by me here and MrX at one of the AfDs, Milowent's responses were not encouraging, saying that his "demand" is rational [16], and that he, again, was not going to be a "slave", and that he wishes an asteroid would collide with Earth to stop the nominations [17]. It is clear at this point that Milowent cannot constructively interact with Boleyn, and I propose a one-way interaction ban preventing Milowent from interacting with Boleyn. (I also recommend that no further action be taken against Kheider for the time being). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban with Boleyn and a topic ban from AfDs on astronomical objects, and a timed block for WP:NPA, WP:HOUND, WP:CTDAPE, and WP:INCIVIL: for Wikihounding, repeatedly !voting "procedural keep" with a rationale that does not assume good faith (calling this an "abuse" of the system: [18] and others) and without linking to policy or a consensus, and incivility including trying to drive out a productive contributor (i.e. Boleyn) by suggesting to (figuratively) "delete Boleyn", which also constitutes disruptive editing. Milowent obviously can't work well with Boleyn, because of strongfeelings (implicit incivility) and sneaky personal attacks, and even wishful thinking (e.g. If not, I will demand that an asteroid collide with Earth.) Esquivalience t 02:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This behaviour is upsetting me. I started AfDs as per general consensus, to solve a notability issue several years old - and the majority of those I have nominated have not been kept, but redirected. Nevertheless, I've felt hounded and intimidated by people opposing them being discussed, including around 30 notifications from Milowent of comments which have all been personal attacks, including 22 in one go. I'm fine with someone disagreeing with me, but we can't have this sort of behaviour. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as accused. More to come later, on the night shift at the moment. Suffice it to say, I've had my say and only commented in a few of Boleyn's mass of nominations. I have no intention of going further with my efforts to draw editor attention to my concerns, if that was not sufficient.--Milowent • hasspoken 10:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comments from the accused: Oh lord people. I must disclose an important fact. Despite my frequent claims of omnipotence, I do not have the power to make an asteroid collide with Earth to influence AfD outcomes I do not like. I commented in about 10-15(?) of maybe 200 asteroid AfDs started by Boleyn (far from "every recent afd") in the past month. My initial comments about it being a misuse of AfD to do this (no AfD references the others, cut and paste nominations, no real evidence of WP:BEFORE occuring) went unheard, as they are trying to use AfD to develop policy, which really never works like this. WP:EFD (nominating editors for deletion you are frustrated with) is a joke as old as wikipedia. One really shouldn't propose interaction bans and blocks the first time you have a complaint about another editor, without even talking to them. I am the most reasonable person in the world. I didn't ask that Boleyn be banned from making AfD nominations for asteroids for a month (though it would be a good idea if they voluntarily let the prior AfDs run and then propose some consensus rules, but they completely ignored my suggestions). What am I primarily taking my time to do? I spent time timing improving 1700 Zvezdara, currently at AfD, to show it may indeed be notable, instead of being subject to a cut-and-paste nomination. I also improved 504 Cora, which isn't at AfD, but on a hitlist Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, and which appeared notable to me. Boleyn, as with my perfectly friendly comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uthai Thani F.C., I simply ask you to consider if you are going about this the right way, and when you get negative reactions that is not a terrible thing, it is something to consider.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Boleyn, this whole Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia is one of Wikipedia greatest problems and one of the reasons people leave Wikipedia never to return. This is also why I had asked to spare borderline asteroid candidates so there would be wiggle room for some growth, thus still giving the inclusionists something to expand. Newbies simply will not know how to undo a re-direct to a list page. Hell, after editing Wikipedia since 2006, I have not run around memorizing every policy, guide, or essay that can be thrown in someone's face by the Wiki-police. I only got involved in the NASTRO guide because I thought it was important and to combat extremists such as Chrisrus. Personally, I hate working on policies and making rules, but I also know very few have my knowledge or willingness (foolishness?) to work on NASTRO. After reading all of this crap, do you really think anyone else from the Astro project page will want to step-up and put serious effort into NASTRO any time soon with the risk of some wiki-cop coming around and attacking them? -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom, Esquivalience, and Boleyn. No objection to no further sanctions on Kheider provided he agrees in the future to:
    1. Allow the discussion of his changes to policy/guidelines at the proper venue (which is the talk page of said policy, not a wikiproject talk page)
    2. Be up front about edits he makes to policies/guidelines by alerting discussions he is involved in that are affected by those changes
    3. Cease personal attacks against other users, including but not limited to:
      • Comparing actions fully justified by policy to genocide
      • Characterizing the edits of other editors as gang rape
    4. Refrain from editing the discussion comments of others, especially when he disagrees with them.
    I really fail to see how any of these are 'obscure policies' being thrown at Kheider by the 'wiki-police'. It's simple common decency, honesty, and integrity. But apparently fair, reasoned discussion is a little too bureaucratic for "one of the creators of WP:NASTRO" as he introduced himself in some of the AfDs. ― Padenton|✉   16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Common decency" is not how I would describe your bad faith assumptions, calling my edits to NASTRO disgusting, posting edit war comments to my page "before having a real discussion at NASTRO", and then taking me to ANI so you could have your way with me. -- Kheider (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a bad faith assumption to bring this issue to WP:ANI, the proper venue for it, when you allege Boleyn has committed Genocide, allege I gangraped you by starting this ANI, and edit Boleyn's AfD nomination to change its meaning. "so you could have your way with me" Seriously? Right after your 2 day block ended for comparing my actions to gangrape? You talk about scaring newbies away from Wikipedia. Are you sure you're not more of a problem than I am? You changed WP:NASTRO by "adding clarifications" that would support your argument in an AfD and then pointed to the new text as you had modified it to support your claims in an AfD. You still don't seem to realize how dishonest that is and how dangerous that is for consensus in Wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You assumed my edits to NASTRO where in bad faith and still may think that for all I know. Not one of my changes to NASTRO caused a change of outcome at an AfD and am not sure how any of those common sense changes to NASTRO would. -- Kheider (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I grow tired of repeating myself. Your edits to WP:NASTRO here again implied a size cutoff for notability, in support of your previous arguments in the AfDs. They also implied that any number of light curve studies or occultation studies would support notability. You also imposed your own personal opinion of how many nominations should be made a day. All of these were in support of arguments you have been making in numerous AfDs for the past couple weeks. ― Padenton|✉   18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See if you ask a question instead of attacking me, I can better explain. The main-belt asteroid 1999 XF255 is 5km in diameter and that is mostly why it is NOT notable in anyway shape or form. In no way was I suggesting asteroids larger than 5km are notable be default. When doing a search for asteroid info you will normally come across light curve studies or occultation studies, again that is does not automatically grant notability, but should be considered. You obviously know that the text can be edited vs completely reverting everything a single editor has added?-- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is this is a guideline. Editors unfamiliar with the topic go there for guidance in their actions. By saying "it's not notable because it is less than 5km in diameter" doesn't clarify it, it makes it more vague. Just as saying "before nominating, check for light curve studies and occultation studies" (neither quote is verbatim) is implying that they are notable when you don't clarify that by saying it alone is not enough to justify notability. People are already checking for light curve studies and occultation studies, because they come up in searches for sources. I have yet to see a minor planet AfD where participants did not check google scholar and discuss that specific minor planet. ― Padenton|✉   21:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per OP - and as per some of Milowent's totally ridiculous comments in the thread above (ie the sarcastic demands and such tripe). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:drmargi

    CLOSED
    The issue at CSI: Cyber (Cyber!) seems to have resolved on its own – the contentious cast change information was added by another editor using different sources. For the record, despite their sloppy editing and regular typographic errors, Deadline Hollywood (aka. Deadline.com) absolutely can be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Further, User:Drmargi is reminded to discuss issues such as this at article's Talk pages, not just in the edit summaries of reversions. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    List of CSI: Cyber episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Hi, I'm new to this reporting thing so I hope I'm not too choppy in my explanations. Recently, it was announced that Peter MacNicol was departing CSI: Cyber. Sourced from dozens of media outlets including deadline, an amendment to the CSI: Cyber page was made to note he appeared in season 1, whilst a note was added to the List of CSI: Cyber episodes page, that I created, to note that he departed the regular cast at the end of the first season (emphasis on 'regular' due to the minute possibility he may reappear at some point), which, I believe to be unlikely.

    user:drmargi then began an edit war noting that deadline was not a reputable source, nor were Irish sources, or any source noting their personal confirmation of deadline's original report. A discussion was started on the talk:CSI: Cyber page, and many editors agreed it should be noted that MacNicol has departed, as his last episode has already aired. Drmargi withdrew herself from the discussion but has continued to revert edits, although has not yet breached the 3RR rule. Today, what I believe to be a consensus was reached between those still discussing, and as a result I re-inserted the hyperlink referencing MacNicols departure. Since then, drmargi has reverted this edit several times on both pages:

    Cyber
    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    Cyber episodes
    1. [22]
    2. [23]
    3. [24]

    I have countered these reversions, each time adding notes such as - "Consensus has been reached on the talk page to include this piece of information. Please join the discussion before deleting again - everyone is welcome to give their two cents" - "Edit warring isn't helping anyone. Please cease and desist. Discuss like an adult. I don't want to see anyone break the 3RR rule and get themselves into trouble." - "Join the discussion. The only person being disruptive is you. Please don't do your reputation a disservice by edit warring and breaking 3RR"

    This was met by threats on my talk page, stating that my accidental omission to login would next time "result in further action that may result in your being blocked," later adding "Having reverted once logged out (as you acknowledge above) and three times logged in, you have now violated WP:3RR, and refuse to abide by WP:BRD, which requires an article be left at status quo during discussion (if you can call that squabbling session on the talk page a discussion.) You also refuse to abide by WP:NPA not only with me, but with other editors. This is going to the 3RR noticeboard. Your "logged out" editing is always just a bit convenient." This statement is in fact false as I had not reverted any edit whilst logged out, but instead made the original edit myself, noting immediately on the talk:CSI: Cyber page that U "couldn't log in - sorry."

    I'd like to note that prior to making the original edit I posted a message stating "I think that's the consensus arising. I'll make the edit, and hopefully instead of reverting it straight away the editors in question will discuss any further changes if they still disagree," so no harm was meant.

    user:maticsg1 summed it up perfectly, I believe, when stating on the talk page of Cyber that "drmargi reverts the edits, pointing to a start of a discussion about them, after discussion starts she states that she finds sources unreliable. After her statements are challenged by multiple users, using valid arguments, the user - seeing all this - goes behind multiple editors' back to the Wikipedia Director saying that we "don't have a year's experience", "don't understand WP:RS or WP:VERIFY, two of them are basing their edits on a gossip site reporting rumors" and that we "need a firm hand". When the discussion comes to a point when everyone currently involved agrees about the reliability of the forementioned source and trying to implement changes, once again, changes are reverted pointing to this discussion. It is imposible to reach a consensus that way, and I don't know, maybe that's the whole point as in that it can be said that the consensus was reached if someone is not involved in the discussion anymore, I don't know and I won't speculate, but the fact is, and I have been refraining myself from saying that for a few days now, because it may be a little "inpolite", but "reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version" is an action of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Maticsg1 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

    Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. It seems like such a big fuss for a post script note stating MacNicol departed the regular cast after the first season.

    Unframboise (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks, unframboise. 19:09, 19.05.15, GMT.[reply]

    If I may add, it is not the first time user:drmargi has been doing this. On the same article, a few days ago (May 14) the same user was "reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version" about a cast member that has been confirmed by CBS (Ted Danson, can also be found on the Talk page) which is against WP:BRD and is an action of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Maticsg1 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OP has knowingly used an IP edit to breach WP:3RR. See filing at: [25] The go amuse yourself with the squabbling match/insult-fest that passes for discussion on the CSI: Cyber talk page. This is one of three very inexperienced, aggressive editors who cannot resolve this issue civilly and in a collaborative manner. It's regrettable they lack the judgment to separate rumor and speculation from reliable information, per WP:VERIFY, when a little patience is all that's needed. That's all I have to say on the matter. --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding a quick post-script to thank maticsg1 for their input, and also to note that user:drmargi has now followed through on her threat to lodge a complaint with the Edit Warring board here [26] despite me not being in breach of the 3RR rule. I would appreciate if this situation could be resolved quickly and comfortably for both parties. unframboise, 19:19, 19.05.15 (GMT).
    If you are 148.197.152.197 then you did breach 3RR. Even if you aren't, you were still edit-warring. You made 3 reversions in 10 minutes as Unframboise. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR states that you have to revert four times in order to breach. I reverted three times, as did user:drmargi. Both of us in the same amount of time. The original edit was an edit upon which a consensus was reached upon, and not a reversion of a previous edit. user:unframboise (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (GMT).
    Reverting 3 times in 10 minutes is still edit-warring. There are only 3 editors involved so there is no strong consensus and the sources that you're using are fairly weak. I can certainly understand Drmargi's frustration, seeing edits forced into the article while there is an active discussion underway (which goes totally against WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO), but edit-warring by anyone is inappropriate. There's enough guilt to go around here but this is essentially a content issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will certainly take responsibility for my part in this and apologise. It's definitely a content issue, but when drmargi insists on reverting, her refusal to discuss at this point is also an issue. The participants of the active discussion all agreed that the content should be included, if drmargi feels that she needs to argue the opposite, it should be done via discussion and not edit warring. It may be helpful for an outside user to decide whether this content should be included once and for all. Thanks for your input, Aussie! -- user:unframboise (user talk:unframboise) 20:15, 19.05.15 (GMT).

    3RR aside, this complaint is about content dispute. I occasionally edit this article, as it is on my watchlist. I am quite honestly shocked by this. First off, Deadline is a source used by many articles (yes, I am emphasizing). For example, Dirty Grandpa. Deadline is a trustworthy and reliable source when it comes to entertainment news for movies, music, TV, etc. I honestly don't know how Drmargi is questioning a rather every-day source used by many well-experienced users on this Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what kind of experience you have on Wikipedia; a user is encouraged to edit when they have found new information on the article with proper sourcing. The user in question's statement is rather biased and unjustified. Their behavior looks rather WP:OWN if you ask me. Reverting a well-trusted source used by many users... I totally agree with User:Drovethrughosts with their statement on the talk page: "I'm confused as to why Deadline.com is being questioned as a reliable source. As far as I'm aware, they're a top tier source for entertainment news. This isn't coming from someone random blog or person, it's from Nellie Andreeva, a professional entertainment journalist, it's her job to have "insider scoop" and knowledge. This isn't hearsay from someone on the street or someone running a personal TV blog from their basement, it's from a highly reputable source, so I don't understand why it can't be included. Several other reliable sources have reported on it such as Entertainment Weekly ("Now, EW has confirmed the Deadline report") and TheWrap ("TheWrap has learned"); they're not just sourcing Deadline, they're independent reports or confirmations." And Drmargi's comment on their talk page is, in my opinion, WP:NPA: "That guy is in the UK, and doesn't know the first thing about American entertainment media, or he'd never have said what he did about the Hollywood Reporter." I'm sorry, but does it matter where you're from to edit the English Wikipedia for whatever reason? Unframboise followed WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY, so no. I'm from Canada. Do I qualify for not knowing anything about American entertainment media? Exactly. This is very unfair for an argument to revert a person just because you personally think the source is bad or doesn't meet your policies or just because you're from America you know everything American. Plus, Drmargi, you were more than welcome to participate in the discussion, but you chose not. Way to resolve a dispute and avoid unnecessary blocking, page protection and edit warring. Per WP:DISPUTE, you were ought to discuss with other involved editors about the matter. You refused to continue to discuss the matter. Look at what it has turned into: unnecessary edit warring. Aside from my "complaint", I agree that the content should be added (but should be introduced in a different matter) based on many articles (main one from Deadline) that have in fact confirmed what Deadline wrote. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Restoring Talaash (Colors TV series) and than redirecting it

    CLOSED
    Resolved (non-admin archiving)Atsme📞📧 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A person with a same IP address first restores the Talaash (Colors TV series) page and within one minute, that person redirects the article. I don't know what's wrong with this person? KunalForYou ☎️📝 15:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what the IP was trying; they have similarly self-reverted on a couple of other pages. AGFing for now and just leaving them a note. But if the behavior continues you can contact me on my talk page and we can see if semi-protection or blocks are needed. Abecedare (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin User:AntonioMartin repeatedly adding unsourced information on a BLP

    The admin User:AntonioMartin is repeatedly adding unsourced information to Xavier Serbiá's BLP, while still reverting many (if not all) of other unrelated edits I did (like formatting references, adding sections, adding wikilinks...)

