Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

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

---

As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded [1] expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so...

Proposal Community ban, preventing Beatley from moving any of SvG's drafts to Article space. All moves of these articles that Beatley has already performed should be reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support reverting them all. Suggest we wait and see whether we've got through to the user before enacting a ban. and banning. Changed since the user has made no noises at all in the interim and the scale of disruption is larger than I imagined.GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support CB sticking your hands in the commode w/o proper equipment is bad for your health, as our friend is learning with his indef. I'm fine to AfD, I like those. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support His talk page comments show that he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong at all. Topic Ban , unfortunately.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support both the community ban and the reversion of all of these moves to article space. Enough is enough, already. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban & moving these articles back to draftspace. This user isn't actually cleaning up the articles at all, and so isn't solving any of the SvG issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note there are over 1000 drafts and talk pages that have been moved. I'm chatting with MusikAnimal about resurrecting the bot task to shift them all back to draft, since it would clearly be a waste of our time to do it manually. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Beatley is blocked for now, but he is not the only one who has being doing bulk restores. There is no urgent need to move the articles restored by these editors back to draft. The audit result will be to just delete them all. Simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks, now I understand. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Primefac: Sorry for the late reply. Do we still need help moving the drafts? If you instead decide to delete them, either now or with all the unreviewed drafts, I can generate a list for you (if you don't already have one) and you can use Twinkle's batch delete tool to nuke them. Alternatively MusikBot II would be happy to undergo a quick BRFA to automate deletion. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, no worries. It sounds like they'll be nuked regardless of their location (since the improper movement has been noted), so I think as far as the bot goes we're all set. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Support TBAN, but... I'm not sure if that alone is going to suffice, long term; the user seems to have fundamental competency issues with multiple important policies (WP:RS and WP:BURDEN chief amongst them), and with basic process generally. are we just kicking the can down the road to another group of editors by protecting this one narrow content area but not addressing the underlying issues with this user? This seems like a scenario where either some mentoring or broader restrictions might be called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing and closing will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when is the mass nuking going to happen? My AfD bundle attempt has been met with resistance. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Extended reply

• See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. The deadline to cut off the SvG article clean-up effort is 24 April 2017, five days from now. After that we create lists of who did what to help with audit of the clean-up, then delete all the remaining SvG drafts. The audit will find editors who did mass restores without checking the articles. All the articles they restored will also be mass deleted.
• AfD's are likely to be rejected because many of the subjects of the SvG stubs are technically notable and warrant articles. The problem is many of the stubs contain errors. some serious, which will linger even after improvements. It is simplest to wipe them out and start from scratch. But many are on notable subjects and can be recovered. That is what the clean-up was meant to do.
• Beatley saw a conspiracy to wipe out a huge number of articles on notable subjects, and set about trying to save as many as he could, a tedious and mechanical effort much like the effort made by Sander.v.Ginkel when creating them all. Beatley was not responsive to appeals to take more care, perhaps because he did not follow the logic, but I think had good intentions.

I see no bad intent. Beatley's energy and determination are impressive and he may become a valuable contributor. I would give the benefit of doubt and lift the block, either before or after the clean-up is complete. I hope I do not have to eat these words. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

agree with character judgement. A lot of the articles clearly flunk GNG, and just about any and every policy, but I will just wait for the nuking. L3X1 (distant write) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to unblock them now, but the discussion still needs to be formally closed--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph

Having already been blocked for disruptive edits and being warned not to make personal attacks, Jayabalan.joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now compared Robert McClenon to a senior SS commander. The user is clearly not hear to do anything other than attempt to promote himself and his work, so can I suggest that his block is extended and talk page access is revoked to prevent further personal attacks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that could just be a cultural misinterpretation. The discussion seems to be progressing quite nicely on their talk, Cordless Larry? Doesn't seem to be much to do here, that's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion seems to be meeting with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. All the editor seems to want to do is publish and promote his PhD thesis here. Not sure how many ways we can explain that we don't publish original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone who has a PhD from a German university comparing editors to Nazis can be considered a "cultural misinterpretation". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

...and even if they were somehow unaware that comparisons with the SS are inappropriate, they had previously be warned that that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him about what needed to be done to his draft. He didn't listen, although perhaps his English is inadequate to support discussion. Their complaint against me appears to be that I told him to stop posting lengthy complaints to my talk page. After he continued posting to my talk page, I hatted the complaints and warned him. I didn't support the MFD to delete the draft, but I cannot condone the deletion of the MFD tag on the draft; they may not know much English, but they apparently know Wikipedia well enough to know that deleting a tag is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN has blocked this account for 72 for disruptive editing. I think that this is the appropriate action for now. If disruption continues, we can consider action from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think Jayabalan.joseph is Getting It. When their block expires they're free to advocate against the draft's deletion but if they use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of their thesis again then I will look into blocking them once more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ban

My patience has been exhausted by this editor. I recommend a Site Ban for self-serving disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that considering a site ban is much too soon in this situation and for this user :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Editor has just indefinitely blocked by Someguy1221. Editor served his first block and was advised by NeilN to focus more on being WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE. However, editor decided to continue to pursue the latter with posts like User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#It would be better for Wiki to merge with either Google or FB. and User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#FYI: I have requested for a Review and Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis#Request for Reviews (2nd)..... Although I think there's potential for this person to contribute positively in some way, even if its just copy editing type of stuff, I don't think will happen as long as they continue to not listen to what the community has been telling them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't even realize this was being discussed here. To me it's pretty clear Jayabalan is not interested in collaborating to build an encyclopedia, he's interested in promoting his thesis. One month and 600 edits later, that's literally all he has done. On top of that, anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, stupid, dangerous, a censor, or a Nazi. This is definitely the wrong website for him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Attributing Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to citizens of certain countries

With this edit (diff) Resnjari wrote a comment which includes this part ...people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. With this edit Resnjari attributed Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to population of Serba and Greece. I think it is wrong to do it and kindly explained to Resnjari with this edit (diff). Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and correct it, they removed my comment with explanation written in the edit line: LOL ! Spare me the bullshit. (diff).