    He failed to reply at his talk page. --damiens.rf 16:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's some rather awful edit-warring from both sides. AntonioMartin is trying to add obviously unsuitable material (trivial and with unreliable sources, though not an obvious BLP violation that would justify violations of otherwise bright-line rules to remove it); both sides are blatantly revert-warring without using the talkpage; Damiens is making wrong accusations of "vandalism". Can somebody give me a good reason for not blocking both parties? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'll give you a reason (not necessarily a good one, YMMV etc) - since nobody else appears to be working on the article, full-protect it for three days or so and tell the pair of them to thrash it out on talk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be inclined to go with Ritchie's suggestion. While a block would be hard to argue with for AntonioMartin, Damiens is a slightly trickier call (I wouldn't block, but wouldn't complain very strongly if someone did). Some of his edits at the article aren't reverts, and he's not blind reverting like AntonioMartin. Still, the false vandalism claim always sticks in my craw, and things are out of control there. I'm going to go ahead and full protect, and if blocks are handed out by others the protection can be removed. I'll leave a note for AntonioMartin so he understands editing through full protection will be considered a Very Big Deal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we let users put a long autobiography on their talk pages now? WP:USERBIO suggests AntonioMartin's is far too detailed. Ah, looking at it again, it also has information about other living people, some not flattering. I'd say his userpage is a BLP violation itself. I note he became an Admin 16 September 2002 - things were rather different then. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Yes, all of these things, together, personally make me concerned about this person having "the bit" – is there an Admin review process (aside from ARBCOM)? Should that be pursued in this case?... --IJBall (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never understood the issue with long biographies; the guy's been around for 13 years and made 23,600 edits, why not cut him some slack? The unflattering info about other people using their real names is an issue, and should probably be dealt with. By someone besides me, as I've got to leave. But start with discussion, not outright removal. I'd say it's far too early to talk about "admin review" (which means "ArbCom", there is no other process), wait to see what he says first. No need to go off half-cocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, I have no desire to go off to ARBCOM on my end, if that's the only avenue here! --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If an admin is making page edits that violate policy, nothing prevents them from being blocked like anyone else. Arbcom is only needed if you think they are misusing their admin powers. User:AntonioMartin's logs show hardly any use of admin powers in the year 2015, a few routine moves and deletions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably worth remembering that there's been a rather long history of clashes between Damiens.rf and AntonioMartin (and his father, Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs)) over Puerto Rico topics. One such clash last year involved a rather blatant case of misuse of admin tools on Antonio's part (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Admin undeleted an article); others have included wikihounding accusations against Damiens. On the present article, interactions and problematic editing by Antonio and/or Marine go back to at least 2011. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the case, then if the protection ultimately doesn't work then an interaction ban might be the next step? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reluctant about interaction bans in cases where a pattern of (possibly) mutually bad behaviour is overlaid on a pattern of (unilaterally) bad content edits, which might be the case here. If Antonio has a history of making poor content edits of the type shown here, and nobody except Damiens has been cleaning them up, then to impose an interaction ban, however much it might be justified on behavioral grounds, would have the effect of preventing necessary cleanup of content, which must be the highest priority. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In a discussion at the top of this page, we have an admin making a questionable and probably incorrect call re content policy, which was accepted by some as gospel because it was by an admin. Here we have an admin behaving the way an admin shouldn't be behaving. What are the "red lines" that admins are not supposed to cross before they aren't admins anymore? Are there any? Are they pretty much in the clear as long as they don't abuse their tools, or should they be removed because they simply aren't qualified? Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That, in a nutshell, is my concern as well. Thanks for putting this into words, Coretheapple! But I am definitely concerned here, on my end, as we have an Admin who got 'the bit' when Wikipedia was in its infancy, and who has subsequently behaved in a such a way that they certainly would not get through a RfA if they applied today. To me, a "they don't use their tools much" defense isn't really enough of a comfort – we potentially have someone who is "under-qualified" to have tools, and has over an over 10-year period not displayed the type of behavior we expect in an Admin. Fut.Perf.'s points above are especially disquieting. (FTR, I am not in the "cabal" that likes to push for every Admin to lose privileges at the smallest perceived "infraction" – this is literally the first case I have even seen of someone who has Admin privileges who I am starting to wonder if maybe they shouldn't...) --IJBall (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only options are voluntary resignation or Arbcom. An admin is unlikely to have the bit removed by Arbcom without tool misuse, or really series violations not involving the tools. Monty845 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He last blocked someone in 2009, last protected a page in 2012. He's used his ability to delete this month. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is the point of him having tools? What Monty845 says is an accurate statement of fact, and I hope that it is kept in mind the next time someone laments about the so-called admin shortage, or why RfAs are such a difficult hurdle to pass. It's for that very reason: because an inept administrator can't be removed on that basis alone. There have to be serious violations or tool abuse. As long as the hurdles for removal are very high, the hurdles to become an admin will be equally high. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as there isn't serious tool misuse that would cause a desysoping, tools can only be given up voluntarily or taken away after three years of complete inactivity. I've seen "active" admins who had 7 edits over three years time and they are still admins. As long as this admin is making edits, the tools won't be removed. It just takes one edit every three years to retain the mop. If you want that changed, go to the Village pump! But it might be a perennial proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Fut.Perf.'s link to the earlier ANI thread shows that there was tool misuse, last year. And the only reason a WP:RfC about that wasn't held was apparently due to a technical mistake. Now, no one took that situation to ARBCOM at the time, which in retrospect may have been a mistake. On my end, I'd definitely feel more comfortable if this Admin turned in their bit voluntarily (esp. since they don't even seem to be using their tools now), but I suspect that won't be happening... I think this situation does point up an obvious flaw in the current system. --IJBall (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin(!) is putting unsourced info into an article and is edit warring. He doesn't answer for his actions in his talk page, as required of all admins. The same admin has misused his tools in the past. There's no big moral dilemma here - block the admin for whatever seems an appropriate time. If the other edit has been edit warring as well, block him for a time appropriate for *his* actions (not necessarily an equivalent amount of time). What's the big discussion? BMK (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At the time of writing, AntonioMartin's contributions show that he has not edited Wikipedia since 11:11 on 20 May, which is before this thread was created. Let's see if he plans to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that maybe a review of AM's adminship is in order now. An edit warring admin who has a past history of abusing his tools? And man does his blocking log confuse the hell out of me. Given how inactive they are with their tools, I don't think it would be much harm if they lost adminship anyway. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times can a guy get "accidentally blocked"? BMK (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. In AntonioMartin's defense, a lot of that "accidentally blocked" stuff in his log happened in 2006. So that part, at least, doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion... --IJBall (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe, we'll see, but first I really want to know how it is even possible to get "accidentally blocked" 16 times in six months? Was he caught up in IP range blocks? Was there a six-month wheel war with a (hopefully) non-deposed admin? Was he doing to to himself? Was there then, and is there still now, a CIR problem with this editor? When ArbCom looks at desysoppings (and I am not advocatng that this should go to ArbCom on the basis of the information here), they look for a pattern of behavior, but a pattern of behavior is impossible to look for if one throws out old information as being too stale to consider. BMK (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Before July 2006, an IP block caused an autoblock of *every single* user on an IP address, no matter their status, so admins regularly got caught in IP blocks; there was no way to disable autoblocks in those days. See the infamous bug 550 (the link to Bugzilla is intentional). Graham87 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graham87: Thanks, I was wondering if it was something systemic like that. BMK (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Xavier Serbia article was done during my infancy at Wikipedia. I think I should just try to find references on the information in there. BUT ALSO I have to note, the information which made Damiens start this with, is actually referenced. I know the link is a YouTube video, but if this YouTube video, in which we see the act ACTUALLY HAPPENING, is not a reliable source, then I do not know what is.
    Also note that Damiens calls this vandalism when if you look at MY particular history, you will see that I clearly do not. Damiens' attitude towards me and my father borders on obsession. He keeps an eye on everything we do, our history and even my dad being awarded by the Puerto Rican government for his work at Wikipedia notwithstanding.
    As far as the other thing, I have from time to time used my tools the right way and the one time I used it the wrong way was without the intention of hurting Wikipedia. Only one time in 13 years, I think that record speaks for itself. The main reason i am at Wikipedia, however, is because I love informing people, and sometimes I admit that I forget about doing other things I should do more often. There was in particular one time when I thought everything was written about at Wikipedia and I admit I only visited to read and learn myself during that time but generally my passion has been in writing and informing. But i understand what you all say and am trying to remember carrying on the other things administrators are supposed to do. Antonio Macho Macho Macho Martin (haw haw!) 05:51, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
    Ooops...I wasn't signed when I wrote that. I apologize. Antonio Nacho Nacho Nacho Martin (haw haw!) 05:57, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
    Antonio, you can still contribute as much as you want to Wikipedia, but you don't need to be an Admin to do that – most of the people posting on this board are non-Admins, and we do just fine. If you aren't really using your Admin tools anyway, maybe it would be best to voluntarily resign them, and focus on content creation... --IJBall (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should steer away the discussion from the use or non-use of admin tools, as that wasn't involved in this latest incident at least (it's only a matter of background regarding the wider-ranging situation). As far as the present situation is concerned, Antonio, I'm much more worried about your reaction to the charge of edit-warring. You have reinstated that "Caracas" bit 12 times in the course of a month, without a single posting on the talkpage and without a single comment in an edit summary, misusing the rollback feature at least three times in the process (incidentally, that in fact is an abuse of the tools – if you weren't an admin, I would take away your rollback bit now, but since you're an admin I technically can't). You also made at least two large-scale blanket reverts of multiple positive article improvements at once, again without any kind of argument or justification. Surely you realize that simply saying "but it was sourced after all" isn't a convincing thing to justify yourself in this situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the guy admits to his "using tools the wrong way" once, you admit that his use of rollback (an admin tool in his circumstance) was incorrect, and that rollback would be removed from a non-admin editor. How, then, can be "steer away" from his use of tools when it enters into this very incident?
    I admit that going to ArbCom over this seems like making a huge fuss over nothing, but considering the amount that AntonioMartin actually uses his tools (very, very minimally) the percentage of misuse is disturbingly high. Given his lack of use and his stated goals, I don't see where he really needs the tools, and would suggest that perhaps the easiest course would be for Antonio to give up the bit voluntarily, under a cloud. BMK (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really over nothing. Arbcom appears to be the only solution when admins shouldn't be admins. The current system, as has been made clear, makes it easy for admins to stay admins even if they shouldn't be, even if they don't use their tools very much and misuse them when they do. It's as if being an admin is an irrevocable privilege, like being an federal appeals court judge, and not just a regular Wiki user with added tools. Rather than throw up our hands in situations like this, perhaps Arbcom should be deployed more often than it has, and employ broader criteria than the really narrow and extreme circumstances that it utilizes. Also I just looked at his user page. WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We expect admins to at least understand the rules. When an admin engages in edit warring we are justifiably alarmed. How can they take part in enforcing the rules if they don't follow them themselves? It seems to me that Antonio should make a blanket statement that he intends to follow policy in the future, both WP:EW and WP:BLP. He should promise to follow the requirements for use of Rollback. If we don't get a satisfactory answer, that is prima facie reason to go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I still think it's a waste of time to go to arbcom given that the misuse of tools seems to be minimal (and a lot of that seems to be rollback) even if it may be a fairly high percentage. Perhaps if there was continued misuse of admin tools (including roll back) after repeated warnings, but I'm not really seeing that. The wider behaviour is concerning but we don't need arbcom to deal with that. There's nothing stopping us warning, topic banning or plain banning or blocking an admin if it becomes necessary. If the admin unblocks themselves then we can go to arbcom or more likely just request an emergency de-sysoping but I doubt that will be necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the last incident that FPaS linked to took place just last year, and buried in that report was another, similar incident (i.e. a "silent" recreation by AM of an article he created which had been deleted) reported by JzG which took place in 2009. So, just this one incident? nothing else in the last 11 years? ... not so much.
    Incidentally, in the discussion of that incident from last year, AM's attitude is rather pugnacious and disrespectful towards the community. Given his attitude, his lacksadaisical use of the tools, his explicit rejection of giving them up voluntarily, and his incidents of misuse, this is really not the kind of person we need as an admin. He's certainly not contributing to any back-up problems, and seems to see the mop as a medal of some sort, not as an active obligation of service to the community. BMK (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reluctantly reach similar conclusions. The problem is that our hands seem tied here – the current infraction isn't worth going to ARBCOM (at least, not so far), and I'm sure last year's infraction would be considered " Stale". So I'm not sure there's anything to be done. But, as I said above, this situation definitely points up flaws in the system, as here we have someone who's an Admin who quite probably shouldn't be, but there's nothing the community can really do about that. It suggests that some kind of reform may be needed, but I'm not even sure exactly what that should look like... --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter what it should be, or what the "proper" venue or precedure is, as a matter of sheer practicality, it is virtually impossible to "reform" Wikipedia. It can "evolve", certainly, but (contradictorily) only in two directions: more and more procedures can be added to existing procedures, or existing procedures can be lopped off and totally discontinued without replacement. (I'm not sure exactly why that is, but I think it has something to do with tension between the libertarian underpinnings of Wikipedia and the need for regularity and due process.) What can't be done -- at least in my observation -- is to scrap a structure which isn't working and replace it with another that might work. Which is why Wikipedia is perhaps in need of a firm but altruistic dictator -- something Jimbo never was and is apparently incapable of being by his very nature -- a deus ex machina to descend from the rafters just in time to settle all affairs and then depart the scene, leaving everyone unhappy in his wake, but new ways of doing things set in place. BMK (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But, in the meantime, there being no other choice, AM should be hauled before ArbCom. BMK (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Meh This is a pretty tame incident. I'd suggest AM just be more careful with the tools, and possibly have some chats with other admins about current practices. That Youtube link doesn't look so bad to me. It's to a TV show (news/entertainment I guess) about the described incident, on the show's official youtube channel, so it's at least plausibly relevant, and disputing it should be a routine matter of content discussion on the talk page. One can call it a lousy source, but it's completely wrong to say that it's not a source at all. BMK: really, there's too much procedure,[27] and lopping off is the right thing. Procedures expanded as Wikipedia did until 2009 or so, and then Wikipedia started shrinking but procedures kept expanding. Rather than procedures or dictators we just need reasonable numbers of editors who know what they're doing and aren't too obnoxious most of the time (we have that), and to get rid of some of the perverse incentives for bad editing (we could fix most of that by adding one line to one page on the site). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no one is stopping you BMK bringing an arbcom case. I still think that would be an epic waste of time (and I say this whether or note arbcom even takes the case). I stick by my above comment that the bigger problem is more general editing. To give a good example of this, while the full protection has stopped the edit warring, it hasn't yet achieved the wider desired effect. The most recent discussion on Talk:Xavier Serbiá remains something from 2013. Nor is there anything at WP:BLP/N. So the only discussion seems to be that done via edit summaries, that above and that on User talk:AntonioMartin#Adding unreferenced information to BLPs is vandalism. Hopefully the edit warring is not going to restart after the protection expired but if it does, this doesn't look good for anyone involved. But if it does happen, we can start to look at sanctions which don't need to involve arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and all of that is fine. But it doesn't get to the other point, and that is – Is this an editor that should have Administrator privileges?! Based on the pattern of behavior here, apparently over years, many of us feel the answer is "no", and yet there is no real avenue here for "Administrator review" (or, maybe something like, "reelection" or "reaffirmation") outside of the arduous ArbCom process which no one wants to engage in unless an Admin has gone on a virtual rampage and "set the house on fire" or done some shady COI stuff. That's a flaw in the system. --IJBall (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is I never commented on whether or not the system was flawed as I do not believe this is a useful place to discuss that as it will achieve little. I simple said I did not believe going to arbcom would be a useful activity in this case. If you want to change the system I really have little idea how you can actually achieve that but I do have a good idea that a discussion on the flaws here is nearly as much a pointless waste of time as taking AM to arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. An admin who removes a source and adds in unreferenced material to a BLP [28] and then edit-wars over it (together with the previous issues mentioned above and the lack of admin activity), needs to be put before ArbCom. It's no wonder that many editors have a negative view of admins when the reaction of the community to something like that is "that's a minor issue". Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has their own list of admins who they think are harming the project, and obviously it's the most active ones who have the most capacity for harm. AM based on something like this would be pretty far down my list. AM, could you have a (maybe private) conversation with someone like Floquenbeam? BMK and Black Kite are right that the way you are editing is way outside of admin expectations in 2015 even if it was ok 10 years ago. But, given today's excessive bureaucracy and the well-known brokenness of current RFA, I'd rather not go around desysopping anyone without seeing a level of conflict and disruption equivalent to other disputes which end that way, and I don't see that here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but I never said it's a minor issue. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BMK (yes, really!) and Black Kite. The history on the article in question should be enough to get any editor a block. For someone who is an admin, it is simply unacceptable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems as if Antonio should not have involved himself in a war-editing situation, even though his version of the article was much better then the Demiens decimated version. However, some of you should stop throwing all the caca on Antonio as if this was a Damiens Club. After all, it takes two to tango and both are experienced editors who should have known better. Antonio should have added references to the article and both of them should have discussed their issues on the articles talk page. Damiens in the past has attacked articles related to his family, he even managed to have an article on Antonio's grandfather, a pioneer in the New York-Puerto Rican community deleted and cropped images removing any member of his family. He has gone to the extent with his edits as if he were in an Anti-Puerto Rican agenda. Therefore. instead of concentrating on the faults of one user, let us condemn the actions of both and request that from now on instead of edit-warring they first try to solve their issues on the "talk pages" and if they can not agree, then have a neutral mediator interfere. Le Pato Frances (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But Damiens has nothing to do with Productos Ochsi, an article AM just created on an obscure Paraguayan food company of no evident notability, which he sourced to this website, which doesn't even mention the company, and this website which makes a passing reference to the company as it made the meat for a record-setting hot dog. And how about the sourcing for another article he just created, Open Road Brands? Look OK to you? A Pep Boys listing, the Yellow Pages, and the company website? Do either of these articles look as if they were created by someone who should be an administrator? 24.168.62.229 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice requested

    No More Mr Nice Guy Notified of this discussion.

    No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from participation in WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions after he complained I was engaged in ‘Jew baiting’ in July 2013. He withdrew, apparently in protest at the negative verdict for his claim, from active editing of wikipedia, while over the intervening years, documenting that wikipedia is anti-Semitic on his original homepage. The evidence was mounted exclusively by using several diffs from my work, some of which had been analysed and dismissed in his original complaint.

    here i.e., User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia To illustrate the thesis, there is a section called Wikipedia specific. Its evidence lists

    He occasionally dropped notes on editors’ talk pages alluding to me in a way that suggested the same message. here, for example

    Now that he is back editing, and that is a good thing, and we have disagreements, which are normal, I think this WP:AGF issue directed my way requires some clarification, especially since it is alluded to again here where No More Mr Good Guy was responding to the statement I made here. His disavowel:'Apropos my user page, which was not about you but about Wikipedia and Western society in general', is disingenuous in the extreme, since the evidence for 'anti-Semitism on Wikipedia' there is culled only by a selective use and distorted reading of some of my edits. Advice either way (to me) (to him) would be appreciated so that an atmosphere of less suspicion can prevail, and the kind of exasperatingly perplexing argumentation over trivia, easily resolved by either party (by me orby him), of the kind you find here, may be avoided.

    This is not a request for sanctions, which do not apply to the problem. I have no objection to any editor privately entertaining a conviction I am an anti-Semite. I simply think alluding to this personal belief while engaging with me is not conducive to collaborative editing because it tends to make for inordinately long controversies when the issues are simple.

    I would also request editors involved in the area not to add their opinions or takes sides, but allow this to be examined by impartial outside editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just wondering what action you are looking for from admins here. A strongly worded warning on his talk page? The deletion of that user page whose examples of anti-Semitism consist of your edits? Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd simply like editors to assess the evidence, to tell me if it is acceptable to allude to a fellow editor as an anti-Semite, or as a 'symptom' of anti-Semitism, as he has twice this year. If it is acceptable, fine. If it is not, well, a word NMMGG's way, would be appropriate. By the way 'whose examples' should be 'whose putative examples', I think.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason not to delete that page per a textbook case of WP:POLEMIC (and it's bordering on a G10 speedy as well). Does anyone disagree? Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to delete something from my userspace for being polemic, I request you look at Nishidani's userspace as well. I made that page under the assumption it was allowed, partially based on this deletion request of Nishidani's page. If this sort of thing is not allowed for anyone, fine. Otherwise there needs to be some consistency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference being, I would suggest, is that Nishidani's talkpage in the above MfD did not, as far as I can see, cast any aspersions about other editors. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't document a problem with Wikipedia without linking to diffs. The only thing there that I suppose could be considered as casting aspersions might be me pointing out his laughable attempt of using an anti-semite to explain what anti-semitism is or isn't. I'll remove that if there's consensus it's a problem. But otherwise these are diffs illustrating what I think is a serious systemic problem with Wikipedia and Western society in general. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is, if you're going to document something titled "Anti-Semitism and Wikipedia" by using a particular user's edits, then it follows that you are effectively accusing them of being an anti-semite. There is plenty of obvious anti-semitism at Wikipedia which you could quite easily have used instead, but you've chosen to use one person's edits which don't fall into that "obvious" category, and hence you're breaching NPA. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the page? The whole point is that Western cultures know how to deal with someone who sprays a swastika on a synagogue, but seem to be unable to deal with anti-semitism when it's mixed up with anti-Zionism. And that moreover, when someone complains about such things they are at best not taken seriously and at worse punished for complaining, thus making it unlikely that others will complain.
    I can change the title of the page if that helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to correct some inaccuracies in Nishidani's complaint.
    The AE complaint Nishidani links to was dismissed out of hand in less than 24 hours by a single admin with no discussion for, basically, lack of AGF. It is very unusual for AE complaints to be closed that fast, particularly if made by an editor with a completely clean record like I had.
    As I'm sure you can imagine, when someone makes a complaint about harassment, particularly what could probably be termed "racially aggravated" harassment, and it doesn't even get minimal discussion, you could get a little upset. I was very disappointed with the system here. I started documenting what to me seem like similar cases in my userspace. I think they're very relevant to the AE complaint I filed.
    Over the years I realized there's a systemic problem, but it is not unique to Wikipedia, so I came back.
    Nishidani was the one who brought the whole thing up in the discussion he linked to above [29], and now he's complaining that I replied to him. All he had to do is leave it be. And maybe not make off color jokes about being lynched on a page about people who were actually lynched and mutilated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, in the same post I mention just above, he accused other editors of having "ethnic-exclusive" "sentiments" [30]. That's an accusation of racism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal. It doesn't help ensure that, in an area of ethnic conflict, WP:NPOV is secured, however. What other contiguous groups are, think or do, is a matter of indifference to them. A racist is someone who aggressively abuses, attacks or smears the outgroup. I do not see established editors here doing the latter: to the contrary I see editors looking closely at whatever edit might be interpreted as reflecting poorly on one party, while showing a total insouciance to the history of the other side. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Someone who cares only for their own ethnicity is not a racist. Whatever. It's still a personal attack. Or did you mean it as a compliment as you spat it at people questioning why you keep changing what the sources say to push a certain POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that characterizing me as possible someone who spat your way verbally is rather violent in its imagery? Let me review why this kind of angry language is problematical.
    Plot Spoiler appears on pages I edit only to revert me, and disappear. No discussion. He believes there is a growing body of evidence I am editing Wikipedia to demonize Israel (translated that means, I edit in lots of information about the P in the I/P area, i.e. what happens in the West Bank and Gaza)
    You then jump in and an insult to injury.
    These are personal attacks, and, in context, suggest again that your repeating the idea that I am motivated by anti-Semitism explains a 'growing body of evidence' I am 'demonizing' Israel. Nothing there shows me using this strong personal attack on either your or Plot Spoiler's bona fides. So we have a problem, and that's why I am asking that independent experienced editors review this thesis, which hangs like a cloud over my editing because of this concocted nonsense that I am anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. I have several editors who seem to revert me on any page I edit. Perhaps they haven't read your screed, but the tenor of this collective behavior and the irrationality of the reverts suggests they think anything I do is politically or racially motivated. If I were anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, why on earth do I make these edits, to cite but a few casually over the past few months. E.g.(1); (2);(3);(4);(5);(6);(7);(8);(9);(10)? Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate Nishidani's WP:personal attacks against me by saying that I edit in an "ethnic exclusive" fashion[31]. It's laughable for Nishidani to say it's not a personal attack. S/he should strike it as an act of good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'Someone with an "ethnic-exclusive sentiment" is someone who cares only for his own, which is utterly human and absolutely normal.'(see above) If you have a range of edits introducing details of tragic incidents regarding Palestinians, I'd be illuminated to discover them. Most editors here edit from their personal interest in only one of the two parties. I find that wholly unreprehensible, because we are biologically wired that way. To the contrary, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto is contra-factual, however sublime the adage. No personal attack intended.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike your remarks as a matter of policy then. It is a personal attack. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You appeal to policy, which however you wish to be applied uniquely to my comment for its inferred meaning. You and NMMGG have both made explicit attacks on my bona fides. On this you are silent. Rules are neutral, and editors who ask that they be applied to everyone but themselves are not being credible. Review your remark, cited above. I'd be interested to know why you don't consider it a personal attack. And why you think I 'demonize' Israel?Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I just realized he later changed the wording. Apparently the other editors don't have a "capacity for pity and horror [that is] not ethnic-exclusive". He was trying to tell us we're normal, you see? He was telling other editors that if they edit differently, he will "convince himself" that they're not normal. This is a recurring theme. For example, here, he helpfully bolded the word "normal" possibly implying that his interlocutors are really really normal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, you can't even recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle. I've asked some questions, raised a query. Please address them. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. Apparently my ability to recognize an obvious allusion to Aristotle is as limited as my capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive (ie normal?). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The word 'capacity' is ill-chosen. It was you who said I lacked the capacity to feel shame (You should be ashamed of yourself, but you obviously lack the capacity). Saying it is normal, wired into man to look after his own, can't be twisted to imply I intend some (anti-Semitic) innuendo that man is incapable of pity or horror for others. Your attempt to be clever only shows you cannot read anything I write except as some tacit, occultated 'sophisticated, subtle' (your words) game to get at an ethnic group. Back to the point then, why is your denial that I have a capacity for shame not an unwarranted attack? (2) If I am a 'symptom' of an anti-Semitic malaise affecting not only Wikipedia, but the whole Western world, as you now assert, what does this imply for situations where we are obliged to collaborate on articles? Please focus. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Capacity" was me directly quoting you. Thanks for elucidating what exactly you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read carefully. I said you had a capacity, that was restrictive. You said I lacked the capacity to feel a fundamental moral sentiment. I allowed your humanity, you excluded mine. I don't take offense, except at the failure to make indispensable distinctions.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You said I lack a "capacity for pity and horror that's not ethnic-exclusive". I doubt that's a compliment or meant to affirm my humanity. I'm still waiting to hear what ethnicity you were thinking about when you made that statement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To tie all this back to the original complaint, perhaps Nishidani can tell us what ethnicity he was accusing other editors of being "ethnic-exclusive" towards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitism speech is a crime (at least in Europe). Unfairly accusing somebody of antisemitism and reporting this is therefore defaming. This behaviour is in contradiction with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and also a worst case of breach of WP:NPA. More, No More Mr Nice Guy was warned by the ArbCom but he keeps attacking Nishidani. The conditions for a good collaboration with NMMNG cannot be met in these circumstances. I suggest that all the comments are removed from his page and that he is blocked for a significant period of time (2 months) if he makes any single allusion to a potential antisemitism of any contributor of wikipedia again. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, absolutely no sanction. NMMGG has a fine eye for some things, that is productive and useful for Wikipedia. He noted, for example, two slips I made over two months, slips that were minor, but nonetheless distortions of the source (I plead haste, but I suspect in one edit, writing 'mostly' for 'several'(or whatever) does indeed look bad. I don't think this means that over 37,000 edits mostly from excellent sources, this kind of slip is indicative of an anti-Semite demonizing Israel.
    As to NMMGG, I asked for clarifications, and none are forthcoming. He has repeated his belief I am a 'symptom' of a malaise in Western civilization, elsewhere identified as anti-Semitism, and this clearly makes his interactions with me difficult. All I really want is an equable editing atmosphere, not personal hostility on the pages.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sensible solution is to allow NMMGG to retain his page of indictment of myself and Wikipedia (freedom of speech should be absolute). However, since the page does present his subjective contention about me as an anti-Semite as a fact, both his right to express his private views as a metacritique of Wikipedia, and my right to not be subject to an attack which implies I have a criminal outlook, evidenced in my editing, can be guaranteed, by attribution. All he need do, is present his evidence with some type of prefatory formula:'In my view, these edits suggest' an anti-Semitic attitude'. Underneath the evidence, simply link to my examination and answers to the accusations on my home page (User:Nishidani), and note I challenge his accusation. That done, all can feel justice is done, NMMGG in being allowed to retain a personal attack on me on that page, and my right to rebuff the charges. I make this suggestion after receiving a particularly lunatic death threat against my wife in an email, by one of the dozens of editors who have none of NMMGG's moderation and restraint, but, like him, are convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly not "convinced that anyone editing also to ensure that the P side of the I/P area is duly and proportionally represented per WP:NPOV must be, ipso facto an anti-Semitic demonizer of Israel". That's another personal attack on your part. I do think, among other things, that you (just you, not everyone) are a relentless POV pusher, who subtly changes what the sources say to advance a POV. Those "slips" you mention above do indeed look bad and can hardly be explained by "haste". Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso", or the many many many other such examples I could bring if anyone actually cared about the integrity of this encyclopedia.
    Anyway, could you kindly answer the question above? Which ethnicity were you talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If you want clarification of my varied remarks, which you appear to take invariably as adventitious personal ideas reflecting perhaps some obscure mindcast of mine, rather than allusions to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology, read any of the relevant literature on ethnicity, nationalism, outgroup/ingroup relations, beginning with Daniele Conversi,Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World, Psychology Press, 2004.p.76
    Until you respond to my initial evidence of your documented framing of me as an anti-Semite active on Wikipedia, I feel no obligation to respond to attempts side-step the issue, move the goal-posts, and make out that, in outlining my case, I am engaged in a series of personal attacks. I'm not interested in bickering, but in independent external, neutral editors reviewing that evidence and making some suggestions that might free our collaboration from the sullied image of both myself and Wikipedia which you have highlighted on that page.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You were not "allu[ding] to somewhat clichéd elements of sociology". You were telling other editors you doubt they have the capacity for pity or horror for people outside a certain ethnicity. An ethnicity you now wisely refuse to name. You need to "convert" so you can "convince yourself" they have such capacity, you said. So kindly cut the bullshit. I can't imagine anyone is buying this new line.
    I have not moved the goal posts. You claim I am making personal attacks against you. I am discussing the issue with an admin above, and will gladly discuss with any uninvolved editor and will accept any consensus on whether I should keep that page or not. While doing that, I have provided evidence that you engage in personal attacks as you complain about attacks against you. Your hands are not clean and I think it's quite legitimate for me to point that out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the original points, and trying to engage me in a fishing expedition to turn the focus from what you've done, use a wiki page to accuse an editor of anti-Semitism. I have no confidence in your ability to construe my words in any other sense than as evidence of racial animus. I am quite happy to respond to any neutral third party who desires any clarification (i.e. I'll reply to them if, any of your counterfactual assertions have sown some doubt in onlookers' minds, such as: "Just like in the examples you give above that are supposed to showcase your wonderful NPOV editing, an 18 year old Palestinian who stabs people is called a "boy" (not in the source) or an Israeli who is stabbed in the stomach (in the source) turns into "lightly wounded in the torso" .") It is pointless discussing this with you, since, as you state on that page I am an anti-Semite, anything I do say in this context will be read as evidence of that hypothesis. In hermeneutics or science, that is a circular method that leads nowhere. So kindly stop the bickering, and allow others to air their impressions or views. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To sum this query up for the benefit of neutral editors, how am I to establish an equable, collegial working relationship with an editor who uses Wikipedia to assert that I am an anti-Semite? It is as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that assertion is totally unacceptable. At minimum, that part of the page should be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Simpler still. Is this page User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Antisemitism and Wikipedia, in attributing to a fellow editor the crime/pathological mindset of anti-Semitism, since the 'evidence' consist of diffs from my editing history, compatible with Wikipedia's principles of WP:AGF? A note on the kind of 'evidence' gathering, and its defects, being used to confirm NMMGG's suspicion can be found here. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankfurt School Article and right wing brigading

    Hi, I've been embroiled in the lengthy process of Welcoming and then explaining Wikipedia policies to a new user on the Frankfurt School page. The user goes by the handle Second Dark and consistently ignored policy suggestions related to their changes to the page. After which they went on to WP:CANVAS conservative right leaning areas within Wikipedia and possibly outside as well (note: I'm not attempting to WP:OUT anyone, and the external link which can be found on the Talk:Frankfurt_School page remains anonymous as to any user's identity). Since then I've noticed within the edit history of the Frankfurt School page a series of users who seem to have been making disruptive edits across Wikipedia, inserting the term "Cultural Marxist" into biographic pages (although no WP:BLP pages) and trying to insert ideas like that Einstein didn't come up with Special Relativity. These users seem to consistently lack a user page, some also lack a talk page, some have a very short edit history, or seem to consistently be involved in contentious claims. Anyways, I was wondering what could be done about all this, is there a page protection setting that can stop this sort of interference? At what point is a SOCK investigation in order? I'm not that familiar with the higher level controls on wikipedia, so am seeking others who can help (the users there are doing a good job of protecting the page, but it seems like quite the level of vigilance is becoming required, and like the problem might stem across multiple pages). Thank you for your time. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference this was the recent ANI on Cultural Marxism that resulted in a close where admins were free to apply range blocks. For convenience: The two ranges are 172.56.xxx.xxx and 208.xx.xx.xx and are considered open proxies. SPI would be useless when dealing with such a large pool of dynamic IPs. Perhaps a CheckUser, such as @DoRD:, @Alison:, @Yunshui: or @Bbb23: could comment. I think page protection would depend on the number of pages involved. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if an edit filter might help here. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat in Alfred W. McCoy

    Alfred W. McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm not sure if this should be mentioned here or in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

    On February 5, User:Memccoy44 removed material from the article with the following in the edit summary: "Deleted libelous text to avoid possible litigation"(diff). A few minutes later, additional material was removed: "Libelous and inaccurate content deleted to avoid litigation."(diff) Today, User:96.41.231.196 removed the material again with the following explanation: "Section headed 'Hmong Controversy' contains allegations and undocumented assertions that I regard as libellous. I have deleted this section in the past, and it has reappeared. Please do not let this sectoin reappear. (Signed) Alfred W. McCoy, the subject."(diff)

    I reinserted the material as it is cited and appears only to be critical of the subject, but not libelous. Given that this is a BLP, I believe a second opinion regarding the editor's concerns — as well as the possibility of an implied threat — is warranted. Thanks! - Location (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have only just quickly looked at the article, and it appears this edit has the questioned text. A glance at that shows it is the usual kind of gumph that gets added to articles by an opponent of the topic—someone does not like what the author wrote, and the result is undue silliness posed as fact. I have put a comment on the user's page hoping to engage with them and guide them through the maze of dealing with Wikipedia (per WP:DOLT). My quick inclination would be to delete the "Controversy & Hmong Demonstrations, Opposition to Writings on CIA in Laos" section as WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I've responded on the article's talk page. - Location (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editing by IP 198.147.202.124

    USER BLOCKED
    IP user blocked for 2 weeks for Disruptive editing by Abecedare. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    198.147.202.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making inaccurate and/or incomplete stats updates on New York Yankees player pages for a while now. I have addressed this is on his talk page four times [32], [33], [34] and [35], but the disruption has continued. Examples:

    • After my final request for the user to update all of the stats, the user made these incomplete updates (in some cases, he also introduced data that was incorrect): [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Keep in mind that these are only the ones that happened after the final request to stop. The user has also changed a couple of statyear fields to read '2015 season', even though I explained that this was not supposed to be done until after this current season ends.