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong and if it actually allowed to attribute certain bad outlooks to whole group of people, based on their nationality. But if I am right, I think it would be good that somebody with admin authorities warn editor in question about this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The views expressed can be backed by multiple academic sources, some of which i came by you. He is one example you will be more than familiar with. Kopanski page.192 [2]: "They attempted to overcome the extremely biased trend in the modern Communist and Christian nationalist historiography of Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and Greece related to the history of the Osmanli state and Islamic civilization in the Balkans. Such an effort seems well timed since the Christian, nationalist and Marxist historiographies of the last hundred years have generally portrayed the Osmanli centuries as some kind of 'Dark Ages' of the 'enslaved' Balkan nations. The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam were ignored by the generality of historians who hardly even tried to conceal their anti-Muslim bias. Their ferociously anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish attitude not only obscured and distorted the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam, but also provided an intellectual prop for the ultra nationalist policy of ethnic and religious cleansing in Bosnia, Hum (Herzegovina), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. For against the backdrop of the history of the Balkans, as generally portrayed, what appeared as a kind of historical exoneration and an act of retaliation for the 'betrayal' of Christianity in the Middle Ages." Another by Isa Blumi notes the following p. 32 [3]. "As state policy, post- Ottoman “nations” continue to sever most of their cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional links to the Ottoman period. At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction (Kiel 1990; Riedlmayer 2002). As a result of this strategic removal of the Ottoman past—the expulsion of the “Turks” (i.e., Muslims); the destruction of buildings; the changing of names of towns, families, and monuments; and the “purification” of languages—many in the region have accepted the conclusion that the Ottoman cultural, political, and economic infrastructure was indeed an “occupying,” and thus foreign, entity (Jazexhi 2009). Such logic has powerful intuitive consequences on the way we write about the region’s history: If Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” and thus “foreigners” by default, it becomes necessary to differentiate the indigenous from the alien, a deadly calculation made in the twentieth century with terrifying consequences for millions." On the matter of a "removal" of comments, it was at my talkpag, not the article talkpage. You have on occasion come to my talkpage to impart your advice [4]. On my talkpage i can delete whenever and whatever want. If admins want to follow this up, they know where i am. I can back up my views all of them through peer reviewed scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam + ... the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam. Oh yeah, this is a critical work of academia. No bias at all. I wonder why that might be?. The other source, however; At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction. Rings true. That said, you can back up a lot of things with peer reviewed sources. Now, I don't give a flying toss if you can justify "your views" about entire ethnic populations with peer reviewed academia. How bout you two stick to the topic "Skanderberg" at the article and article talk. It'd be one hell of an achievement if you two could demonstrate that Albanians and Serbians can work with one another. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did stick to Skanderbeg. The editor in question referred to an Albanisation of that figure. How can someone be Albaninised when the very person identified himself as Lord of Albania. The editor was inferred things to prevent editing on something povish and without evidence. Skanderbeg's myth is based on a manipulated and distorted image in which his experience was taken out of historical and religious context, turned into a tool of nation building through secularisation and also to deconstruct and attack Islam in Albania, by claiming Ottoman heritage as bad (i.e Islam). On Kopanski, might not be your view, but you have nothing to discredit the source. In the end the academic has written in a journal that is peer reviewed. The editor came on my talkpage to lecture me as done on occasion and i responded in kind the way i did. On the article talkpage i made no remark that was out of order and that editor could have responded only there. Instead it was followed with the usual commentary on my talkpage. My talkpage, is my domain and i will delete whatever i like.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources you brought do not back up your attribution of Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to contemporary people of Serbian and Greek nationality. They refer to the "state policy" or "historiography" of certain period, "the way we write about the region’s history", "generality of historians".... The issue here are not the sources. Its possible to find sources for every kind of speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of their nationality. That does not mean that such speech has its space on wikipedia. There is also no space for repeated inappropriateness like this (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I would appreciate if you could refrain from attributing any particular ethnicity to me and challenging my ability to work together with other people based on the nationality you attributed to me and them. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources i brought here are but a few. There are many more and contemporary. I brought Kopanski because you are familiar with piece of work when you contributed to the Albanian historiography article. We can go further into this I have all the time in the world. I stand by what i on the article talkpage. Skanderbeg and the construct around him resembles neighbouring nationalistic ideas about the Ottoman era. By the way i include Albanians in the too regarding mass Turkophobia and Islamophobia, as per Schmidt, p. 15 [5]. Oh, yeah i am Albanian by the way.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Should have known the more off-hand joking comment would backfire. It's common knowledge (within the region we are talking about) that Albanian-Serbian relations are strained due to Kosovo. That was more what my comment about Serbs and Albanians working together was about; not necessarily about the two of you specifically. Your name tells me you're against discrimination. In both English (c instead of k) and in SrpskoHrvatski/HrvatskoSrpski (whichever). My apologies if my more off-hand comment was not appreciated. I'll re-iterate the genuine point without generalization; stick to the article topic and don't make general accusations of bigotry at an entire ethnic group. The second point is directed at Resnjarvi; Also at myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well his name being about being against discrimination, much can be said there, anyway jokes aside, scholarship is scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond to both of your comments directed to me here, so as to simplify the threading and reduce the number of comments made. All things considered; both of our ethnic related comments created discomfort. I can't tell whether Antidiskriminator's "Albanization" comment had a similar effect on you. I've been re-reading both comments multiple times and ... I'm not sure that there's a big disagreement between the two of you on article content. Antidiskriminator holds the position that the last period of his life should not take the majority of the article and lede; your position (if I am following correctly) is that there is a mythos about Skanderberg designed to turn people against Islam. I think Antidiskriminator agrees with you on that point; Insisting on his anti-Muslim struggle and neglecting his pro-Muslim pre-1443 life, would be a violation of undue. On content you seem to be on about the same page. I get the point that your comparison isn't meant to be about all Serbs, or all Greeks. It's just that the implication could extend to mean anyone. Presume I'm Greek for a second and you said to me that people in Greece have Islamophobic views. Can you see why that might be offensive to me? The implication being that I am, or my family are, or my friends are, Islamophobes. How do you know, you've never met me, my family, or my friends. I think that's more what perturbed Antidiskriminator, than the historiography of Serbia and Greece. Also, your talkpage isn't actually your "domain" and you can't "delete whatever you like" - WP:UP#CMT. You have greater freedom on your talk page, but, there are restrictions with what you can do. On Kopanski, never heard of the guy, a quick skim told me he'd have biases for Islam. I tend to treat sources with POV's more skeptically than sources that are crafted more carefully and without obvious positions for or against a motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have called my own mother a Islamophobe and Turkophobe to her face due to her disgusting views. So i have been in pricklier situations than this. Anyway the point i am making to him was Skanderbeg or the mythmaking around him is based on something else (communist period and the wackiness of the regime for other motives i.e social engineering which is clear) and not Albanisation. To claim Albanisation, especially Anti who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg is a little bit out there becuase it infers that Skanderbeg was not Albanian in anyway to begin with (these views still exist in some Serb and Greek circles) considering that Kastrioti called himself lord of Albania etc. He is aware. If he is going to say to other editors that certain bits info or alterations should not be done, at least when making a grandiose claim of Albanisation have some kind of backing. On sources, Anti came across Kopanski, i merely followed his actions in my use much later.Resnjari (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised, Resnjari? Back then, in the Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you have accused the editors of Wikipedia for being Islamophobe because they didn't share your Islamist views, where you demonize the Christians and victimize the Muslims. This was evident by your personal portrayal of a certain Muslim ethnic group as "victims of Christian Greeks" for being expelled after WWII due to their collaboration with the Nazis. This is what you implied when I opposed your personal portrayal of the Greeks as "ethnic cleansers of Muslim Cham Albanians":

** "My approach is objective unlike yours which is based on reasons of “traitorous actions”. Like I said show me peer reviewed scholarship that states that using the term ethnic cleansing is wrong. As for the comparison with the Armenian Genocide it does suffice. It does not matter about the numbers. Both populations where not liked by other peoples that they lived amongst, they had people who collaborated with incoming armies and that was used as justification for the populations demise. The only difference is that Armenians are Christians and Albanian Chams are Muslims. So when peer reviewed scholarship states that those events for Christian Armenians is ethnic cleansing its ok to cite, but when it’s for Muslim Albanian Chams it’s a different standard even though peer reviewed literature cites that too. If you want to report me, then please do so.Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "  **