    I have gotten tired of repeatedly having to fix the articles this IP has messed up. Having been unable to even get a response to my requests on the IP's talk page, I am bringing this here for admin intervention. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree the block is due. The IP does not respond in talk page, adds unreasonable texts, even blanks pages, i.e., IMO basically disrupts wikipedia . -M.Altenmann >t 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been here for a full day and not one admin has commented. Could someone at least look at this situation? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for two weeks and left a note. Surprised that just one editor appears to be using what is listed as an library IP address. Abecedare (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    QuackGuru and Electronic cigarette

    CLOSED
    Adjwilley imposed a 0RR restriction on QuackGuru on the Acupuncture article and also a 1RR restriction on pages related to Alternative medicine. The filing OP said it addressed his concerns and sufficed a close. (non-admin closure) Atsme📞📧 00:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone uninvolved rein him in, please. Doesn't need to be very heavy-handed.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I disagree about not being heavy-handed. This editor has a massive history of being one of the most unpleasant, disruptive editors on WP and needs more than just reigning in.DrChrissy (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not involve yourself here DrChrissy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice - it is noted.DrChrissy (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this article subject to community general sanctions? That isn't ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but very similar. Maybe the admins at arbitration enforcement could look at this. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is, and they should be invoked if appropriate. BMK (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I don't recall having many direct contacts with Quack Guru over the years, just a few here and there, bit I will give my impression of him for anyone who intends to set out to "rein him in": QG will not be affected by threats, cajolery, persuasion, sympathetic warnings, discussion, debate, anger or humor. In my opinion, the only possible way to control QG is by blocking him or banning him from a topic -- and I say this as someone who is on the same philosophical "side" as QG. If you're going to try to "rein him in", half-measures will not work.
    Anyway, that's my take on the matter. BMK (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I have to agree. Anything short of a clue-by-four wielded by an orangutan is unlikely to work. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He brings excellent sources forwards. Thus the majority of their work is positive.
    What specific issue are you having User:S Marshall? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ever review the ArbCom case request listed below? Sticking to sourcing guidelines when its convenient and not when it isn't whilst violating many other policies and guidelines as demonstrated in the ArbCom case request is completely unnaceptable. Going by the last few sections of the e-cigarette talk page there are several editors that think that WP:OWNERSHIP should be added to the list.Levelledout (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree with the above posters, in particular BMK. Unfortunately, in QuackGuru's case he has had chance after chance to improve his conduct over the years and shows absolutely no signs of doing so aside from the odd meaningless symbolic gesture. There was an ArbCom case on him filed by me only last month. He got off on the fact that e-cigarette sanctions had only just been introduced and they needed to be given more time to work. There was advice given from arbitrators such as "I would strongly advise him to take on board the opinions expressed here and moderate his behaviour". Has he done that? Evidentally not.Levelledout (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One that calls for someone uninvolved, I'm afraid, User:Doc James. That person will certainly not want to act without reading my recent contribution history and Talk:Electronic cigarette, and if they do read those pages they won't have any trouble grasping the problem. It doesn't need a big drama, there's no need for everyone who dislikes QuackGuru to pile on, it just needs a gentle caress with the clue feather.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have come to ANI without providing any links to evidence. But as you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See User_talk:Adjwilley#QuackGuru_2. -A1candidate 22:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's May 21st and those diffs don't seem to concern this ANI. You getting canvassed here and then coming here does concern this ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If QuackGuru's fan club would please consider starting their own threads about their own complaints, I'd be very grateful. I'm looking for a targeted, focused intervention on one specific issue.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And which issue is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I started this, anyone who did enough investigation to close this discussion could quite plainly see the problem. But there have now been quite a few irrelevant diffs in this discussion pertaining to other complaints that editors have about QG, so I'll have to lead the horse to water. I was trying to avoid this, because it will probably lead to one of QG's characteristic wall-of-irrelevant-text responses.

          The concern is about controlling behaviour from QuackGuru. Editors were discussing a particular section, and QG offered to make some changes. I told him not to and explained why, and he then made the edit anyway with this justification. Editors protested that the edit should not have been made. I restored the stable wording pending discussion and warned QG not to change that section again until consensus was reached. Then, in this article that's fraught and subject to discretionary sanctions, QG's next edit was to restore his preferred wording with this justification. Note the copyvio allegation used as a pretext. This allegation should in the circumstances have been made on the talk page and not, in the circumstances, by directly editing the article.

          QG needs telling to respect the discussion process and wait for other editors to reach agreement when dealing with fraught areas. That's all.—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • I have followed up on the copyright issues. This Indian journal article [50] has copied and pasted from our article from Feb 1, 2013. Without attribution. I have informed the journal in question. Agree that QG was mistaken and should be more careful going forwards..
          • Looking at your revert here you removed a number of formating improvement such as the adding of citation templates, restored uncited text, and restored this poor quality ref which is basically commercial spam. Reverted positive edits for procedural reasons is not typically good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a pity you chose to do and say this when I specifically requested action from someone uninvolved. You should have recused.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not taking admin action against either of you. The closing admin can take my comments as they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing is to protect WP from BLP violations or from WP:FRINGE views, but another thing altogether is to become an advocate, abuse process, or make life miserable for all other editors. QuackGuru may benefit from taking a look at the recent Collect case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others) who had a similar MO in different subject matter, and see how that ended up. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the context of the heated discussion in talk, I think this edit was highly unwise. QG should know by now that WP:BOLD has to take a back seat to WP:CON in situations where there are ongoing discussions on a disputed topic. QG is well meaning but needs a long break from this area. There was a previous topic ban in 2011 I believe and something similar seems to fit the bill here. --John (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of all the diffs for you to try to hang QG with, John, why this one? Four paragraphs for the lead is pretty standard for medical articles. The article looks like it had 4 paragraphs in the lead going in, here it is with 4 mid-April, here it is mid-March. Without any previous discussion about doing so on the article Talk page, CorporateM cut the lead down from four paragraphs to three here. QG restored the previous four-paragraph format. Also QG went to the Talk page and explained his concerns over CM's recent cutting of the lead here. Nobody objected to the concerns QG raised. The diff you provided was from 10 days ago; as of right now the lead still has the four paragraphs, so it doesn't appear there was a problem with QG doing that. So what behavior problem of QG's are we supposed to see in that edit? Zad68 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not trying to hang QG, I am trying to prevent him continuing to disrupt our articles. An easy clue for you (and apologies if this seems patronising, but you seem to have commented without properly examining the diff). Did QG merely restore the lead there, or were there other, fairly major changes as well? Would you have made this edit, given the context? You're right that there are many other problematic diffs from this user though. --John (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes four paragraphs is standard especially for an article of this length. CorporateM made a mass of edits [51] QG made a mass of edits. If only people cared about conditions that kill millions to this degree. And than have a dozen other people made masses of edits since.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is IMO quite simple: QuackGuru behaves like a bull in a china shop. He always has. The reason he has escaped sanction to date is largely that the edits he makes are generally in line with policy, and in articles that desperately need reality-based editors - a pro-SCAM editor who behaved the same way would have been shown the door a long time ago. QG is very energetic, passionate and committed, and virtually all SCAM articles are under siege by SCAM proponents seeking to rewrite our almost universally reality-based treatment of their practices. Upholding WP:NPOV in SCAM articles is a recipe for burnout since we have long term civil POV-pushers, a constant flood of new partisans, and relentless off-wiki solicitation. If we sanction QG broadly then we will need more people active on these articles.
    E-cigs are unusual in that they have attracted a cult-like following who will viciously attack anyone who is anything less than uncritical; it may be correct that they are harmless, but it also may not, the science is very definitely not in, and any attempt to accurately portray the equivocal nature of the current evidence is seen as heretical by the vapers - not just here, everywhere on the internet. The community of vapers is not the same as the community of SCAM advocates, but there is a significant crossover between science-based critics of vaping and science-based critics of SCAM. This appears to include QG.
    Since e-cigs are a subject area with a lot of eyes, I actually don't think there would be any net loss in separating QuackGuru from this article, and there may well be a net gain in that the debates would be shorter and easier to assess. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We could always fully protect the article again to force people to get consensus before changes are made. But I am not sure if it is at that stage yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who was it that was so desperate to get full page protection removed the last time we had it? Who in fact put in a successful request for the removal of protection and then instantly dumped a ridiculous amount of material into the article? When the page was consequently re-protected, who then immediately demanded that page protection was removed again and once it was, did exactly the same thing again? QG is the answer to all of those questions of course. For the evidence, see this. We don't need to protect the article at the moment if QG can be topic banned, it's his actions that are causing most of the disruption.Levelledout (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only Doc James who thinks the article should be protected. So far, every other participant in this discussion has been able to see that the problem is with an editor, not with the article, and the solution should be at an editor level rather than an article level. I'm afraid Doc James is here to protect his friend and his interventions should be read in that light.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No I agree the article should be full-protected too, which is an idea that neither Doc nor I but Serialjoepsycho floated. I don't agree the problems there can all be laid at the feet of just one editor. Serialjoe also pointed out some canvassing going on, and CorporateM made a public notice on the article Talk page that he's gotten stealth e-mail canvassing asking him to make edits promoting several, opposing viewpoints. Several editors at the article have plainly visible direct or indirect COIs, one editor there recently was recently congratulated on-Wiki for taking a professional position promoting e-cigs, and another had made a declaration they write for e-cig enthusiast 'zine or blog, can't remember who's associated what at this point, but surely you won't deny those, right? S Marshall you're trying to diminish the weight of Doc's comments but one would then just as quickly have to diminish your comments as those of an editor trying to eliminate an enemy. Yes QG has made mistakes, but there are plenty of issues to go around several editors, the indef full-protection idea is a good one. Zad68 22:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying me when you are claming that i have a "professional position promoting e-cigs"? In that case you would be 100% on the wrong track, but with regards to profession and with regards to promotion. DADAFO is a consumer protection organization - and the position is entirely unpaid.as disclosed on my userpage. --Kim D. Petersen 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely I'm trying to diminish the weight of Doc's comments: he's coming to the rescue of his medcabal buddy, and it's reasonable to point that out. And no, I'm absolutely not trying to "eliminate" an enemy. I began this discussion with a request not to be too heavy-handed, and I've repeated it several times since. It's true that there's been canvassing during this discussion, which I think relates to editors who've clashed with QG at Acupuncture (an article with which I'm completely uninvolved). I deplore this. I'm on the same side of the debate as a number of shills and COI editors, which looks good on their CVs but isn't as wonderful on mine. But the fact that these editors agree with me doesn't make me wrong, Zad68. It's extremely hard to edit an article that QG is involved with and that problem is specific and personal to him.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • S Marshall... "medcabal buddy"? Heh... sure, let's conjugate:
    I edit within WP:CONSENSUS and have a solid understanding of content policy and guideline, as do several other editors I find myself editing along-side, and whom I happen to respect;
    You are active in a disreputable WikiProject and can call up a distressing number of blind supports by dropping a note on the Talk page there;
    They are the ring-leader in a disruptive meat-puppet tag-team WP:CABAL (and probably have sock farm)
    OK back to the original point, that problem is specific and personal to him -- I don't think you're showing that here, if you take into account the circumstances of the makeup of the population of editors there, as I mentioned. Zad68 23:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it your position that QG is a collaborative editor who edits in a respectful and co-operative way?—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zad68: I wasn't promoting Page Protection. I'm not sure page protection would be useful here at this point as it seems it may prolong this. I suggested perhaps that we could do a targeted version of page protection based off WP:GS/ECIG. I agreed with the suggestion that limiting major changes to those with a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work and I'm sure the majority of (the few left over) editors wouldn't mind as they've mostly worked that way anyways.--TMCk (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for the precise reason that JzG just gave. There is a continuing discussion and we don't need disruptive editors. Shii (tock) 09:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GS/ECIG Is interestingly written. I wonder if perhaps a single editor could be banned from making any changes to that article without first receiving a consensus on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there may be scope within that to essentially mandate talk page consensus before any significant change, without having to protect the article. It's a mature article by now and sweeping changes should not be necessary. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that may be within the scope.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe not only is that within the scope but it is the intent of the sanctions that it is within the scope to prevent this sort of behaviour that has led to e-cigarettes being a battleground. SPACKlick (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's within scope. I don't think it's likely to work in this particular case, because it lacks a rigorous definition of "consensus", and QG will be much readier to perceive a consensus in favour of his preferred wording than one against it. But the nature of Wikipedia is to give second chances, or in this case eighth or ninth chances depending on how you view QG's record, so I suggest we try it and expect to come back here when it fails.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: user:Adjwilley tried to advise QG after the last clash here (#Something needs to change) and later here (#The dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom) on their talk page. That didn't help as we can see.--TMCk (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In the "Something needs to change" link you provided, QuackGuru stated "I agree to focus on content and not comment on the motives of others at the talk page". I think this post was very unwise, particularly in consideration of the aforementioned commitment.Levelledout (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef full-protection of article per my comments above, this is not a single-editor issue, if editors don't like the pace of development there, requiring thorough discussion and consensus-building on the Talk page first is sensible. Zad68 22:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zad68: Which editors? Please provide names and diffs. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: Which editors? Please provide names and diffs. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While User:S Marshall generally does good work I have concerns with him personalizing the discussion above as pointed out. This dif also causes me concern [52]. They reverted a number of positive changes.
    That they opened this thread without providing any diffs is also a little unusual.
    All editors including QG would probably do well to slow down their editing and discuss more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So Marshall reverted after QG's fast paced and undiscussed mass editing which ignored Adjwilley advise and QG's own promise to change their editing behaviour; And of course this is the very reason it was brought here, with uninvolved editors having no problem finding misconduct w/o the need for diffs. But for you diffs shouldn't matter anyways b/c as you pointed out further above, "He brings excellent sources forwards. Thus the majority of their work is positive." So any misconduct can be excused b/c as long as the source-finding is fine, the five pillars don't apply (is there some smallprint disclaimer I've missed?).
    Anyhow, you pointed the finger at one single editor and still are talking about "all editors" (which would include myself) "would probably do well to slow down their editing and discuss more." WOW, I didn't notice my fast paced editing of the article, but I can see it now b/c it was even too fast for the software to catch it according to the history, doh! Some "parental" advise re. your "parental" protection: If QG doesn't get some serious slap soon, they'll end up like Collect in the long run. I really don't care much either way but since you do, you should think about it.--TMCk (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommending that people discuss more is not pointing fingers. Saying that there are "issues with a number of editors" is not saying that their are issues with all. This topic has been exceedingly controversial for a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're generalizing and now you're elusive. Suit yourself.--TMCk (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I have previously stated, @QuackGuru:'s revert of my changes to the Lead of the acupuncture article were part of a routine BRD cycle and not an indication of disruptive editing. @Doc James: provided a neutral description of the circumstance. We both made a bunch of edits, we both revert each other from time to time, then we discuss it. I have no "clash" with this editor, or anyone else on the page for that matter. No comment on the rest. CorporateM (Talk) 23:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Full protection of the article would appear to be a distraction from the issues surrounding QuackGuru. Even if the article was fully protected, as it has been fairly recently, it would still not resolve issues that QG is known to participate in on a regular basis such as filibustering, failing to understand concepts and still not WP:LISTENING, personal attacks and incivility. Once again see the ArbCom case request for evidence of all of those. I am not opposed to full protection of the article when necessary, but Doc James himself said that he was not sure that this was necessary only yesterday. Why the change of position?Levelledout (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have been looking at the editing more closely. The evidence around this topic changes slowly. These changes can be added as consensus forms on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose full protection If multiple users are being disruptive at the page I would rather see short and if needed escalating blocks against those users than locking down the page. We are here first to write an encyclopedia and full protection is a last resort, better to deal with those forcing the situation. Chillum 14:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for General sanctions on the Electronic cigarettes article

    • Proposal for General sanctions All editors are barred from making any Major or controversial changes to existing content without first receiving a clear consensus. New content that does not change existing content will follow the principles outlined in WP:BRD. Meaning that in the event of a revert it is necessary to achieve a consensus before the material can be placed back in the article. (Addendum) Multiple unrelated edits should only be added individually (Excluding minor edits and edits of an uncontroversial nature, such as general cleanup and minor grammar fixes.)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as unnecessarily drastic and more than I asked for. This is a disproportionate response, and it's inappropriately aimed at the e-cig article rather than the editor who's actually causing the problem. The article is already under general sanctions and has already spent long periods under full protection, which protection at the time I supported, but things have moved on and we now only have one misbehaving editor active on the page. Appropriate and proportionate responses might be (a) the quiet word with QuackGuru that I originally requested (first choice), or (b) an editing restriction along the lines that Serialjoepsycho recommends but directed at QuackGuru specifically (second choice).—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting the battleground behavior such as [53] I'm not myself convinced.I'm also considering the overall history of the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Serialjoepsycho's proposal per my comment further up at 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC).--TMCk (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      + propose to add to the proposal that unrelated edits should not be packed into one big lump.--TMCk (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might not be a bad idea to also set a limit on the number of edits (outside grammer) each editor can make to the page per day. This will allow people to keep up. And changes will not quickly get buried. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure about that. Looking at the page history it doesn't seem like any interested party should have an issue keeping up. Perhaps we should note the importance of clear edit summary?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: QG just filed a request for page protection of e-cigs. There you got a nice example of disruption.--TMCk (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they wish to request full protection, in some ways I can see them agreeing to the above proposal, which will, for now at least, hopefully calm things down. I'm fairly sure that, even at this stage, coming down heavy-handed is unlikely to change them in the long run, the only thing that will is discussion. We can ban everyone in the world for being overly strong at times - however, if we can't resolve the underlying issue, then what is the point of the whole exercise? Mdann52 (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a Tag doesn't really seem all to controversial. The complaints here seem to be centered around E-Cig's and not acupuncture. It doesn't seem like the discussion of a topic ban on acupuncture has came up, though I may have missed it. Weren't you canvassed here in the first place?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was not canvassed here. AN/I has been on my watchlist all the time. I participate in related discussions regularly in many related and unrelated topics here. Your repeated accusations need to stop. -A1candidate 08:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [61]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that looks to be before the first comment here. Did you forget that the message had been left for you? Had you not seen it before now? Because if you were aware of it at the time of your comment, it isn't exactly a good look for a point blank denial of any canvassing. If you had already seen this thread and hadn't yet got around to commenting when you noticed the comment on your talk page, that's fine but you should have said that rather than point blank denied any canvassing. If you hadn't seen this thread when you noticed the comment on your talk page but believe that you would have seen it and would have commented, that's fine too but again you should have said that. If you only commented here after you noticed the comment on your talk page (but noticed it before your denial above) again that's fine but you should have said that too. In fact, even if you were canvassed and may not have came here were it not for the canvassing, since you weren't the one doing the canvassing, it's not your fault, but you should have mentioned that in your first comment here. (In fact, under normal circumstances I'd be reluctant to complain about a message or two left on the user page of one or two editors who have experience with problems with an editor so that they can offer feedback. But the history here suggests it's problematic and in any case as I emphasised if someone does query it a proper explaination will help no end rather than a point blank denial.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we've all been getting our opinions out and waving them around, QG thought it might be a good idea to continue editing the article without discussing any of his edits on the talk page. I've asked him to desist for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the overall organization of often inherent at ANI may be the issue here. I sectioned off my proposal. Perhaps sectioning off other specific sections may help?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This diff is sufficient to address my concerns. Although electronic cigarette is not covered under the restriction, it does constitute the warning shot across QG's bows that I wanted to achieve and from my perspective as the person who started this thread, I'm happy to consider the matter closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A1candidate

    RESOLVED
    Adjwilley changed the status quo to 0RR revert restriction for Acupuncture article and 1RR restriction at other pages related to Alternative medicine for A1candidate. (non-admin closure) Atsme📞📧 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – 0RR for acupuncture, 1RR for alt-med imposed by Adjwilley

    (Note for context: this thread was started in response to comments made above, section "QuackGuru and Electronic cigarette".--TMCk (talk))

    Am I the only one becoming weary of A1candidate's hysterical over-reaction to quite trivial things, and attempts to abuse process to silence opponents? Guy (Help!) 09:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know. Let me think on that. No.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're not. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Now that it's confirmed Guy is not alone, what to do? Given that most of his disruption relates to topics under discretionary sanctions such as e-cigs, alt med, etc. it may be worth trying for some relief at WP:AE. The simplest thing would be for an uninvolved admin with the cojones (or ovaries, as the case may be) to come in and lay down the law but none have stepped in so far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Boris, please can you leave more informative and neutral edit summaries. The last one seemed rather inflammatory and combative.DrChrissy (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [62] doesn't seem that inflammatory. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is odd [63].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So someone just restored that comment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Short Brigade Harvester Boris I don't know with this already open. Perhaps this could be moved to a section of it's own here where it could be more discussed independently of Quack Guru?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier today I apologized to DrChrissy with regard to the edit summary. It was my weird sense of humor gone astray. If people want to keep arguing over it that's fine; it's a (U.S.) holiday weekend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I am drawing your attention to Help:Edit summary#What to avoid in edit summaries which states "Avoid misleading summaries."DrChrissy (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DrChrissy, please take some time for reflexion on how you interact with people on the site. You complained above about that edit summary, and Boris apologized to you on your page yesterday — apologized nicely, graciously. The apology remains the last post on your page, because you still haven't replied to it. Instead you complain here again, wrapped up in 'advice' about edit summaries (linking to one of the less relevant parts of the help page, btw). You have your mouth full of complaints about "civility" always, but do you have any concept of what it means? It really doesn't look like it. Coming soon after the community has commented amply here on the matter of dropping sticks, too. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen Actually, I think it is you who should look at your behaviour. Boris made a mistake, I civily pointed this out and he civily apologised. Boris made a similar mistake and I civily pointed it out again. Why do you feel the need to get involved and raise issues which do not involve you? Is this a form of harrassment? Anyway, I suggest you take your own advice and begin dropping sticks as I have done.DrChrissy (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an Administrator's Noticeboard, the function of which is for admins to comment on issues that are brought here. Where issues concern user conduct, that involves admins commenting on that conduct. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @User_talk:Black Kite thank you for that clarification. Would you please consider hatting this little sub-thread, It is really not relevant to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly request that this not be hatted. When I make a mistake I want it to be clearly visible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Short Brigade Harvester Boris: I actually posted where A1candidate had reverted DrChrissy's comments. I have no issue with DrChrissy comments. After they were restored I commented thinking they were new. The above message was in regards to your position that it be taken to AE. Have a happy holiday.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, no, you are not alone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiresome would be an understatement. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 08:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Some examples:

    A1candidate's core problem is a common one in SCAM: any finding that supports any part of a SCAM practice, is taken as validating the SCAM practice as a whole. It may be, for example, that needling specific points may result in release of adenosine. This is of no relevance at all to the refuted doctrines of qi and meridians on which most practice is based, does not validate acupoints (or by extension acupressure) since extensive research has shown that acupoints are irrelevant, and so on. It also doesn't address the fact that several studies have shown no objective difference between real and sham acupuncture, including when the needle is inserted into a dummy rubber hand. The placebo effect is difficult to unpick in the case of a dramatic intervention. It took a long time to work out that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (a surgery on the knee) is actually a placebo intervention.

    A1candidate is the second most prolix current editor of Talk:Acupuncture and the second most active current editor of Acupuncture. In both cases QuackGuru scores higher. There is a problem here and it is making the article impossible to manage. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The most recent example is fairly illustrative. He added a section to acupuncture, where he listed a series of organizations that had guidelines that "suggested the use of acupuncture for some groups of patients". When I dug through the listing, I discovered that, "some groups of patients" may be literally true, but highly misleading. The American College of Physicians, for example, describes its recommendation as "weak" and only makes it for patients that have not been successfully treated by any other techniques: a Hail Mary pass. When I started to go through the guidelines and insert the qualifiers (including such things as noting that the American College of Chest Physicians, in its study of lung cancer patients, countenanced its use not for the lung cancer, but for chemotherapy-induced nausea, and then only in conjunction with other anti-nausea treatments). A1candidate's response to my editing was to immediately go to John and Adjwilley requesting that the article be "immediately protected to keep Kww from starting another edit war". When that gambit failed, he started an RFC wherein he claimed that including the qualifiers "places undue weight on the fact that these recommendations are far from strong". Hard to imagine what would be undue about it, and it's interesting to note that not even the normal group of acupuncture supporters are lining up behind him on this one. His goal would seem to be to provide an exaggerated sense of legitimacy about acupuncture.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see from the above Resolved note that this did not go so well for him. Let's see how that restriction works out. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ivettealexandra COI and multiple copyvios

    User Ivettealexandra has stated that she is a record label executive, writing on commons, "I work for Provident Label Group/Sony Music Group." She continues to add unsourced and poorly sourced content. Was asked to stop. Today, editor has added copyrighted images to commons: at least 6 of 11 I have seen so far are clear copyright violations, while several others have embedded copyrights that show they belong to others. I have another handful to review and have thrown my hands up in frustration. the files were all uploaded to commons, but to be linked here. They could all probably be accepted if they have OTRS, but the editor's behaviour is unacceptable. She was warned on 18 May 2015 about a copyright violation exactly like this but continued. COI warning also added on 18 May. Created several articles for her label's bands.

    The editor has not discussed warnings and requests to improve. I usually don't mind COI, but this is simply promotional and could get at least one project sued. I will let admins determine if we need "help" like this or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like if she's adding copyrighted material to the commons then you should take that matter to the commons. You say she has a COI, perhaps you could provide evidence?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All have been nominated there. It's the fact that she's using commons as a cover for adding the material here that's a problem. The lack of discussion is also a problem. COI is also a problem. I would provide evidence but the three files she uploaded to commons where she stated "I work for Provident Label Group/Sony Music Group" have been deleted. Need a commons admin to show deleted history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to COI: All of the editor's edits have been to musicians on the same record label: Provident Label Group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's a COI but you have no evidence for it? There's theme starting to occur. Here you say they are a sock and you don't provide any evidence. Perhaps an Admin can do something in the way of getting this evidence for you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Meant SPA not SPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, A SPA? Seems to be to much of a new user to be considered a SPA.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a SPA. Not too new, admitted that she worked for the record label and that all edits have been to articles associated with the record label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not too new? LOL Yes they've been here for more than one day. But their first edit was May 15 and it is just May 22. They are still new. Again there's this whole lack of evidence that they are involved in any COI. You've not provided any evidence here, actually.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have: a statement written by the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Serialjoepsycho: from reading this thread it appears that Walter Görlitz has made it clear that there is evidence, however he no longer has access to it as the files have been deleted on Commons. Despite your repeated demands, he can't produce something that he cannot access. Walter Görlitz, perhaps you can ask a Commons admin to confirm that Ivettealexandra stated she works for Provident Label Group/Sony Music Group in the now deleted files? If they can confirm then perhaps WP:COIN would be a better venue for discussion if direct discussion with the editor is going nowhere.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not often at commons. Any idea how to make such a request? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons:Administrator Noticeboard perhaps.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Google is your friend: two files with a statement "I work for Provident Label Group/Sony Music Group" are still indexed. File talk:1 Girl Nation.jpg and File talk:I Am They.jpg. Anyhow, all these releases do need OTRS tickets at Commons and the files should not be used over here as long as the copyright status has not been confirmed. De728631 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese IPs at Barbra Streisand

    CLOSED
    Article semi-protected for 2 weeks by Ritchie333. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We can use some more eyes at the Barbra Streisand biography. A series of IPs from China is involved in edit-warring there. The recent spate is over the addition of about 5kb to the Legacy section. The IPs involved are:

    Collectively, the IPs have broken 3RR by reverting 6 times in the last 12 hours. Can we get some article protection, some IP blocks, and maybe a rangeblock or two?

    In the past, the IPs have added copyright violations, and in general have added trivial information, poorly written and poorly integrated. The following IPs from China were causing problems in the past few months.

    The first thing is to protect the article. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Every thing they added have relible source or link(Today USA,AFI,Grammy,Elle offical site),and it's obviously not trivial information, poorly written and poorly integrated things in Today USA or AFI ,Grammy offical site,Rigut? Every other artist's legcy setion will include their influence.Binksternet can also edit it,but he remove all? Maybe they attempt to overshade Barbra's legcy?how dare someone say somthingh come from Today USA,AFI,Grammy,Elle offical site is trivial information, poorly written and poorly integrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:250:3000:5C21:4507:1F1F:814D:EA91 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like more than a little puffery [65]. But then I don't want to be labeled a Barbara hater.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have semi-protected the article for two weeks (as Bushranger used to say, WP:RFPP is thataway....) - that should hopefully keep the edit warring at bay for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Human3015 and CosmicEmperor

    This complaint concerns the conduct of two highly problematic users in the India-Pakistan topic area, one in particular Human3015, and more recently, CosmicEmperor. In a ANI thread from yesterday, I filed a request for a review of around two-dozen long-standing redirects related to the Kashmir conflict which were incorrectly nominated for speedy deletion by Human3015. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, the redirects were valid and not offensive (although they certainly appeared to hurt the political sensitivities of the mentioned editors, which is not a criteria for deletion). The redirects were initially deleted by an admin under WP:AGF but the deletions were contested, and later overturned by admin GB fan (see that ANI thread for more details). In what seems to be an example of tendentious editing, WP:POINT and knee-jerk tit-for-tat editing, Human3015 created the following WP:OR redirects which violate WP:RFD#D3 (offensive or abusive), WP:RFD#D5 (nonsensical and misleading), WP:RFD#D8 (obscure). They also do not fit WP:RNEUTRAL, which requires redirects to be established terms as opposed to random phrases pulled together that are neither search terms nor useful. It also violates WP:SOAP, and WP:WTA (words to avoid). In particular, I'd like to draw attention to the following redirects created by Human3015:

    I'd like administrators to take a look and see if the above redirects are valid and meet WP:REDIRECT guidelines. After the deletion of these redirects was rejected, Human3015's buddy came into action and began reverting the CSD templates back in after the ANI discussion had been resolved (he obviously did not read it). Human3015 and CosmicEmperor have resorted to bullying and name-calling tactics, [66], personal attacks and ad hominem harrassment [67], posting extreme political comments and labeling as "terrorists" (these are only recent diffs; I have innumerable other links). They've also nominated the redirect Butcher of Gujarat for RfD here despite the fact that it was closed as keep only 5 months ago. CosmicEmperor is openly canvassing editors to vote through private emails at that RFD and, along with Human3015, is posting personal comments targeting TopGun and I.

    Hounding

    I would also like to bring attention to consistent stalking, harassment and WP:HOUNDING by Human3015 in articles I've recently edited. I have been followed to the following articles, which Human3015 never edited prior to my edits there (refer to page histories). Several of these articles ended up as the subject of content disputes and edit wars initiated by Human3015:

    These are just some articles. I hope some third party editors can take a look at the above diffs. As an editor, it is really frustrating and demotivating to have another user constantly following you everywhere, opening up disputes (constant refusal to discuss) and continuing edit wars. This is in addition to having to put up with their uncivil remarks and personal attacks (I have a received a truckload of such comments, but will choose not to waste my time digging all of those up). I would really like the community to consider how the activities of such editors can be allowed unabated, who are making Wikipedia their political playground, and imposing their nationalist narratives on others. My good faith regarding their conduct is at a minimal, and let me also add that I have been long enough here to learn that such editors usually always end up getting indeffed if they don't change their attitude. I am also trying very hard to find a convincing reason why Human3015 should not be blocked in light of this recent pattern of vicious and tendentious editing. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Kautilya3

    As a reasonably experienced Wikipedian, I take it upon myself to induct new editors when I run into them, showing them tips, and advising them about troublesome issues. Human3015 is one such new editor. His main interest seems to be Indo-Pakistan relations and conflicts, which is of course a minefield. I have seen him edit constructively in topics like Kashmir conflict as well as battle incessantly on other pages. I have also seen him improve his editing behaviour over time. I can see why Mar4d feels that he is being hounded. Whether it is genuine hounding or not, I can't say. But also think Mar4d should welcome another keenly interested editor challenging him in areas which are often subject to disputes. Certain amount of WP:POINT exists on both the sides. It is natural for every one involved in these disputes to feel, if X is acceptable, then why not Y? For example, X might be "Butcher of Gujarat" and Y might be "Mumbai terror attack mastermind". These issues have to be decided through the normal procedures. I don't believe there is a general conduct issue because I see Human3015 taking advice and improving himself. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Human 3015

    • Well I don't think that it is even significant here. I'm first time commenting on ANI so if some mistakes happens please understand it.
    • Mar4d has 9000+ pages, redirect created.[68], we can't even check them all. Still I will show you very few.
    • Butcher of Gujarat Creating attack page on living person who is Prime Minister of country like India and no charge on him is proved. (But this guy Mar4d consider United Nation's designated terrorist Hafeez Saeed as innocent man when charges on him proved in Indian and US courts. Also see in talk page of Mumbai terror attack mastermind that it is most common term used for him.)
    • Persecution of Muslims in India: He can create such redirect on Wikipedia but if someone else creates redirect of Killings of Hindus in Pakistan he will report you. You just can't make any edits which shows negative image of particular country, but you can do all edits to show negative image of India.

    I can show his hundreds of redirects which particularly defame some country. Regarding my redirects, two of them I explained earlier.

    • ISI terror activities: The page where it redirects is Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism, which itself has word terrorism in it. Also there are redirect for this page Inter-Services Intelligence role in terrorism, Pakistan's role in terrorism in India already exists. Thats why Mar4d also didn't nominated it for deletion.(Thank you).
    • Pakistan supported insurgency: for this you have to see talk page where I contested deletion. Pakistan's official authority openly says that we support "freedom fighters" in Kashmir and we will provide all support to them. Also FBI said in US court that Pakistan provides arms to Kashmiri militants.(see sources in talk page of the redirect). So what's problem in making redirect on it?
    • Pakistan propaganda politics]: See talk page of this redirect where I contested deletion. This page redirects to Kashmir conflict. Pakistan always talk about Kashmir issue at all levels. They don't focus on their own nation. When Obama was visiting India that time also Pakistan Prime Minister requested Obama to talk about Kashmir to Indian Prime Minister(though Obama rejected to talk). Means here also they want "Kashmir issue". In all United Nation's speeches, Pakistan only talk about Kashmir issue. So it is a propaganda by Pakistan. Kashmiris are peacefully living in India by voting in large % in Indian elections but Pakistan do propaganda that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. So thats why this redirect. Read WP:RNEUTRAL.