Just this is wrong of your part, Resnjari. To suggest that the Wikipedia's community is racist towards Muslims, so is to disparage their skills and contributions to the Wiki project. Very wrong approach, and not befitting you an editor as well. And certainly it is a not so objective approach as you might think. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that Wikipedia editors are Turkophobic or Islamophobic on Muslims. My comments which you have cut and paste were part of a larger discussion on sources. Those sentiments are however very common in the Balkans due to state nationalism in many countries starting with Albania poisoned by that thinking. I have been told at length, lectured by Albanian editors that i should not edit or contribute to Islam related articles on Albania because it is the wrong thing to do on my talkpage [6] ! Should i have reported them due to their colourful language? So you know i am very cynical. Also you said i have "Islamist" views ? Now isn't that pushing it. You are aware of what a Islamist is right ? There are many observant Muslims on Wikipedia, who some would even find discussing the faith critically very offensive, yet still that does not make them an Islamist. I don't observe Islam. My mother converted as a Jehovah's Witness when i was a little kid, forced me along for the ride, so i know a lot of bible and little Quran and she still is a Christian fanatic with crazy views of which i have encountered among many, many Balkan people about Islam and i don't share them. Knowledge and yes Western scholarship opened my eyes about Islam and i don't share those alternative views even if now they are the norm in many parts of the Balkans. Now the matter is with Anti. If you got some additional issue with me start a new topic in here.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very aware of the difference between Muslim views and Islamist views. The Muslims and the Islamists are not even one and the same thing. Which you probably know already. Your cynical views unfortunately I can't say they do differ from Islamist ones which hold the belief that they are victims of a Christian hostility/discrimination towards them. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So then your aware. If i were an Islamist i would already be trying to convert you to Islam. That has not happened and nor will it. Those that have heritage should keep it. In the Balkans the order of the day has been those with Muslim heritage should discard it. Albania is prime example number one in this regard and the myth of Skanderbeg is central to that campaign dating from the communist era. Muslims in the Balkans have experienced mass discrimination and violence from Christian states and peoples and vice versa and they experienced it because of their faith. It has not been a one way ticket or the sole experience of the latter by the former as nationalist literature and rhetoric often refers too.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please. I am not interested to listen to theories, nor I care about your opinions as they cannot justify editorial bias. Your edits are fundamentally biased in an anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction, and, hiding yourself behind historical or religious reasons is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor. Please stick to the discussion: your behavior is questioned here, not your opinions. Attributing Islamophobic, Albanophobic or Turcophobic outlooks to the editors in Wikipedia and the people in certain countries goes against the Wikipedia's editorial standards and is a form of disruption, which shows a lack of competence of your part and this behavior is unacceptable. I have warned you in the past about this, but the fact that more editors are now still reporting the same problem in their encounters with you, shows that you are failing to realize the extend of the problem. You are admitting your religious bias but at same time you are showing an unwillingness in remedying for this, which is not good. A topic-wide ban on Balkan articles is usually a preventative measure to protect these articles from incompetent editors who are failing to gasp the problem of religious bias in their edits. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your views about a "anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction". Wikpedia is about facts, not what feels good about something and omitting the bad stuff. Its an encyclopedia, not a blogging forum. Also the same charge can be made (if one uses your criteria) on the opposite end such as in that citation of yours from a exchange in Cham Albanian related topics. For example your comment about the Chams "traitorous actions" [7] and wanting not to include peer reviewed scholarship. Anti-Albanian bias? Or were you admitting to an anti-Albanian bias ? A topic wide ban on Cham related articles or Balkan ones for that matter regarding you? As i have said on English Wikipedia and even on Albanian Wikipedia, if you don't like my editing, bad luck. Scholarship is scholarship, and all the ones i use i make sure they are wp:secondary, wp:reliable and from the Western World to for those claiming "biases". I am currently editing Islam related topics on Albania because one i have done background reading and two it is a core area in that Wikipedia project. The country is a majority identifying Muslim nation after all. Unless you can find some issue with a source or something i have edited within one of those articles (nothing presented), its more of the same wp:idontlikeit view on your part. By the way i have not said that editors on Wikipedia are Turkophobic or Islamophobic. Don't distort my words. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You are attributing Albanophobia to me. Don't you see? You are presenting the Cham treason and siding with the Nazis against the Greek state as being "my anti-Albanian bias" and not a historical event of WWII. Prespari, as an editor, you have done very very little to remain neutral in your attribution of biased Peer viewed sources against Serbians and Greeks, which shows editorial bias of your part. And to justify this bias, you are hiding behind the argument of citing peer-viewed sources. Bias in sources does not mean you can be a biased editor, Prespari. It's your failure to present scholarly opinions (opinions are not facts) of Greeks committing Ethnic cleansing against Albanians as just that: opinions. You are refusing to present them in an unbiased manner and you are hiding yourself behind your argument "I am just quoting peer-viewed sources". This is not far from saying "I was just following orders." You chose to pick and use the most biased of the available peer-viewed sources and to present them as being facts, using the reliability of the sources as your flag against their paraphrasing or summarization in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary. What do you expect from me to do with this form of disruption? To approve it? Wikipedia tried to warn you over citing and attributing sources: being reliable does not make that source neutral. Your insistence that the reliability = same as = neutrality and that the opinions = same as = facts, shows editorial bias. To insist on your bias despite our warnings, is to cause disruption. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No one said Albanophobia toward you. Using your line of argument. On ethnic cleansing, i.e Baltsiotis, a Greek scholar. Anyway on "neutral vocabulary", your one to talk, please. Once again the words "Cham treason" says it all. No even the scholarship goes there.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not again!!! Weren't the 15 million who were killed when the Third Balkan War turned into World War One enough blood to satisfy any desire to shed more blood over the Balkans? Can't some administrator topic-ban these Balkan fighters?!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree on the war matter. Idiocy being a cause. Various propaganda of pursuing a "greater" this or a "greater" that with various state building ideologies of othering peoples among other things in the region led to Balkans Wars which morphed into World War One. Topic banning should be based on something substantive. Not a dislike of an editor. On "Balkan fighters", the issue was on Skanderbeg and a matter Silent was not involved in. Silent came here to make her own commentary here, i responded in kind. This is an ANI forum, and i have a right of reply. Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, do you mean Second Balkan War (1913). The third one is the Yugoslav Civil War of 1991/2-95 (1991-2001 as far as Wikipedia is concerned). To answer your question though, evidently not given that another million were killed in WW2 and then more than 100,000 is the Yugo Wars. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude - I was using an unconventional numbering, in counting a war, WWI, that isn't normally counted as a Balkan War. Was it only a million killed in the Balkans (out of a total of tens of millions) in WWII? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, don't jump immediately to topic ban. The Third Balkan War (according to your "unconventional numbers") belongs to the past and all editors should not confuse history with the actual discussion here. The region has a recent bloody history and for that reason editors from there and the disputes between them should be treated with patience. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Ah, okay, yes if you count WW1 as the Third Balkan War then yes that makes sense. I was thinking of Yugoslavia specifically which accounts for at least 1 million dead (conservative estimate), but, I've seen values up to 2 million. Add Greece, Romania (some call Romania a Balkan state, others dont), Bulgaria and Albania to it and you can easily add another 1 million in the balkans. So between 2-3 million. The greatest losses were in Russia and China with around 24 million and 18 million a piece and then that's followed by Poland who lost something around 20% of their population which I think is around 6-7 million. Germany also suffered heavy losses but mostly military deaths - maybe 4 million military and 1-2 million civilian. All in all that makes up 52-54 million losses in these four countries alone. World War II casualties has a table with approximate numbers totaling around 70-85 million. There's also this infographic on youtube which I really like (18 minutes). The thing with the Balkans is that they were easily overrun by the joint operations of the Wehrmacht and Italian army. Yugoslavia didn't even make it two weeks before being completely occupied - though the government went into exile and resistance movements were active throughout the duration of the war. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes that too, all of it. The rationale for conflicts in othering peoples based on faith ethnicity and others things is a common occurrence. State social engineering played a large role in this in mobilsing and making people ready to act. Historiography played a big part. Scholarship from the West notes that those histriographies are still mainly the same in most countries in the Balkans with no change after all that. Sentiments of othering need not be overt for them to exist among citizens for a state to use when it wants. The myth of Skanderbeg is a case in point, though the communist regime never got a chance to employ it in war. But they sure made life hell for its citizens using it from the 1960s onward in their social engineering campaigns.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, frankly, I was not a witness of the incident between Resnjari and Antidiskriminator, but I wasn't surprised to find this report on ANI. I have seen Antidiskriminator's quality work in Wikipedia. He is a cooperative user with long history of positive edits in the Balkan topics, whose work is widely acknowledged by the editorial community and whose records show no disruption whatsover. Antidiskriminator's contributions resulted in Balkan articles being improved or even gaining a GA status, which shows this user's tireless efforts in promoting Wikipedia's quality. I do not think it is ever appropriate to ask for him to be topic-banned for reporting here another editor's problematic behavior. To do so, is to discourage the Wiki editors from ever reporting on ANI any similar incidents in the future. Which I am very certain is not in our interests, Robert. To ban Antidiskriminator for reporting an evident problem of religious or ethnic bias of Resnjari's part in certain Balkan articles, is to encourage certain editors do not heel to our warnings over their bias. The fact that Resnjari was involved in more incidents, is just an indicator of our failure. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that is not entirely right there. Antidiskrimintor has been banned before for problematic editing [8], [9], [10]. Another thing is Anti has had me in his sights way before i even interacted with him [11], that link can be found on his main page [12] under "Interesting coincedences:". Odd that.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Silentresident. You did not witness a incident. So then why are you here commenting ? On "bias", i never said that Anti had a bias. He referred to Albanianisation and in an attempt to prevent edits and i reminded him of what the figure of Skanderbeg had been refashioned by the Albanian state, and in a similar fashion to sentiments out there in the Balkans. He commented on my talkpage and i deleted him as its MY talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Realtalk: this guy is trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist. I think it's time for him to, at the very least, be topic banned from any article related to the Balkans. Jtrainor (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari is not "trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist". The discussion and decisions should be based on a full understanding of the situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say people are racist, i said those views are very common in the Balkans, and yes even among my people for multiple sociopoltical reasons which involve the state itself imparting upon the people those things through social engineering, i.e see Albanian nationalism, Albanian historiography, Serbian historiography etc etc. Otherwise the Balkans would be a very peaceful place which it has NOT been. And this is recent times too. Also the historiographries of a large number of places in the Balkans is very problematic. As for other editors here, Yyu may not have encountered views which ifered to in the Balkans as you might not be from there. My original reference in the article talkpage was to this as the editor himself referred to Albanisation in an attempt to prevent edits, when he himself who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg knows otherwise. Antidiskriminator here has made multiple past comments on my talkpage [13], [14] that he will take me i ANI on my talkpage when i noted to other editors (separate to him) the problems of using Serbian historiography due to nationalism and hence POV, of which he uses extensively. Apparently its ok for him to note issues with using Albanian historiography of which i acknowledge and support (i don't use the stuff) but the reverse is apparently not on for Serbian historiography. Also why a topic ban for me? What has been the problem with my editing ? Can someone please show something substantive here with my editing. Otherwise this is resembling more of along the lines of wp:witchhunt and wp:hounding.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari,

• if I am responsible for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, I am deeply and most sincerely sorry.
• I am also sorry if I don't share your opinion that works are unreliable on the basis of the (wrong) nationality of their authors.
• I am also sorry because of the Albanisation of Skanderbeg which transformed medieval tribal chieftain (who is responsible for death of more than million Albanian civillians and soldiers in the Ottoman and rebel units) into Albanian nationalist hero. I can assure that I never participated in such absurd irrational manipulation.
• Let us not lie ourselves Resnjari. If after three days after the initial report you are allowed to blame the other editors for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, its obviuos that you will not be warned and that such attacks are allowed and tolerated. I am sorry for that, but thats life. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On "lies", thank you for pointing that part of the article out. All those sources used there do not use the word Albanianisation, so i am guessing that is a original research take on it. That POV subheading is in need of alteration. The National Awakening Rilindja period did not take a figure who himself used the title Lord of Albania and make him "Albanian". Like i said use a source that states the word Albanianisation here. Albanianisation, on its own carries very POVish connotations. I made my point on the Rilindja period and beyond. Skanderbeg was nationalised and secularised for state engineering processes. By nationalised his fight was interpreted to be one that dominated the country (which was wrong) and that his struggle was one of a "hero" that all Albanians backed (wrong again). As Kopanski noted he was a warlord at best fighting from a small area to restore his fathers lands and his own interests, not some national one. Many Albanians fought against this individual for the Ottomans. That is the part that takes this person out of his historical context and manipulated for others. It was not his Albanian identity that was utilised or invented (if we used the term "Albanianisation" which i take you mean here), but his fight against the Ottomans embellished with fabrications and transfixed by the communists to fight religion in particular Islam, viewed as the religion of the "invader". As for who dies and so on about the medaevil period, the numbers who knows. Its this obsession of the modern day period with Skanderbeg that is problematic and who did not shape the Albanian experience, but the Ottomans. Their arrival allowed Albanians to become Albanians as we know them today speaking Albanian and being of a religion different to their neighbours preventing assimilation. Its this experience in which the communists attempted to wipe out through nationalism and things like the myth of Skanderbeg. As for blame you have been at it on my talkpage many times now. Maybe i should have lodged ANI reports against you with those colourful comments but unlike you i cannot be bothered.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To argue that these racist views are "very common", is an attempt to justify your editorial bias against these people and countries, Prespari. Which is no different from calling the commonsfolk "racists" and hiding your racism behind this argument. You are crossing some dangerous red lines here. This has no place in Wikipedia. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Prespari", my user name is Resnjari, from the outset from 2008, never been changed. What are you on about ?Resnjari (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I shall note that Resnjari's disruptions are not limited to racist bias only, but also extend to 3RR breaches and POV Tag-abuses, this time in the balkan topic article Albania, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773385589&oldid=773354922

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773406406&oldid=773398621

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773410810&oldid=773410545

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773578486&oldid=773477463

In that incident, which happened earlier this month, at 2 April, Resnjari attempted to impose his POV on the article by using the POV tags as a trojan horse to achieve his goals. Despite not having any consensus (he tried to explain the necessity for POV Tags in Talk:Albania, but he failed to convince; several other editors, besides me, opposed him but he couldn't listen to us and he reverted them when he didn't get the things done the way he wanted). This disruption happened at a moment at which Resnjari fully acknowledges that the article falls under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The 3rr rule relates to undoing someones edits 3 times. In your "evidence" the first edit i made i added the tags. The next two which are dated April the 12th i undid 2 edits. The 4th edit relates to April the 13th, Your breach is where ? I also noted extensive issues with the map of which other editors admitted to and its all in the talkpage. Anyway you attempted one of these 3rr things with me a while back on my talk page, not realising the count [15]. You really must want me to get banned Silent.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to ban you, what I want is an end to this racist bias on Balkan articles, Resnjari. But like Jtrainor does, all I see here is you defending your actions as if there is nothing wrong about portraying the people of these countries as racist.--SILENTRESIDENT 06:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"racist bias"? How so ? If anything most of my editing has focused on the negative regarding Albanian issues as opposed to the positive, in articles that relate to the Islamization of Albania or recently the Albanian nationalism one, i go where the scholarship takes me. Are you saying then that i am racist toward Albanians, considering i am one of them? As for your evidence, make sure it actually breaks rules when you present it.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On this issue, Antidiskrimantor threw the term Albanianisation out there, though not offensive to you or maybe others it is to Albanians, due to how it has been used in the Balkans. As much as there is stuff concocted and fabricated about Skanderbeg, the Albanianised part is not it. Saying that without some kind of scholarly backing is very POVish and provocative, especially when it is used as a means to prevent possible editing in a article. If the perception is by some that i overacted, then i apologise, but there should be awareness both ways. Also my talkpage is my domain and not to be used as some editors having been doing to make intimidating attempts at this or that or even telling me (in problematic language and that is putting it nicely) not to edit because my editing violates some "national honour", especially which annoyed me even though i kept my cool. I have let a lot of things pass from many editors over the years, a lot and that shows with my clean record. I don't trash talk your talkpages and i expect the same standard for mine. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For removal of comments, notices, and warnings from User Talk Pages, please see WP: User Pages (Removal of comments, notices, and warnings). --SILENTRESIDENT 09:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ok fine about notices and stuff. Anti has posted on my talkpage in previous times regarding wanting to take me to ANI (big difference) because to paraphrase him i was "inhibiting his work" due to me discussing (not editing, but discussing) with another editor the problematic issues of Serbian sources. Should i interpret that type of past commentary as intimidation or a threat (for future reference) ? Its ok though when Albanian sources are discussed in that way however. Its stuff like that [16], [17]. On my talkpage, no thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator has placed accuses on my talk too. I have deleted them and it is not wrong if others do the same when they think there is a good reason. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You too. Well not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The long discussion is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.