    Hounding

    • I don't even think that this is relevant issue here. I joined Wikipedia just 4 months ago, Mar4d is on Wikipedia since 5-6 years and has 50,000+ edits. He think that in this so short span on Wikipedia I should have past history of edits on every page that he edited otherwise I can't edit that page and he will report me for hounding.
    • He should give a single evidence that I disrupted his edits. All I given is constructive contribution to those articles that hementioned above. Admins can check my all edits on mentioned articles and can tell me where I was wrong or where I disrupted Mar4d's edits.
    • I am part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan since two months. [69]
    • Mar4d thinks that I should not edit any Pakistan related page as all them are owned by himself, if I want to do edit on those page then I must take his permission for that.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Charge of repeated disruptive editing

    Comment by TopGun

    With all the WP:SOUP that's following up on this post, I'd like to note that all of the redirects that were mass nominated by human were restored by an uninvolved admin, following which Human has created tit for tat redirects - most of the redirects that were created have again been deleted by yet another uninvolved administrator. The two that are left were not nominated yet so I've nominated them as well as they were not created in good faith and are misleading in the least such as "Killing of Hindus in Pakistan" being redirected to "Hinduism in Pakistan" to imply to all. This is quite blatant disruption in itself. This is what can be seen right away as a fact all apart from the claims that would need further indepth investigation (due to the WP:SOUP here) such as the hounding cases discussed. What I do want to point out is that should an admin choose to read through this, they should note that the two editors are casting aspirations with their divisive theories that are solely based on which editor belongs to which region rather than what their comment is. Such comments in repetition are disrupting this RFD and have been rebutted by multiple uninvolved editors. CosmicEmperor went so far as to editwar, in blind support, with a CSD template against its scope after being declined by an editor (me) who was not the creater and was rebutted on that as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Vanamonde93

    Since this has come up, there's also some ridiculousness going on at these two pages; Anti-Pakistan sentiment and Anti-India sentiment, where several editors with opposing POVs are joyfully tit-for-tatting unencyclopedic content into both articles. Human3015 has an unedifying part in this, but so do several others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vanamonde93, It was me who requested full protection for Anti-Pakistan sentiment and currently that page is protected, don't blame anyone just because they don't push your POV.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what is my POV, may I ask, when I successively deleted allegations about both governments from the corresponding places in both articles, because neither of those sections talked about prejudice of any kind? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vanamonde93, You reverted me on that page, then I reverted you, it means we do have different POV regarding this issue. You maybe true/false or I maybe true/false, thats why I requested page protection to resolve our issue as I said on that talk page that edit war may get worst on it as there are many editors who are interested in this page. I just stopped edit war by requesting protection and giving us time to discuss. So on that page we reverted each other then it doesn't mean that you will come here on ANI and will blame me for any other issue without knowing reality of issue just because I reverted you.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 17:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Sitush

    Not sure why we're doing sectioned discussion but hey-ho. For the record, I got an email from CosmicEmperor yesterday. I've never knowingly interacted with them but they were asking me to weigh in at some RfD. I ignored it but, really, this isn't good practice and if they have been emailing others then it would surprise me if everyone has been as scrupulous as I was. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sitush, why you are using term "they"? When I emailed you? or When I emailed anyone else? It is obviously not good practice.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea of the gender of CosmicEmperor, hence "they". In fairness to them, they didn't ask me to comment for or against the move but selective emailing such as this is still not A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway Sitush, I also adviced him on his talk page to not email anyone regarding such issues. Your sense of humor is nice though. .--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for what it is worth, if I had not received the email then I might have commented. My comment would have been preceded with the word delete and might have made reference to the "usual suspects" from the pro-Pakistan/pro-Muslim camp. They know who they are. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by CosmicEmperor

    I E-mailed two editors from Wiki Project Pakistan also. But after first few mails E-mails were blocked due to anti-Spam measure and I was not able to send messages to other members of Wiki Project Pakistan. Those who are mentioning about E-mails should also mention the details whether I was trying to influence their judgement or asking about their personal opinion. I should have known about this before.

    "Stealth canvassing Shortcut: WP:STEALTH Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."--C E (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But I don't think simply sending them E-Mails about something is like trying to change their decision as i didn't know most of them and not sure what their decision would be. I saw only 3 comments in that page and wanted more participants. More the number of votes better the consensus. I don't know about any shortcut to notify all at the same time. And the accusation of personal attacks is simply twisting my words. I made that comment in relation to these news:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Two-Lashkar-e-Taiba-terrorists-killed-in-JK-encounter/articleshow/46329046.cms

    http://zeenews.india.com/news/jammu-and-kashmir/two-jaish-e-mohammed-militants-killed-in-sopore-encounter_1532117.html C E (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (uninvolved editor) "I saw only 3 comments in that page and wanted more participants. More the number of votes better the consensus." That counts as votestacking, which is undesirable because it distorts consensus. Of course I don't know if your emails were actually partisan votestacking notices or nonpartisan notices because I didn't saw them, but even if they weren't partisan, that would still fall as stealth canvassing because friendly notices must be limited AND neutral AND nonpartisan AND open. Your emailing fails the latter. Since I am an uninvolved editor in this case my comment may not be that accurate. --TL22 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: you must reveal the contents of that E-mail for everyone else to see. TL22 (talk)
    I sent the same mail to everybody as I was not aware of WP:STEALTH.C E (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please revoke talk page access

     Done --Jayron32 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Voltasusa is still being used as a vehicle for unambiguous advertising, after the user was blocked as promotion-only account. Can someone please revoke talk page access? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Toweringpeaks3

    User indeffed by Floquenbeam. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor seems to have taken umbrage to Sarek of Vulcan, and is liberally peppering his talk page with commentary, some of which could be construed as legal threats.

    The page that started it all is Isidro A. T. Savillo, and a glance at the page history shows that back in 2014 an editor called Towering Peaks edited the talk page with some commentary.

    Sarek is valiantly ignoring it - or hasn't seen it yet - but I don't think Towering Peaks is best behaved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reported this user to WP:AIV for harassment/possible legal threats. Their behaviour seems wholly inappropriate. Probably is the same person as ToweringPeaks, although that account isn't block, so it would be a legit alternate account. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I know, we're supposed to be nice to new people. But this guy's acting like a nut. Blocked indef, if he wants to stop acting like a nut he can do so from inside an unblock template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silly legal threats, personal attacks from the very first edit, and can't speak English. Obviosly a sock, and not a very good one at that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if this is the wrong place to report it, but I suspect that User:Toweringpeaks3 is now using the sock puppet User:Gardenofpoisonsinuk (and using threatening, though vague, language on Talk:Isidro A. T. Savillo). Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally it'd go to SPI but obvious duck is obvious. Amortias (T)(C) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. May have to consider short term semi-protection of article talk page. Suboptimal, but... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, folks. I really try to play by the WP rules, but I never expect to get nearly as much support as you all have shown on this case. It's really appreciated. Q·L·1968 ☿ 01:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    John Dehlin article

    CLOSED
    Closing, at the request of the original poster. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The John Dehlin article is having sourced content systematically removed by a variety of users, apparently as a result of a Reddit request here. Further information is on the talk page at Talk:John Dehlin#NPOV Issues. While it's possible that some editing should be done, especially as this is a BLP, what is of more concern is the wholesale removal of sourced content being directed off-wiki by the article's subject. Some admin help (page protect or other) is needed to help save appropriate, sourced content. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rightly so. A lot of it needed removing, and some of it stretched the definition of "sourced" to breaking point. This, for example, is cited to partisan websites of no evident merit and clearly violates WP:BLP. Oh, and it was you who did it. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The material removed needed to be removed, and you shouldn't restore it anymore. I've also noticed that you've asked editors to discuss this on the talk page, but you haven't made any posts there. In fact, all you've done is revert and report here. Try taking your own advice and discuss this on the talk page. AniMate 17:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply restoring a large deletion of long-standing sourced content that was done without any discussion (at the time) on the article talk page, not adding in new content. There is now discussion, so I left the changes as is. I am now simply bringing this up to determine if WP:MEAT applies. I've already disengaged from the article. Bahooka (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article subject's concerns are entirely legitimate. Your edits, not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As there does not appear to be any issue with the article's subject directing edits, and as I have already indicated that I would not be restoring the sourced content, I believe this discussion may be closed. Thank you for the feedback. Bahooka (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    administrative vandalism

    Favonian blocked just before I would have. Clear case of block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An administrator called User:Widr has recently been vandalizing Wikipedia and making random, unjustified blocks.--Youthoughtitwouldbethateasy (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're going to have to provide some examples if you really want anyone to look into anything... Please provide specific links. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is fairly likely that this brand new account is evading the very block they are complaining about. Chillum 17:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, same here. Figured I'd give them a brief shot, but of course its always shady when someone's first edits are to make their name and talk page links blue, and then go straight to ANI to complain about "unjust blocks". 99% sure this is block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Widr is not an admin, but recently warned Theadcarry concerning vandalism, and the latter was subsequently blocked (just a few minutes ago) by Floquenbeam. I suspect we are talking to a sock. Dwpaul Talk 17:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Owning issue with another editor

    Editor warned about petty reverting on user page. Try to talk to each other and come to an agreement. Let me know if the reverting becomes a problem again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gabrielkat is on the borderline of owning articles to their own personal preference, primarily on the page for The Bold and the Beautiful. For the past several weeks, in updating the weekly episode count in correspondence to the WikiProject Soap Operas, Gabrielkat has gone on to revert my edits on several occasions, only to re-instate them as their own seconds later (I have the notifications of being reverted if anyone wishes to see screen-captures). I warned the user about this behavior (Message 1, Message 2) only for said-warnings to be reverted almost immediately, with no discussion or response from Gabrielkat, and for their editing to continue. They've been warning for disruptive editing by other editors, and said-warnings have gone to be ignored or ultimately removed from their talk page. It is my belief Gabriel is on a soft-path of owning the page and only intending to edit for their own personal gain (I cannot state otherwise as user refuses to correspond with me), and given their edit history from their talk page, they seem to be a bit uncivil. Again, I can only go off of their behavior towards me and my attempted correspondence to them. This could also stem from me reverting them with their edit violate the consensus at the Soap Opera Project when they updated the episode count prior to the final airing of the Friday airdate episode, but surely this behavior should not be tolerated for the fear of it boomeranging out of control. As of Friday, May 22 they admit they want to update the episode count by stating "Let me update the weekly episode count". If that isn't an attempt to own the page, I don't know what is. livelikemusic my talk page! 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, I was able to update the weekly episode count for The Bold and the Beautiful fair and square three Fridays ago (May 1). I was also about to update the weekly episode count for this week, but you decided to do it yourself anyway. Why is that? Gabrielkat (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gabrielkat: Why not? And why does it matter assuming the information is updated correctly? Dwpaul Talk 18:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they're both presumably fans of the show, and both are eager to update the episode count, maybe they could agree to each update it on alternate weeks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent clueless editor attempts to insert promotional article - Block evasion

    RESOLVED
    Articles in question "salted" by Guy. No other action taken, so (potential COI?) user may need to be monitored... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user User:SipleDailyUser may be one of several block-evading accounts that are being used to attempt to insert a purely promotional article. SipleDailyUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user came to the Help Desk to ask why his or her efforts to create an article about Macphun or Macphun Software kept being deleted. Wikipedia:Help_desk#Article_Creation

    The post to the Help Desk was the only post by that account, so that it was not possible to check the talk page message with the speedy deletion. In response to a question, SipleDailyUser said that every time the article was deleted, they created a new account and started over. Advice was to use the Articles for Creation process. Instead, SipleDailyUser posted inquiries to User:Ukexpat and User:Y, one of the deleting admins, asking for help, and evidently created the article again, and it was speedy-deleted again. SipleDailyUser then explained, on talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SipleDailyUser&diff=prev&oldid=663513710

    that three previous accounts were "deleted by moderators". In Wikipedia terms, that would be blocked by admins. If the previous accounts were blocked for being used only to add purely promotional material, then this account is a block-evading sockpuppet.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I salted the two articles. Not a great deal more we can do right now, I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, if none of the accounts were blocked, then SipleDailyUser was just cluelessly confused in saying that the accounts were "deleted by moderators". He or she may simply have forgotten the password. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent vandal is back

    Blocked two days by Ponyo. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    85.243.159.92 (talk · contribs) is the persistent abusive user. See this. SLBedit (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Apparent dispute over Semion Mogilevich and meddling with a userpage.

    Not really sure what to do with this, actually, since things have changed over my time in Wikipedia... Couple of IPs (probably used by the same person) have been re-inserting apparent POV link to Semion Mogilevich (edit history). IPs in question have left comments threatening to report me and User:Andhisteam to request bans and the like. Now those IPs have also edited my user page with similar comments and threats (I took a liberty of reverting the changes in my user page). I might have got somewhat annoyed in the process, commenting in one IP page. If there really has been reports or ban requests targeting me, I don't know about them. IPs apparently involved are User:122.152.167.101 and User:122.152.167.218 but they are probably dynamic and going to change in the future so I am not sure what IP I should be sending further comments to. I'd rather not get involved with a fruitless edit war with those but have apparently been involved against my wishes. I leave to your judgement of what could be done, if anything. - Skysmith (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note here: The IPs are a part of a corp, and do change. Some advice is if you must say anything to them, say it to whichever acted last. Also, due to this, it is quite likely that it is the same person making these edits. As well, I am watching the page, and will step to help. -- Orduin Discuss 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing a request for page protection on this article (which I denied), I decided to perform 2 blocks. One, a rangeblock on 122.152.167.0/24 and one on an account, likely the same person, Lemma2Lemma. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Next IP User:121.100.143.123, another IP involved with the same page - Skysmith (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing, removal of sourced material

    I would like to highlight the case of tendentious editing by some editors.

    We need as many uninvolved admins as possible keeping an eye on more or less all Ukrainian conflict-related articles. There's a never-ending edit war going on there.

    Problem:

    Removal of well sourced material. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive. An editor keeps deleting content which he disagrees with.

    Evidence:

    Here are a few examples. 2014 - April 2015: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. May 2015: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

    Violation of WP:NPOV policy:

    WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

    Excuses for POV-blanking:

    "There is no consensus for these changes", or "WP:UNDUE" (In other words, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

    or "doesn't belong here": diff, diff, diff, diff.

    See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed. Tobby72: Restored, Bobrayner: Removed, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

    and here: Tobby72: Added poll, Volunteer Marek: Removed, MyMoloboaccount: Restored, RGloucester: Removed. Haberstr: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

    Further discussion here:

    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Ukraine conflict.

    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Continued POV-pushing – May 2015.

    Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel

    Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - POV blanking

    Talk:War in Donbass – POV blanking of sourced material

    User talk:EdJohnston - Volunteer Marek – 2

    At least 12 editors: MyMoloboaccount, Tosha, Anonimski, Darouet, Buzz105, Jirka.h23, Herzen, Haberstr, HCPUNXKID, Leftcry, KoolerStill, Lunch for Two, seem to agree with me.

    I totally agree with User:Darouet:[70]

    To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable. All of us have responsibility for maintaining a neutral point of view and a friendly editing environment. I'm afraid that by repeatedly sanctioning this kind of editing we've enabled behavior that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else on this encyclopedia, and encourages only the most partisan editors to enter into the fray. That is *not* the decision we need to make.

    Is there anything that either I or an admin can do about continuous POV pushing and removal of sourced material?

    Thanks for taking a look and sharing your opinion. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you make a list of involved articles?
    This one is odd.
    What is he talking about when he talks about "discussed, agreed upon"? Can you find out?

    Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What he probably means is Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation – POV blanking
    or Latest outrage: excluding opinion polls that show Crimeans overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
    Yet another person who has doubts - diff, diff.
    The (probably incomplete) list:
    Add *Federal Reserve System to your list. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if you're going to get "as many uninvolved admins as possible" User:Tobby72 but I'm certainly an uninvolved long-term editor in good standing; I took a look and am willing to share my opinion. I picked an article at random which you fought for in one of your edit wars very recently. It is called "Breedlove's Bellicosity," Spiegel Online, March 6, 2015. What I found was a piece of low-brow tabloid stock journalism with expressions like: "hawks in Washington", "Putin, the 59-year-old ... upped the ante", "The Super Hawk", the 'Super Hawk' Victoria Nuland", "False claims and exaggerated accounts" (!) from NATO ... and on, and on. – Do you realize Tobby72 that the real problem might actually be you, and not the Wikipedians in your laundry basket? Poeticbent talk 00:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion (though I don't think Der Spiegel is tabloid). -- Tobby72 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bottom line, this is a content dispute, well beyond the scope of ANI. There is nothing "actionable" for Admins here. You would have thought that might have sunk in when Admin EdJohnston took no action (and, in fact, didn't even comment on his Talk page)... --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other editors' comments:
    • User:Haberstr — In conclusion, obviously Volunteer Marek is putting a lot of effort into pushing me and other editors who do not share his point of view away from editing Ukraine-related articles. This is part of a long-standing practice on his and like-minded editors part, and the results are horribly POV Ukraine-related articles. He and like-minded editors do this through these repetitive, hostile, and time-wasting appeals for administrative action, through creating extremely toxic, abusive-language filled and bad-faith-assuming environments on talk pages, and by reverting even the most innocuous edits by editors who do not share their POV. I suggest surveying his style and behavior and applying sanctions on Marek in order to deter his worst excesses.[71]
    • User:MyMoloboaccount — There is definitely a issue in these articles being edited by dedicated users who have certain POV. Tobby72 is right that this violates NPOV and other guidelines. There have been numerous examples where reliable sources and information has been removed time and time again under flimsy pretexts, and attempts to present a more nuanced view with neutral description have been opposed, at times very aggressive and with use of vulgarisms.[72]
    • User:Darouet: — To be honest, looking through many of the edits discussed here, it doesn't seem to me that Tobby72 is editing from a "pro-Kremlin" perspective. Often, their edits are qualifying or simply represent the "other side," without removing material. By contrast, RGloucester, Marek, raynor, Tlsandy appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major politicians, news sources, or even public opinion polls, as intolerable.[73]
    • User:Tosha — I support Tobby72. All my attempts to make this article neutral were failed. IMHO this article is shame for wikipedia. Returning POV tag is the least we can do.[74] -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have to disagree with IJBall that this is a content dispute, and I truly hope that Tobby72 gets clobbered by the boomerang s/he deserves. Tobby72 is WP:FORUMSHOPPING yet again, and I will reiterate the differences provided by that editor in order that it be evaluated from the forum shopping perspective: see this, this, this and this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. This is not indicative of a content dispute, but Tobby72's refusing to accept NPOV and trying to WP:CRUSH any opposition to their POV.
    Tobby72, you keep bringing the same differences to talk pages and other boards, invoking comments by users over a protracted period of time (that is, over at least a year's worth of discussion and editing) including editors who have been sanctioned from editing Eastern European articles. You consistently fail to respond to observations that these comments and edits are not indicative of the true consensus of dozens of other editors who have developed the articles on a regular/daily basis. You've also continuously PUSHed the limits as regards gaming the system, ducking in and out of editing various articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine every time you understand that you've become too obtrusive. Taking a very short-term break from your involvement when EdJohnston was involved in examining your editing patterns was an unabashedly cynical act of trying to fly under the radar.
    At best, you are a disruptive editor on Eastern European articles. Such an evaluation of the NOTHERE gaming is, however, an underestimation of your forum shopping, crying incivility, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about numerous editors. There is nothing honest about your approach in order to wear your perceived 'opponents' down. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Iryna Harpy is editor directly involved in constant edit-warring & removal of sourced content, see diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an issue that goes back a long way and needs to be acknowledged and addressed by Marek so we can all move forward. Quis separabit? 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is anything here for attention by administrators (I do not really see it), this should be brought to AP:AE, as author of this request should be well aware. Linking to discussions with an administrator who is active on WP:AE, but bringing this here is a battleground approach and waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to uninvolved editors: Edit-warring & removal of sourced material by User:My very best wishes. This is what I've been talking about, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your suggestion, Robert! -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a classic WP:ARBEE problem. I think that Tobby72 would benefit from a trip to arbitration enforcement, sooner rather than later. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these edits legitimate?: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff — "rv the usual Serb sock" - WP:WIAPA?, diff — "rv the usual Serb sock", diff — "rv stalker." - WP:ESDOS?, diff — "restoring sourced content. Quit it." - WP:RS?. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Toby72, you really need to drop it. NOT ONLY have you been told more than a half a dozen times that consensus is against you, but you've ALSO been told more than a half a dozen times (that's not hyperbole, it *really* has been more than that) to quit it with the endless, time wasting, tendentious, obnoxious and tedious WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You not only have maxed out the violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and plain ol' disruptive editing, you're well into the WP:NOTHERE territory. I.e. your value added to this project is significantly negative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What consensus am I violating? Please provide me the related talk page discussion where a consensus is found. Clearly there is no consensus among editors. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Archive or boomerang?

    There's clearly nothing to do here unless the OP needs a boomerang block for forum shopping and trying to abuse process to gain advantage in a content dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's good reason for a boomerang but a warning may simply be effective if they have not done anything like this before.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering this appears to be a long-term pattern with the original poster, I'd recommend something like a final warning from an Admin, along with a close of this... --IJBall (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respect your decision, whatever it may be, but does it mean that you've sanctioned behaviour of Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy and similarly minded editors i.e. massive, systematic removal of well sourced material with a POV they dislike? Ukraine-related articles have been jealously guarded by several editors who have certain POV and any attempt to improve has been blocked. You're shooting the messenger and assuming bad faith on my part instead of focusing on the real issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'd accept a final warning, I have sincere and well founded reasons to believe that the user will resume the same disruptive pattern after X period of time in order to allow their battleground attitude to have 'gone away', and believe that boomerang is in order. Recent good faith opportunities have been proffered (such as this), and multiple warnings have been issued on the various talk pages. I'll provide a comprehensive list of diffs if it's deemed to be necessary, but prefer to keep this comment as brief as possible at this point.
    The fact of the matter is that this is not a unique event in Tobby72's editing behaviour as regards AE articles. This is evidenced by the user's last interactions on recent events surrounding the crisis in Ukraine around the end of 2014, whereupon the user recognised that s/he was on the brink of being taken before an ANI or AE and backed off, only to resume activities a few months later (such as here).
    While I recognise that Tobby72 is encouraged/egged on by other problem contributors, the user is hardly a newbie, and there is no excuse for usurping civil discussions as to content with tracts of examples of 'dissent' by POV editors cherry picked from over a year's discussion, as exemplified here. This has undoubtedly impacted on new contributors backing away from good faith editing and discussion of controversial topics here on 24 March 2015 (see this new contributor's edit history here, with Tobby72 (in tandem with others on 31 March 2015) having created a toxic talk page atmosphere where genuine attempts to discuss issues are consistently disrupted in an unmistakeably WP:POINTy manner. This is why Tobby72 and the other editor were brought to EdJohnston's attention on his talk page.
    On a final note, even the excerpt from user Darouet is misleading, having been cherry picked to make a POINT. In fact, Darouet's observation was directed to me. The full comment here was a good faith attempt to engage with me on the NPOV/N as I have a good and respectful working relationship with the user, as with other editors who are HERE whether or not we agree on content issues. I'm sorry to say that I didn't respond there simply because the so-called discussion was being falsely kept from being archived by means of gaming. Should Darouet be reading this, I extend my sincerest apologies as I was not avoiding him/her, but was not prepared to duplicitously resuscitate a FORUMSHOPPING section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna, may I remind you that the assumption of good faith is a core principle here.
    The severe toxicity of the Ukraine-related articles where genuine attempts to discuss issues are consistently disrupted can be seen here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tobby72:, one point here: good faith tends to expire when Tendentious editing takes place. You have been told repeatedly that Consensus is against you in including that reference, as it's considered to be WP:UNDUE – at this point, it's best to Drop the stick, and move on. Failure to do so could probably be considered "bad faith". Bottom line: you're not going to win every argument on Wikipedia, even when you think you are "right". --IJBall (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.101.142.111 account used for vandalism

    USER BLOCKED
    Trolling IP user blocked (again!) for 1 month by Abecedare (at WP:AIV). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has said here at AN/I that they intend to rigorously vandalize Wikipedia with a large scale team. Though they this far have only conducted personal attacks since their block, I believe this user must be indefinitely blocked before they cause trouble, thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the diff. IPs are usually not indefinitely blocked and the threat does not seem credible. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And how about the multiple personal attacks on top of the threat of vandalism? Honestly, this needs to be swiftly handled before vandalism can commence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An indefinite block is not the way to handle it. Despite being a dynamic IP it seems to have been held by a problem user for over a month and so a longer block (2 months?) would probably be the best option. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you think that is best for a user who clearly outlined they wanted to vandalize, than I'm all for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing to remember is that an IP isn't necessarily the same user. That's why we don't indefinitely block IPs: the address could wind up being used by another user (company internet gateway, computer lab, dynamic IP, etc.). —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that now, but I still suggest a block similar to what Phantom Tech recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Links: 81.101.142.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support for block – This IP was already blocked in April. And has now taken to issuing threats right here at ANI. This is clearly a WP:NOTHERE case. --IJBall (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support for block as this IP is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Weegeerunner (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said above, I support a long block for around a couple of months. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked: Saw report on user at AIV and blocked for a month since IP appears to be stable. Suggest WP:RBI. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:DaltonCastle canvas

    RESOLVED
    With the original post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism deleted, this issue seems resolved. At this point, I'd usually add a reminder for all parties to self-monitor to avoid any issues with NPOV, but this content dispute is in the political space, so... A RfC might be a way to go. Good luck to all. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:DaltonCastle posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#May 2015 attempting to organize advocacy for his preferred version of four articles. Canvas attempt was blatant in its partisanship, its selection of audience "vote stacking," and non-neutral in the wording of the request "campaigning." In the request user called out a colleague by user name but was apparently careful not to trigger auto notification. User was warned on his talk page User_talk:DaltonCastle#May_2015_canvassing_warning. User response seemed rather flippant and lacked any sign of acknowledgement let alone remorse. I believe this user may need to hear about the importance of our WP:CANVAS policy from an administrator. Request a warning. Sorry to bother. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, Hugh. My response was not flippant. I was simply noting that I would get around to responding, as I still will. I did not intend to recruit editors to push a POV. My thought was that that would be the place to locate editors who would be interested in looking at the page. I believe there are larger issues on the Americans for Prosperity page itself. I apologize if I have misinterpreted WP:CANVASSING guidelines, but I believed myself to be acting in good faith, as I also believe HughD to be acting. But acting in good faith editors can still make mistakes. Again, I apologize if Ive done any wrongdoing and will gladly do what needs to be done to correct it. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was simply noting that I would get around to responding" You were too busy deleting well-referenced content and their reliable source references from a series of articles that you were unable to respond promptly? That's your story? Hugh (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "...if I have misinterpreted WP:CANVASSING guidelines..." The claim of misunderstanding of policy is simply not credible. User understood our policy on canvassing well enough that user claimed twice in their canvas attempt that they were not canvassing. Hugh (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to please add that this user's actions demonstrate elements of harassment WP:HARASSMENT, in particular wikihounding WP:WIKIHOUNDING, in singling out one editor, editing multiple pages edited by that editor, inhibiting collaborative efforts toward good article status, and, further, soliciting other editors to swarm to a multi-article campaign. The canvassing, in conjunction with a relentless campaign of deleting content and reliable source references in the last two days, article space content achieved through consensus by contributions from a team of collaborating editors over many weeks, I feel is a deliberate, transparent attempt to interfere with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim that the intention was not canvassing is simply not credible. Hugh (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, when I had made the edit I believed myself to be acting in good faith. My intention was to have the page checked for any POV, not to push a POV. I hope the distinction is clear. Anyways, I can pull the section down if that would resolve the issue. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on. Thats not fair to say. You are not being harassed. You made sweeping edits to several pages and it got noticed because there is potentially a POV push. And this does not note the undue weight given to details, the irrelevant details, potential puffery, and the use of primary sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    May I respectfully request admin deletion of the canvas attempt from the Conservatism project talk page and history as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of this unhappy incident. Hugh (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @DaltonCastle: that does seem to be Canvassing. You say you are willing to pull it? That should resolve this. Please do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully bump in hopes of a timely deletion of inappropriate canvas attempt from Conservatism project talk page and history. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. This does not mean that my concerns on the pages itself are resolved. There is a possible push to coatrack the page, not necessarily intentionally. But I believe someone should still look at it. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You might perhaps consider a RFC? See WP:RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Respectfully request administrator attention to the behaviour issue; this is not an innocent mistake, blatant vote stacking, posting to the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, blatant campaigning, while declaring "I am familiar with canvassing policies" and "I am really trying to avoid canvassing" IN the canvassing attempt itself and the emphasis in his essay on an editor as opposed to content. I would like to please hear from an administrator on how we might improve understanding of WP:CANVAS. I would also like to please ask for advice from an administrator on the harassment aspect of an essay proposing a multi-page campaign against the contributions of a particular editor, please see diff, an aspect personally very disappointing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully request a courtesy clean-up of the WT:WikiProject Conservatism history. The Conservatism Project talk page history has a conspicuous red -5,161 link to the essay only marginally less effective than talk space content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Please clean 23:55, 20 May 2015 and 16:08, 23 May 2015. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's absolutely no reason to assume bad faith here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously asking for a revision delete here? That is totally overkill. DaltonCastle has deleted the offending posting, and apologized for it. There doesn't need to be any further action here. The best advice in this case is let it go... --IJBall (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated accusations of canvassing

    Perhaps A1 candidate would have commented in the QuackGuru thread above anyway, after he was canvassed by DrChrissy, but the fact remains that he was canvassed. Repeatedly stating something true, with evidence, is not sanctionable, and the header here is a little misleading; A1candidate hasn't been accused of canvassing. Please set yourself a higher bar for ANI complaints and "formal warnings",[75] A1 candidate. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs) has repeatedly accused me of being canvassed [76][77][78][79]. Per this guideline, the accusations are clearly false. Since I've already warned him to stop but he persists in making this accusation, a short block might soon be necessary. -A1candidate 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated accusations along with evidence. Here is the diff prior to the ones listed where I show that A1 Candidate was canvassed to the discussion. Here's another diff where I post this evidence. What is this supposed to be here, "I don't see that"?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:APPNOTE carefully. I have watchlisted AN/I and participate regularly in discussions here. Just strike all your accusations and stop, okay? -A1candidate 08:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is canvassing. It's not an appropriate notification but canvassing. They canvassed you. After they canvassed you is when you inserted yourself into the [80] conversation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have AN/I and pages related to electronic cigarettes on my watchlist. I was already aware of a possible AN/I thread even before it was posted. Take a look at this talk page discussion that first caught my attention. I would have replied sooner or later to any discussion that concerns QuackGuru (as I have always done in the past), regardless of what DrChrissy said. Just strike all your accusations and stop. This will be my last reply to this thread. -A1candidate 09:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and you must have Acupuncture on your watchlist as well [81]. You had to show everyone the "Very Controversial" edit that Quack Guru just made [82]. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that alone does not constitute canvassing, per WP:APPNOTE. It still seems you have not read and understood that guideline. You may have a case, but you have yet to make it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alone that constitutes canvassing. It is Votestacking. APPNOTE does not offer an exclusion for notifying the enemies of your enemies that an ANI was opened against them. That is WP:BATTLE behavior. Answering such a canvass borders meatpuppet like behavior, if that isn't what it is already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Weird IPs

    Wrong venue entirely. Nothing here that admins can or will do. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nowadays a new type of extremely long, confusing IPs are editing Wikipedia. First I thought it must be username. Ips such as these 2602:306:8B0B:5020:68:EF0B:4734:D9C2, once I even saw an alpha-numeric long IP which i thought as a long name of an editor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:8B0B:5020:68:EF0B:4734:D9C2

    This is not the only one, there are others also. What i am saying is that it becomes very difficult to remember their names or mention them anywhere. I request those who use this kind of huge alpha-numeric IPs please create an account. Mostly they appear in Hollywood movie pages.--C E (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You can request it but they aren't going to have to do so. I believe this is a IPv6 address.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah IPV6 addresses. Blame belongs to everyone wanting access to that damned interweb thingy meaning that the old stlye ones are no longer enough to go around. Amortias (T)(C) 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While they can be a little confusing, they're the future of the Internet, and they have as much right as the old fashioned horse-and-buggy IPV4s to edit Wikipedia. No admin action requested or possible. We can't ask them to get off our lawn. Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC):::::[reply]
    CosmicEmperor, what may not be clear is that this is completely the wrong venue for such a discussion, even if it had any viability. That venue would be WP:VPM, or WP:VPR if you have a concrete proposal such as a software change. That's why the thread was closed, and probably will be closed again. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anonymous editor switching from ISP to ISP for each revenge edit.

    Semiprotected by ‎Sergecross73. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    OK - this is a thorny one. Seemingly as a result of an edit conflict/disagreement on Elsa Schiaparelli (I say disagreement - the other editor has made zero effort to engage with my arguments on the talk page or discuss) I have become the subject of targeted random reversions of my edits, the majority coming from anonymous ISPs from the 151.20 range. Each anonymous editor makes one reversion and then jumps onto the next ISP and does a reversion of another random edit on a random page I've edited, and so on.