When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.

You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.

"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!

"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.

The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.

I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

GregJackP

Resolved

 – Discussion (here and at BLPN) has served its purpose—no administrative action needed. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

GregJackP said "Also, just to let you know, at 2:00 PM tomorrow (local time), I'll revert the last change back to the long-term version, and I'll continue to do so until you get consensus to remove the material."[18] It appears they will continue to revert. Past reverts.[19][20][21][22][23] I believe they will continue to revert. Something has got to change. I personally disagree with restoring all the sources. The current text uses more reliable sources. I don't want to wait until 2:00 PM tomorrow (Wikipedia time) for the next round of reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hm - the history isn't very edifying there. I've fully protected the article for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• This material was included by consensus following a series of discussions in 2015. It's not edifying because last time the discussion was held in about 5 different locations because JYTDog was forum shopping. I also find it curious that QuackGuru shows up to an article that he's never edited, nor has he shown a great deal of interest in legal articles, until JYTDog was reverted from his arbitrary changes from what the consensus had been. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that an aspersion that someone is a sock of somebody else? L3X1 (distant write) 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I do not think that QG is anyone's sock. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

---

You know Black Kite, QuackGuru, I had this under control. El_C 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I know the feeling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How so? El_C 01:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I've stepped on your toes - feel free to unprotect it if you think it'll be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is more. Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You still shouldn't be shopping for admins. El_C 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C is to be commended for approaching this with dialog, as should be the norm. Once we have to protect page or block someone, things have gotten seriously screwed up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

After being warned by an admin about using a problematic source they started a RfC using the problematic source. More than one editor opposed using Infowars, but GregJackP is not listening. QuackGuru (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is, mercifully, up. I suggest you approach it without prejudice. El_C 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than collaborate GregJackP has guaranteed the long-version will not be restored any time soon. Proposing to restore text that is not supported by the source was the last straw. It can be closed as a snow oppose within 24 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are nine votes to remove and five votes to retain, as of now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. El_C 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. They claimed "There are no BLP issues."[24] It can be shut down now per this. A serious discussion requires a serious proposal. The current proposal is not it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The revised RfC is now up. El_C 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

After requesting verification for a part of the text more than one editor refused to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

They are silent. They will not provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we've answered, you just don't like the answer, either because of IDHT or a competence issue in using the Bluebook citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I propose the RfC be immediately closed per this and previous concerns. If an IP made the same edit as the proposal to the article they would probably be warned for unconstructive editing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• The vote count this time is 6 in support, 3 oppose—most editors seem to agree with those latest changes. El_C 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• According to the creator of Wikipedia the Wikipedia community is committed to amateurism.
• In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice: "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."

• It is very clear part of the proposal contains original research. See Larry Sanger's WP:OR policy. Stating that most editors seem to agree with the latest changes does not mean there is no original research being proposed. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can we shut this down? We've got an ongoing RfC where progress is being made, with the exception of one editor. That editor is beginning to become disruptive, making baseless accusations about BLP at that notice board (without identifying a actual BLP issue), at the Bluebook article talk page, here, and at the RfC. Can someone advise him that forum shopping is inappropriate? GregJackP Boomer! 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Damaging behavior (edit summaries/article content) at euphoria

Hello administrators and fellow editors. The following concerns actions by user:Seppi333 at euphoria.

Reading these edit summaries [25] I ask, why should I be involved with Wikipedia?

• please use refs that don't suck ass to rewrite this section. otherwise, delete it
• is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. ... stop citing 'shit refs'
• this is what happens when you don't use a drug monograph like https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+58-08-2 - you get retarded contradictions

This language is hurtful in itself and humiliating to me when seen by other editors. Technically focusing on content, it is a clever way of being obnoxiously insulting. Now Seppi333 is an asset to Wikipedia; he is a learned first rate editor and I, a very human one; but regardless of the validity of his contentions no one should be treated this way. I resist urges to be provoked or become resigned. Because I have been on the receiving end of f***ing (his wording) comments from Seppi333 before, I appeal to you. I don't want to interact with him.

But this isn't just about me. While this was happening he actually modified the article to read [26]: "The widely consumed stimulant caffeine is a euphoriant at higher (than typical) dosages,^{[contradictory][37][38][39]} which does not produce euphoria.^{[contradictory][40][41][42]}" Seppi333 created this intentionally absurd sentence, then made another edit, adding the dual contradictory tags in a single sentence, to make his point, without concern for confusing readers or damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. That needlessly hurts everybody.

Thank you my friends for your consideration. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• NPA and civil, as usual being ignored by established users who aren't afraid of boomerang. L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: None of these are ad hominem (personal attacks); they're comments on the references that were cited. They're crude because I'm expressing my exasperation and annoyance at constantly having to enforce WP:MEDRS given the countless times I've pointed this policy out to you since we first started collaborating on the amphetamine article around one or two years ago. I acknowledge that my decision to write an apparently contradictory statement into the article wasn't in accordance with content policies; this was a poor decision on my part and I apologize for that. I'm not perfect, and like all humans, when I'm irritated I'm subject to petty emotional responses which I may sometimes be unable to inhibit.
I'm frankly getting fed up with constantly having to delete content and/or references in that article when you know very well what sources are and are not acceptable for citing medical claims. If you simply used reliable medical sources in the first place, disputes like this would not occur. If you continue to ignore that policy going forward, it's pretty likely that another dispute will arise in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They may not be personal attacks, but the comments are highly uncivil and not appropriate on a collaborative project. There are other ways to point out sources are not adequate. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I have tried other ways; they don't seem to work. In the future, I'll likely just seek assistance from other edits at WT:MED in order to deal with content/reference issues introduced by Box73 instead of engage with him directly. Subsequent to my last edit on that page, I was already planning on doing this prior to this discussion because I feel that I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. This course of action hopefully will reduce or prevent the potential for any issues with his or my behavior in our future interactions. This is the best solution that I can think of at the moment in regard to addressing his concerns.
All Box73 really needs to do to address my concerns is acknowledge that he will cite better references and follow through on that. As of now, he has not done so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've followed through on what I've stated I will do here: WT:MED#Euphoria needs more eyes. Should any future problems arise with Box73's medical content contributions, I will explain to other medical editors the issues that I see with new content on that talk page, then let those editors engage with Box73 and edit his work as they deem appropriate. If anyone has a better idea about how I should deal with Box73 in the future in order to avoid behavioral problems like this while attempting to address issues with his contributions, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious advice that if you find yourself this worked up about something on the internet, you should step away from the keyboard before using offensive edit summaries, I'd say that if an editor is chronically incapable of or unwilling to follow MEDRS, they should be topic banned from editing medical articles. Box73, telling other editors to tag your poorly cited additions instead of removing them isn't acceptable. Poorly cited medical edits will be removed on sight. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I am using MEDRS refs.

Typically Seppi333 simply deletes what he disagrees with. WP:BOLD excuses him from discussion. Challenged, he resorts to wikilawyering and threatens that reverts will be deleted. And he does. Seppi333 deleted and redeleted material I added in December. An RfC supported my addition. I didn't see one comment against.

The "suck ass" / "shit refs" edit summaries refer to the UV section I added. I used five MEDRS refs, all reviews from medical journals, the oldest from 2011. A sixth was a peer reviewed article from an industrial science journal. A seventh was published on the Skin Cancer Foundation website. While considered lesser quality sources, these were well written, well cited articles written by published medical researchers. They were used with MEDRS refs but could have been omitted without effect on the material. But Seppi333 didn't do that, he radically edited the copy and added the nasty comments, now claiming I used bad refs.

Bad refs? I didn't write the June 2014 review in Cell but his edit summary response was "Skin β-endorphin mediates addiction to ultraviolet light" is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. beta-endorphin can barely penetrate the BBB. stop citing shit refs". What part of MEDRS did I violate?

My caffeine ref was old but otherwise MEDRS. The caffeine material was added by a new editor, well intentioned but poorly cited. I found support for his edit but also let one ref stay temporarily, maybe a week. When reasonable and harmless I want to encourage new editors.

Seppi333's response is outrageous. I'm responsible for his behavior and I need to be policed? I've never had any problems with any editor except him. All I ask is for him to loosen up, use common sense, try to collaborate, look at the spirit of the law.

@Spike Wilbury: Thank you. I agree: the flags aren't a license for lousy citations. But the existence of {{medrs}} and {{medcn}} demands some intended use. What I'm saying is that Seppi333 is overstating issues and may react inappropriately. Again, thanks for commenting! — βox73 (৳alk) 10:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I addressed Seppi333's edit summaries in my comment as a separate matter. You are not responsible for their behavior. But, there's nothing wrong with noticing your own role in the conflict. The fact is that readers (stupidly) look to Wikipedia for medical advice and that's the primary reason for stringent adherence to MEDRS, same as why we are so strict about BLPs. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The references I deleted from that article are:

• – this textbook was published in 1999. This was 18 years ago. WP:MEDDATE indicates that refs that are older than 5 years are outdated (In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones). Most medical editors will allow for references to be at most 10 years old due to the fact that some topics are not as actively researched as others and to allow grandfathered references (i.e., ones that were added while still within the 5 year limit) to remain in the article; 18 years is almost double that limit. That 10 year limit is not specified in that policy, it's simply a widely adopted norm among medical editors. It is standard practice to delete medical references that are older than that, especially if they have just been added to an article (as opposed to having been added years ago).

@Seppi333:I'm sorry about that. I admitted above it is dated; I planned to fix both refs within days. (I was being sensitive to a new editor.)

• – this article is a cosmetics industry publication (see the last page); moreover, the article is not pubmed-indexed [27], so there's no indication that this article is a medical source.

Published by Tekno Scienze Publisher, Household and Personal Care Today is a peer reviewed industrial scientific journal which was a supplement to Chimica Oggi - Chemistry Today. Dr. Heckman is a [researcher] and an associate professor at Temple University working in this field. The article was well written, well cited, and the content not controversial. This ref was also posted with an MEDRS ref. The real reason I used it was that it used the term euphoria, where others simply described euphoria.

The bigger problem—and I thank you for bringing it to my attention—is β-endorphin and the BBB. Some other mechanism is required.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication types - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. This is not a medical review; it's a primary source.

You're right. An artifact occurred. When review is already checked and I enter [[28]] that article is listed.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication type - Editorial. This is not a medical review; it's a low-quality primary source (the lowest quality primary sources are editorials, case report, and opinion articles).

I undertand—an editorial introduces bias. I weighed this as a position of the American Academy of Dermatology.

• – this is a website. WP:MEDRS#Other sources indicates that virtually all websites with biomedical information, with exception for only a handful listed there (e.g., WebMD, UpToDate, and eMedicine), are considered low quality sources. Even the exceptions listed in that section are stated as being sub-par sources relative to medical reviews.

I should have pulled this. Unlike Heckman it was not peer reviewed or published in any type of scientific journal. Of course MEDRS also gives credibility to some NPOs like the American Heart Association, for example.

@Box73: If you want to find high-quality medical reviews, search pubmed for them, not google. If a pubmed-indexed article is a medical review, it will list "Review" under the "Publication types" tab on the article's pubmed information page. If you didn't know this, I probably should've recognized that and informed you sooner. If you did know this, then you should know better than to cite sources like the ones above.

Thank you Seppi. I do review searches and it's certainly easy to recognize primary research (though I tripped up with the artifact above). I have to be careful distinguishing articles which survey material from reviews proper. The other problem is shifting between medical and non-medical articles.

If you have questions about how certain parts of WP:MEDRS are interpreted or applied in practice, I'd advise you to ask about it at WT:MEDRS or WT:MED.
Going forward, I'm going to ask other medical editors to enforce MEDRS in the euphoria article instead of doing it myself, particularly since I've had to delete sources you've added that were similar to these on many previous occasions for the same reasons.

If he or she keeps an eye on the article and acts on their own initiative, that's cool. If you practice wikilawyering and meatpuppetry, that's not cool.

It's not clear that euphoria is simply a medical topic/article. Some types of euphoria are little studied or reviewed, and wrongly not mentioned by the article. (What scientist has reviewed crowd or political euphoria, or the euphoria of winning a valuable or esteemed prize?) Non-MEDRS must be considered. On the other hand authors of MEDRS reviews make statements about euphoria that are based on their opinion and not the review, particularly when the review isn't about euphoria. And indirect statements using the term may be taken out of context. There are cases where euphoria is clearly present from descriptions but the term not used, such as partial epileptic states (ecstatic seizures). (Likely because in clinical neurology "euphoria" traditionally represents superficially carefree negative states as observed in dementia, lobectomies, etc.) Insistence on actually seeing "euphoria" in print might require references to primary or non-MEDRS sources. But clear descriptions of euphoria and understanding that euphoria is an element of ecstasy should suffice. Common sense is sometimes needed. I suppose some issues may require RfC.

I'm getting annoyed with having to justify my deletions every time this happens; I should not have to do this.

Maybe you shouldn't be editing presently if you're so easily annoyed. I took a break last year when things got tense. Look, I'm not vandalizing content but attempting to be constructive. If you see a problem ref, why not see if you can improve it? That's what I do.

If you edit medical articles, you have to learn what is and is not OK to cite when adding medical content.

Well, I think I'll do much better after this with the medical content copy. The talk pages might be useful too. I will be adding a stimulant-euphoriant to euphoria but will post it on the talk page first. This discussion caused me to change two refs, and new refs caused me to change the statement. How about you look it over for the refs and otherwise. Very short. Then I'll post it.

Thank you.::::— βox73 (৳alk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Section reflist

Reflist
References

Personal attacks by Nishidani at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. During the discussion, Nishidani has written responses to Greg's comments (like this, this, and this) and my comments (such as this), all of which indicate a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks. It's one thing to respond to comments but it's another to fail in holding back aggressiveness in the process. What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not.

Out of concern about these comments, I gave Nishidani a warning about PAs on his talk page (probably not the best warning, now that I think about it, but it certainly reflected my concerns at the time). Then, I noticed that the same aggressive comments on the AfD were continuing, so I gave Nishidani a couple more serious warnings. After I discussed with another user about why I did not include diffs, Nishidani gave me this rather condescending and aggressive response. In addition, Nishidani has shown failure to assume good faith in regards to what he calls IP editors (like this and this in his talk page). While I do understand the mistrust in IP users, I have seen a number that have contributed positively to Wikipedia and there was no need to rush to conclusions.