    The ISPs so far are:

    • 151.20.80.160 (performed the Schiap edit, possibly same person as 65.196.51.10 who made a very similar edit a few days before.)
    • 151.20.106.171
    • 151.20.105.201
    • 151.20.104.221
    • 151.20.104.30
    • 151.20.96.229
    • 151.20.89.202
    • 151.20.82.26
    • 151.20.80.234
    • 151.20.79.118
    • 151.20.75.157
    • 151.20.19.76

    Do I need to report each one individually? Also apologies if I am missing a page more relevant to this kind of disruptive ISP-ing, but as you can see there clearly isn't a single account or ISP related to this editor, and it looks like abuse reports require you to report an individual ISP/editor, having already issued due warnings as appropriate. Thank you so much for any advice and assistance. Mabalu (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a couple of things that can be done. Another admin has protected the Schiaparelli article so only registered users can edit it. All of these IPs are in the same range: 151.20.0.0/17 (covers 32768 IP addresses), which sounds like a lot, but it looks like he is the only person using the range at present. I will block the range for a few days for the disruptive editing. Please re-report if the problem resumes when the semi-protection and block wear off. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the semi-protection and block have not stopped this vandalism which is continuing at the very moment.176.93.54.248 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific – I don't see any edits at Elsa Schiaparelli since Admin Sergecross73 protected it... --IJBall (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IJBall, the editor has been going after my edits on pages other than Elsa Schiaparelli, usually making a random reversion and then switching to a new ISP from the same ISP range. (a couple examples: Omar Kiam and Callot Soeurs) I think the ISP editor on List of fashion designers is a separate person who just happened to get caught up in the mass reversion I was doing - their edit, while kinda nothingy, isn't actually that disruptive. Thank you Diannaa for temporarily range-blocking the ISP - I'll let you know if I see a bunch of red notifications in a few days time telling me a bunch of random edits I made have been reverted. Mabalu (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Technical note: It took me a while to figure out that by "ISP" (internet service provider, analogous to a phone company) you actually meant "IP" (referring to an internet protocol address, analogous to a phone number). ISP's get blocks of IP addresses and assign them to customers, and these addresses are probably all coming from the same ISP. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have double checked this, and both of the IPs 151.20.82.26 and 151.20.19.76 are already blocked via the range block. The edits you point to in these two diffs (Diff of Omar Kiam and [diff of Callot Soeurs) both took place before the range block was laid down. If you see any edits that took place after the range block was placed at 14:56, May 23, 2015, please list them here so that the range block can be adjusted. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Sorry to revisit this after it was archived, but as Diannaa requested, I'm reporting an edit that seems suspicious. I woke up today to a suspiciously similar reversion from IP 52.1.111.215. It fits the editing pattern of reverting a random edit - one I made back in 2009 and had completely forgotten about! - where I disambiguated a link to direct to the correct article (see the Omar Kiam edit above) for no apparent reason. Another note - the IP vandal previously targeted the Clare Potter article with this edit and the next day another random IP just happens to target a Clare Potter link? Mabalu (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no article on the poet Clare Potter. So you disambiguous link is a red link. It looks like they found the link to Clare Potter and made a mistake. It looks more like a mistake than a deliberate action or vandalism. Also is this [83] the vandalism you are talking about at Clare Potter? I see that you reverted it but looking at it there is no vandalism. Monte-Sano & Pruzan and Vincent Monte-Sano link to the same article. Someone should probably go thru and check these IP's individually and verify that there is an issue here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And now re-pinging Diannaa (I've been told the first 'ping' likely did not go through...), just to make sure she sees this – @Diannaa: --IJBall (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mabalu: The edits you link to are harmless improvements. Clare Potter (poet) does not exist; the article is located at Clare Potter; and Vincent Monte-Sano redirects to Monte-Sano & Pruzan. While the person using the range that I blocked yesterday was indeed following you around, you need to please ensure that IP edits are actual vandalism before reverting or assuming the worst. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Diannaa, I do think it odd that the IP harasser performed an random reversion on Clare Potter, and after the block went through, another IP editor came along and just happened to alight upon and revert a Clare Potter related edit from YEARS back? Coincidence? Possibly. Anyway I've reverted their reversion, this time with an edit summary to explain, because it is not an "improvement" to link to a wrong article. Mabalu (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Action required against user "wiki-shield"

    Please keep this discussion in one place. It is already getting attention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Chillum 20:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "Wiki-Shield" is now proceeding to blank out critical sections from Arrowsmith School while adding poorly sourced promotional claims [84]. This person then went ahead and did the same with Dore Programme [85]. He's engaging in the same behavior as user:Brunasofia. I strongly suggest that this person be watched more carefully because he's going be a nuisance and engage in promotional behavior. He was also edit warring with me Cogmed inserting unbalanced claims. I don't have the kind of time to battle every POV-pusher here, so I encourage admins do what is needed of them. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Admins, please also have a look at this topic.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose He has proceeded to edit war and blank reliably sourced sections and edit war on multiple articles (which has been reverted by other editors, but refuses to stop) since that AN report as I have linked. this comment should also give others an idea of his intentions. --Taeyebaar (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So even though it's WP:Forumshopping it should remain because you think he's just done something very bad? I'm sorry I don't see that exception listed over at WP:FORUMSHOP.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He keeps removing reliably sourced material and has been reverted by others as the links I provided show. What should be done then? Do you think I'd be bothering with this report if he didn't keep blanking out reliably sourced material from various articles, only to burden others to revert him.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact I oppose too. Wikipedia editing is not about "reliably sourced material", it is about improving the articles. My edits for the article on Arrowsmith School were objective, neutral, and didn't have any "poorly sourced promotional claims" as Taeyebaar claims. The resulting article was clearly in compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Yet, Taeyebaar overwrites all of my edits for no apparent reason. Considering the situation and Taeyebaar claims WRT different articles, I ask some experienced admins/editors to evaluate the last two version of Arrowsmith School article and provide their opinion here. I cannot spend my days bickering with Taeyebaar and hopefully, there is a way forward that doesn't involved constant requests for intervention. Thanks for your time reading this. Wiki-shield (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    50.104.200.91‎ and Muppet Classic Theater

    IP blocked for one week by Chillum. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    50.104.200.91‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) persists in editing Muppet Classic Theater to add an unsourced list of every Muppet that appears in the production, including such characters as "Chickens" and "Cows." I've posted a few messages on their talk page, but have received no response. Perhaps the article could be semi-protected? Trivialist (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that your first attempt to discuss was on the 20th [86]. I can see they have persisted and with out any attempt at discussion. PSemi-protection sounds like a good idea to me. You may get a quicker response at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Ah! Hold on a minute here!!... There was a very similar IP editor – 50.104.201.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – that was performing very similar edits to Muppets-based articles back in April: see, for example, diff. There is no question in my mind that this is the same IP editor. They hit a string of Muppets articles back in April, and I think it took myself and Oknazevad a day or two to undo their mess. Note, too, that IP 50.104.201.89 received a 3 month(!) block from Admin JohnCD for this! And, as before, the current IP hasn't uttered a peep on a Talk page. I advise (another) IP block for disruptive editing (and/or block evasion). --IJBall (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have blocked this IP for block evasion. Chillum 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Couple of rangeblocks needed

    Well, it looks like I've managed to upset someone, and now I have the pleasure of being hounded by an IP user hopping across a couple of ranges. From what I'm seeing, the ranges are pretty much 63.141.204.xxx and 216.177.129.xxx. Could someone help out and drop a couple of rangeblocks down to stop this silliness please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lukeno94: I can only find 3 IPs in that range, giving 98.124.175.0/24 (covers 256 IP addresses). Have you got any other candidates in that range? --Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, they're all pretty small ranges right now. The WHOIS data for some of the IPs in this range doesn't even seem to exist yet; for example, 98.124.175.69 didn't produce much of the more detailed parts on the WHOIS check (ie, the bits in the dark grey box) when I first checked it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I saw that. I did 63.141.204.0/24; 216.177.129.0/24; 98.124.175.0/24, all for 24 hours. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lukeno94: Just got back from the symphony, it looks like the activity stopped about 30 minutes ago (likely because you too stopped editing). Range for these two is 208.31.49.0/26 (covers just 64 IP addresses). I'm not inclined to block unless the activity resumes. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for structuring discussions on ANI

    Discussions at ANI can be rather long. In heated discussions this can be rather chaotic. There's a tendency at ANI for such discussions to become heated. I would like to propose that some uniform standard is adopted for discussion for organizational purposes. I note the overall structure of conversation with ARBCOM related discussions as one option. Should a seperate RFC be opened or would it be acceptable for the discussion to take place here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Such meta discussions generally go on the associated talk page, in this case Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drmargi yet again

    drmargi has a serious issue with WP:NPA and insults. It all started when with a currently closed ANI report made by User:Unframboise. Like any user, some would add input on the situation, and I did. Although, this user's behavior is far from appropriate and tolerant. On their talk page, they insulted the user Unframboise for being from the UK and has no acknowledgement on American entertainment here here. I brought this issue up on my comment from the ANI report, citing that it does not matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia for whatever. I even asked them that I am from Canada, does this apply to me as well? I thoroughly explained that the user followed every guideline from WP:SOURCES and WP:Verify. I told them that you don't need to be American to participate on American-based articles from media to people to law and so on. However, they have continued to insult the users involved in the report and/or the discussion of the talk page from the ANI report. This is their message. They called the users petulant, adolescents, and accused me of making the ANI report about myself. This threw me off guard as I did not think a person with over 25k edits would violate WP:NPA. I became offended, since their personal attacks were getting out of hand. I warned them on their talk page per WP:NPA. I explained that their insults were unnecessary and uncivil. I again told them that it does not matter what your age is, the number of edits you have, the years of experience, your current status on Wikipedia or where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. I recommended them to learn to calm down when users are complaining about them. One is more than capable to say otherwise other than insults. I gave them one warning before I reported. However, they removed the warning and insulted me once again per their edit summary: "How infantile can you be? A bit of Extra-Strength "Teen Spirit" Troll Be Gone handles those without the maturity to know what they're talking about." by calling me infantile and so on. Then after noticing them of the ANI report, they claimed it as childish here. This behavior is seriously unacceptable, especially when handling ANI reports. This user clearly shows signs of not being able to be calm and handle reports properly. I am at a loss on what to do after trying to reason with them and show them that insulting users is not the right path, but they have continued to do so. Callmemirela (Talk) 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I concur with Callmemirela's assessment of Drmargi's personal attacks and insults. Even after a cool down period, her comments to and about other editors seem to be getting worse rather than better. Frankly, I would expect better behavior from someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for more than 8 years and advertises on their user page as having a doctorate in psychology. They've been reminded very recently that making such cutting remarks in talk pages and in edit summaries rather than discussing civilly on talk pages is preferable [87]. As the report above documents, they have not heeded that advice. I have no desire to see Drmargi blocked or sanctioned, but I would like to see her be nicer to editors. Curt and cold is one thing. She's just rude and mean spirited way too frequently, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any real evidence here. I looked at the Drmargi and I'm not seeing him insult anyone for being from the UK.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no exactly an insult, but rather what comes after that. Drmargi used the argument that Umfranboise is from the UK to claim they have no acknowledgement of American entertainment here. Is there a rule against English editors to edit on American articles? No. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen any evidence of Drmargi insulting me, so I don't understand the claim that she has. From what I can gather, this is an ongoing issue arising from the attempts by some editors to change content at CSI: Cyber based on some pretty weak sources. Drmargi has asked repeatedly for other editors to let the issue go (it was supposedly resolved) but it just continues. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here: "But you can't discuss when three petulant adolescents are throwing insults at one another, two of whom are unwilling to abide by a litany of editing, civility and discussion practices, and the third of whom is just in it to win at any cost. (Leaving aside the fourth adolescent who decided to make it all about her on ANI.)" You were apart of the discussion and there were four users (including myself) adding input on the report... Looking back, I suppose this is about the article and not the ANI report? Nonetheless, it still contains insults. I would have known if this was for the ANI report or the article if the user would just compromise instead of calling me infantile, claiming that I don't know what I am talking about and whatnot. Callmemirela (Talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't participate in the discussion at Talk:CSI: Cyber. My only contribution to the page was adding {{reflist talk}} to fix the position of some references.[88] My contributions at the ANI discussions were almost as minimal,[89][90] so I doubt it was me that was being referred to. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the discussion on the ANI report about Drmargi made by Unframboise, not the discussion on the talk page. Regardless, I don't know who the insults were directed at, but it had targets. I'll remove that section of my report, but I stand on the insults. Callmemirela (Talk) 14:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Callmemirela, you misunderstand the UK statement. They are indicating that the Editor they are talking about knows nothing about American Entertainment. The Possible reason for this lack of knowledge is because the person is from the UK. They aren't suggesting that English folks can't edit an American article. Your English language comprehension seems to be a little lacking. You are picking up on things that aren't there. The other comments don't seem to be actionable either. I would recommend that you drop this. There is no exemption for reporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK comment is rather offensive. It doesn't matter where you're from to edit on Wikipedia. Just because you're from the UK it doesn't mean you shouldn't edit on American articles or you don't know anything about American entertainment and so on. I'm from Canada, does it apply to me as well? That's what pisses me off with that comment. Quite frankly, I am not dropping this because Drmargi is rather rude and uncivil with people. Calling people adolescents, petulants, selfish, childish? There are more ways to communicate with people rather than using insults. If anyone is capable to communicate properly, so could have Drmargi. This is why I brought it here. I could only imagine their insults getting worse or never stops as the years go on (personal opinion). Drmargi could have easily set the situation straight and told me otherwise. The user refused and insulted me. Again, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, Deadline.com is not a "weak" source. Beyond that, I agree that other editors should let this go, and disengage for a while. If any patterns of behavior continue, they are free to return to ANI with the evidence at a later date. --IJBall (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit requests are continuously deleted without reason.

    Obvious troll is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Headline states my grievance, awaiting corrective action. 188.67.214.203 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs in question are: here and here – reverted by Nick-D. Conclusion: Nick-D did us all a favor – thanks Nick-D!... Now the more relevant question is: what are you trying to do here, 188.67.214.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)?! --IJBall (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    99.228.128.219

    99.228.128.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been reverted multiple times at, for example, Prince George of Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, and has received multiple messages from editors bringing attention to the need for sources, edit summaries and communication. Regardless, the same information has once again been added to both articles[91][92] without an edit summary or any post on either the article talk page or the IP's talk page. Unsourced information,[93] which is in fact wrong,[94] is also being added to other articles. This is disruptive, and I would like to ask for this IP to be blocked. DrKiernan (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case it's not clear why this is a problem, there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here, as George and Charlotte are not the first great-grandchildren of the Queen, the first great-grandchildren are the children of Peter Phillips. It's an easy enough error to make, but one should listen when it's pointed out rather than doggedly continuing on the same course. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment I see plenty of warnings placed on the IPs talk page but do not see evidence of any attempt being made to educate or correct the user. I would not support an indefinite ban/block in a case that I am uncertain whether the editor concerned has been made aware of the extent of the problem. The IP has done ~250 royal related edits. I'm not sure of the proportion of the edits are problematic. GregKaye 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alex132351

    Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Alex132351 (talk · contribs) 3 edits, 3 lots of vandalism, including personal attacks. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Could someone just block him/her now rather than we have to wait for any more damage to the encyclopedia? PamD 10:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Charles Coco

    Although already blocked behavioural evidence makes me think this is quite likely a sock of User:Evlekis. Anyone willing to review and add it to the list. Amortias (T)(C) 18:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article

    DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic Tiger article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

    For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

    Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[95] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[96]

    Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 115.166.47.100 and Template:Terrorism in Australia

    The IP 115.166.47.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in a persistent edit-war and POV-pushing on Template:Terrorism in Australia, against at least 2 editors (against me and Wittylama) [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. The IP removed warnings from their talk page twice [102], [103]. In a clear personal attack that was very offensive and disruptive, the IP also just called an editor a vulgar term for female genitalia in the edit summary [104]. Khestwol (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty clear cut, this IP needs at least a two month block and I'd only encourage more. The personal attack more than anything really upsets me, but the other issues consolidate a long-term block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The crude personal attack on its own was a good enough reason to block in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?

    Ronn Torossian is both a notable PR person and an Wikipedia editor with a long history of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry that saw them banned from Wikipedia. That obviously didn't stop them from editing Wikipedia. Now I can to some degree understand that Mr. Torossian is unhappy with our article about him, though it's well-sourced and legal threats are not acceptable. However, his latest spate of sockpuppets or meatpuppets also engaged in a smear campaign against Torossian's personal and professional opponents, including various competitors of his company 5W PR and the New Israel Fund, an organization Torossian criticized over their politics at that time. In fact, here is the Torossian sock (or meatpuppet) citing a Torossian-written opinion piece to add negative content to a direct competitor. And for good measure, an utterly deceptive edit summary by that same sock. Another sock edited an article on a 5W PR client without disclosing their affiliation, in violation of the terms of use. For quite some time I have tolerated Torossian's sockpuppetry since there were some genuine BLP concerns in his article. However, his criticism of that article doesn't stop there, and his company seems to routinely engage in abuse of Wikipedia for unethical purposes, in violation of both our content policies and the Terms of Use. As I said Torossian himself is banned already. I hereby propose extending that ban to all of 5W Public Relations and its employees, along the lines of Wiki-PR. That would include User:Judae1 who serves as the "good hand" account while his co-workers engage in meatpuppetry and deception; at the very least he should be topic-banned from anything related to Torossian, 5W PR and its clients, widely construed. I see no reason to tolerate 5W PR abusing Wikipedia any more than we did Wiki-PR. Huon (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    and no the bio is not well sourced. Deal with that. There is a press release, a gossip blog and a random website now used as sources and no one cares to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support extending ban to all who identify as editing on behalf of the company. I also support a widely construed topic ban from anything that could benefit from, be harmed by or be the subject of any public relations, including any living or recently deceased people, organizations and products, that applies to all 5W PR employees, enforceable by an indefinite block from any administrator. Wikipedia is not a place meant to be used by PR companies to further their interests. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Ronn Torossian I am being slammed unfairly on my page so how does one deal with blatant untruths. Judae1 identified himself as best I understand. Rather unclear how you people propose to have edits handled if you refuse to acknowledge a living person being attacked without sources and links - as is now done on the page. I am commenting on the talk page which is what I am supposed to do as I understand and for that you want to ban me. IS this North Korea? Ronn Torossian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1444:20A0:CC53:5B41:BF2F:696A (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not seeing any evidence to the claim of sockpuppetry for Albertoein526. SPA perhaps, but an ill-advised orphan tag removal doesn't prove or suggest sockpuppetry, nor have you presented evidence showing that Albertoein526 works for 5W PR. Or am I missing something?It's at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. I'm also not seeing any evidence presented for any wrongdoing by Judae1, who has been open about his CoI on his user page since 2006. While I did not have time to examine his edits more thoroughly, xtools report does not seem to show many edits to articles where he has a conflict of interest. 5W_Public_Relations is on the list of most edited articles, but all the ones I checked were non-controversial maintenance (e.g. updating logo, updating numbers, repairing links, non-controversial minor grammar fixes). Can you please provide examples where Judae1 has edited in bad faith? ― Padenton|✉   23:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nvm on Albertoein, found it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai. ― Padenton|✉   00:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=663878155"