Now, the AfD discussion has quieted down at the moment. However, all of these interactions I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check. Let it be known that this is my first rodeo at ANI, so forgive me if I did anything wrong. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: You should strike your own assumption of bad faith in Example text "I/P", when Nishidani used it in that context, clearly referred to "Israel/Palestine" and not "Internet Protocol". The latter group (anons or IP editors -- no one calls them "I/P editors") are actually not allowed edit articles related to Israel/Palestine, so there isn't even any overlap. What you did above isn't really even a failure to actively assume good faith -- you went out of your way to interpret Nishidani's words in an unintuitive manner (the I/P area, which I would advise anyone not to get sucked into, is a good training ground; many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. to make a point about how disruptive you want the community to think he is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I didn't know there was actually a difference between "IP" and "I/P". I've always been aware of "IP" and have never seen "I/P" being used before. So when I saw Nishidani use "I/P", I didn't take the / into account and immediately assumed he was talking about IP users and not Israeli/Palestine articles. One really shouldn't blame me, considering I'm still learning the ropes around here. Don't assume bad faith and think I'm doing this on purpose to bolster the image that Nishidani is a disruptive user who deserves to be banned. But anyway, I have recognized my error and struck that part out. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF), make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA) or request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him.Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text. This thread should be closed without action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF)" I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it.

"make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA)" Even if it was all just a misunderstanding on my part in the end, I did provide these diffs as my "evidence". Faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding, yes, but still, I did not exactly run in there blind.

"request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND)." Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread (Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser).

"You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him." "Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text." Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?!

"This thread should be closed without action." Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser.

Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it. (1) Stop shouting. It really hurts your case that other people are "uncivil" when you can't help but try to shout down people who disagree with you. (2) I don't think you legitimately thought he meant that, as no careful reading of the comments you linked to would leave you with the impression that he was talking about IP editors. "the I/P area" looks like a topic area, not a group of editors, in those comments. Either you were deliberately misrepresenting his comments, and are now lying to cover your tracks, or (and this actually worse) you reported him on ANI for some comments he made that you had only skimmed without making the slightest effort to understand. (3) Even if you did legitimately believe it, once I corrected you you should have retracted your whole comment and agreed that this thread should be closed, as most editors who made a good-faith mistake would.

Example text As I demonstrated further down, those diffs do not remotely approach personal attacks, and it is clear that you took them out of context. And if you now agree that those too were "faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding", you should retract everything and just move on with your life. There are articles to write.

Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were Wait, did you just admit that this whole ANI thread is based on your assumptions rather than an actual problem? "the rest" implies that they fall under the same category as the "assumption" mentioned in the previous clause. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread Those editors all have their own bones to pick with Nish. They either have his page on their watchlist or, like E.M.Gregory, you pinged them in order to tip the scales in your favour. Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser If you haven't read WP:CANVASS, you really need to.

Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?! Please stop shouting, and please refraining from attacking other editors for their own good-faith mistakes that they retracted and apologized for more than an hour earlier. You made (what you claim were) a series of flawed assumptions and attacked another editor based on said assumptions, and even when corrected by someone else have doubled down and only struck out part of the offending text and continue your attacks. I made a legitimate mistake, realized my own mistake almost immediately, retracted it, and apologized. These are not the same thing.

Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser. Again, you are cherry-picking a group of editors who seem to have piled on to this thread because they have Nish's talk page on their watchlists (and one you canvassed yourself). None of them are ANI regulars: Shrike has only posted in four ANI threads since summer 2014, including this, one other about Nishidani, one about himself, and one started by himself about another editor in the I/P area; Debresser similarly only seems to post to ANI when his name is mentioned or something I/P-related shows up; the exception is Sir Joseph, who has chimed in on a bunch of random ANI threads (though only one in the last two weeks), but I am 99% certain the latter is a Nish talk-page-stalker anyway because of this. I, on the other hand, am a regular ANI-junkie and happened across this thread by accident; Nish is an old comrade of mine, but I actually don't have his talk page on my watchlist (I would have chimed in sooner if I did). And you left out AusLondonder and Sam Walton, who both agree with me that there's no administrative action required here. Actually, though, I am beginning to doubt whether "no action" is the proper result -- now that you have (repeatedly) refused to retract your opening statement, which you admit was based on flawed assumptions and your own failure to understand what constitutes a personal attack, I am beginning to think that a WP:BOOMERANG, or at least a very, very heavy WP:TROUT might be in order.

This thread should be closed with no action against anyone but the OP, and the OP should be issued a strong warning about making accusations without evidence, and going out of his way to assume the worst when someone writes something he doesn't understand.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nish is an old comrade of mine": Ah, so no wonder you're so quick to jump to his defense! So I guess you two are coordinating to discredit me and Greg and all the others, huh?! But this witch hunt isn't going to work. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You are very clearly assuming bad faith, and going out of your way to do so. As I explained above, I don't have his talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!" -- I don't have it on my watchlist at all. I'm a regular ANI contributor, and my sig (which includes the characters やや and so is easily identifiable and searchable) currently appears four times in the most recent ANI archive (951), 0 times in 950 (I was avoiding drahma for personal reasons), 70 times in the (uncollapsed) 949, 11 times in 948, 21 times in 947, twice in 946, 35 times in 945, 42 times in 944 (excluding the one, most recent, thread in which I was specifically involved, which is collapsed so excluding it from the search is quite easy), 20 times in 943, and 8 times in 942 (the first of 2017). I clearly don't have Nish's talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!", as if I was into that I would have done so before you opened this discussion. This is not true for the other users who claim they agree with you -- the only one who regularly contributes to ANI threads that don't involve him is Sir Joseph, who hasn't done so recently, and I presented pretty clear evidence that he does have Nish's talk page on his watchlist. (I didn't check E.M.Gregory's edit history, but I didn't need to -- he could have shown up because he is stalking Nishidani, but there's no need to verify that because you directly notified him of this discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I notified E.M.Gregory of the discussion because he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him. He didn't have to respond, but clearly he's been more than happy to pitch in. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No. For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors. But moreso, if he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him were the reason, you wouldn't be continually notifying him over and over again in your responses to me. I don't know E.M.Gregory from Adam. It's clear you are continually pinging him (and several other users further up) because you want him to chime in and start helping you attack everyone who disagrees with your assessment. The problem is, most of them are smarter than to do that. They saw an open ANI thread with Nishidani's name plastered all over it and decided it was safe to badmouth him, but they're not going to start going after me, Kingsindian, AusLondoner and Sam Walton as you have been doing. In future, if you really are acting in good faith and your constant pings to users on your "side" of this discussion are not deliberate canvassing, you should use Template:Noping (as I did just now) or just don't link their usernames at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors." Nope. I have mentioned E.M.Gregory from the get-go. Read the first paragraph, he's prominently mentioned there. Also, I thought we were clear about this: there was no issue with IP editors in the first place because I misunderstood Nishidani's usage of "I/P". Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. [...] What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not. You kind of book-end the first paragraph with brief mentions of E.M.Gregory, but this clearly was not your primary motivation for opening this ANI thread, as if that were the case you would have done so when that happened. You were motivated to open this ANI thread because, after you templated his talk page, he responded annoyedly. You closed your OP comment with your actual reason for opening it: However, all of these interactions [including the fabricated "IP" nonsense] I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check (emphasis added). If E.M.Gregory thought that Nishidani's "bad faith accusations" against him (for which you didn't provide any diffs, mind) were worth an ANI thread, he could have done it himself. (BTW, E.M.Gregory did write the article. Before his first edit, the page looked like this and had been live for less than six hours; after his first string of almost uninterrupted edits, it looked like this.) Essentially, you opened this ANI thread because you don't like Nishidani, and selectively pinged one of the contributors to the AFD who happened to be on your side. Everyone here except you, the editor you canvassed, and some other Nish-stalkers with a grudge against him, think this thread should be closed with no action, and yet you continue to insist that other editors have "agreed with you" in your baseless accusations that you made without evidence, and have been using their "agreement" as justification for your refusal to retract them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's ok to ask people to cool down, but your warnings may not be taken kindly; it's a good idea to leave people alone if they ask you to. Reduces irritation all around. All the people involved are very experienced editors with thousands of edits to their name. EMG can respond to Nishidani if they want to themselves (and they have). Discussion in this area tends to become heated sometimes, but overall, the discussion is focused on the facts of the matter. I have left a short comment on the AfD page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, judging by what's been said and done on the AfD, is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. But it seems like, specifically for this incident, Greg has been the one to stay calm and collected during discussions (as best as he can, I can presume), while Nishidani's been the one to lose his cool and make all of these seemingly baseless accusations. Whatever the larger situation is, I think it should be addressed. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why not try engaging with the issues raised? Sure, tell Nishidani that he is very rude if you like, but while doing that, why not think about what he wrote and, assuming you don't like it, try to argue against his view. The article is 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing which concerns a knife attack by a lone Palestinian on a train a week ago (one student killed, and two others "including a pregnant woman" injured). By the way, if you are going to assert that someone has made personal attacks, it would be best to provide a diff and a short explanation of the problem. The diffs in this report do not go anywhere near showing attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have. Also, I understand that I gave Nishidani a couple of PA warnings. But at the time I posted this, I have decided to reconsider my stance on that, hence my current label of his "comments that indicate 'a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks.'" Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the ARBPIA area is that bad? You think those two diffs show you engaging with the issues! OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also been following the AfD and reading what is being said closely. Otherwise I'd be saying some really outlandish stuff. I don't think I'm required to be fully committed to discussing things out. If I see a problem, I'm obligated to report it, right? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• And you are entitled to be treated with respect and courtesy by administrators and by fellow editors, who should always AGF, especially when dealing with new and new-ish editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani assumes a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance that makes him deaf. Here: [29], he appears not able to see that my argument is that the ongoing coverage generated by a trial produces/increases notability. Here [30] he accuses me of "specializ(ing) in these silly articles" by which I assume he refers to articles on such terrorist attacks as the Palm Sunday church bombings that I have created. Here [31] he states "E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news." as though that was a crime. I do, often, start articles on incidents such as the 2015 Abha mosque bombing and 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing when it is clear that a breaking news story is of a nature that will sustain an article. To me, this seem like routine action to take. But here here [32] he attacks me with the slur on my editing that I regularly created article on terrorist attacks that are rapidly deleted. This is simply untrue, and my request [33] that he check the facts was ignored, although he has returned to the page to comment on a separate issues since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see that any administrator action is necessary here. That said, Nishidani, please consider how your messages will be received before you send them; bringing up editor's article creation history and otherwise belittling their contributions is not helpful at discussions unrelated to those concerns. And Cyrus the Penner, you'll have more luck explaining your concerns about this kind of behaviour in the future if you don't template the regulars. Let's all take deep breaths and move on; nothing here warrants administrator intervention in my eyes. Sam Walton (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Its not the fist time that Nishadani was warned for his personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors .Maybe enough with the warnings and take some action?--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen the interactions and cannot see any need for administrative actions here. E.M.Gregory, the target of some allegedly adverse comments, is an editor who themselves can often be rather spirited and curt in the course of passionate disagreements relating to terrorism and Israel/Palestine articles. Nevertheless both E.M.Gregory and Nishidani have important contributions to make and this isn't big enough for ANI. So time to move on I think. AusLondonder (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, may I ask why a deletion discussion was set to the 500-edit threshold? I looked in the history of the discussion but found no incidents of vandalism or abuse, so are all deletion discussions in this topic area protected by default? ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 did it, I have no idea why. L3X1 (distant write) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I asked on their talk page. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB he was following the Arbcom agreement that no editor or IP with 500 edits or less can edit anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So many labyrinths to navigate but I think i found the pertinent part at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 ? If so, is even posting in this discussion a transgression? If so, my apologies. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if IAR mixes well wil ArbCom, but I'm pretty sure posting on AN/I doesn't break the spirit of the rules. L3X1 (distant write) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB and L3X1: Per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition, which I've alluded to in a couple of my earlier comments, I/P-related noticeboard discussions, including presumably AFD, are closed to non-extendedconfirmed editors. Even if IAR allowed exceptions to this, specifically unbanning new editors from an AFD discussion (when AFDs are historically prone to off-site canvassing and bad-faith actions by the COI editors who wrote the articles) seems really unlikely. @TheGracefulSlick: Technically, your use of "anything" is not entirely accurate. They are apparently allowed edit article talk pages, but not the articles themselves, or noticeboard discussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously take with a grain of salt, but Nishidani has been warned many times that his behavior and comments can be unacceptable. As was pointed out earlier, there were a few AE actions where this was mentioned. If nothing comes of this, I would at the very least request a "Final warning" to Nishidani to stop being uncivil and condescending to other editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have complained many times to Nishidani about his denigrating language towards his opponents, me included. I have complained about it publicly several times as well on various forums uncluding WP:ARBPIA. Years ago there existed a procedure on Wikipedia called "User Review", and many times I have felt that this would have been the ideal procedure to put some checks on Nishidani. Putting down other editors, insulting their intelligence, and questioning their capabilities and qualifications, is not the way to win an argument, and makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere, which is not conductive for dispute resolving, productive editing or minimizing conflicts. Unfortunately, Nishidani engages in all of these habitually. Based on years of experience with Nishidani, I feel that even though his contributions are valuable, there is more value in banning this editor from the - already complicated and heated - area of WP:ARBPIA, than in allowing him to conduct his behavior unbridled. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? That's quite interesting. Would you mind providing diffs of your reports so I know what exactly you're referencing? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Nish has a sharp tongue at times, but in my interactions with him he has shown an almost superhuman amount of patience and tolerance toward what most others would consider the grossest of WP:IDHT and WP:GAME behaviour. So when someone comes along and says, essentially, "Nishidani was rude to me", I am inclined to assume good faith on Nishidani's part. So yeah, I'm inclined to agree that there's no admin action required here. Also (this is probably unrelated, but Cyrus should read and understand our policies on vandalism and edit-warring. Unambiguous vandalism can be reverted more than three times in one 24-hour period, but on 2017 shooting of Paris police officers he reverted IP edits that may or may not have been bad (they were unsourced and removed possibly unnecessary square-brackets from a quotation) four times in the space of 27 minutes. (I noticed this because Cyrus is a fairly new user, and Nishidani generally edits articles new editors are not allowed edit, so I checked what articles Cyrus was editing, and while he doesn't seem to have violated any ArbCom restrictions, I noticed that 83.6% of his edits are to the mainspace, which in my experience is a sign of an edit warrior, so I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs for "undid".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I looked a bit more closely.

• This is not a personal attack by any stretch. It's a statement of fact that for every Palestinian=>Israeli attack there are multiple incidents that go the other way. To say that Nishidani was lying that editors on his side of the fence don't imitate the behaviour of "pro-Israeli" editors, one would need evidence of him (or other "pro-Palestinian" editors) creating such articles. There is no failure to assume good faith for the same reason -- if anything Cyrus is the one failing to assume good faith, and should provide some proper evidence.
• This is not a personal attack. If it were a strawman argument that would be one thing, but E.M.Gregory did literally say that because a newspaper article reports that the accused will face trial, that must make the crime notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article. There is also no failure to assume good faith, as he was just responding directly to the comment in question.
• Since Cyrus's accusation of "borderline personal attacks" is clearly baseless, the repeated templating of Nishidani's talk page was disruptive.
• Ditto this.
• "Condescending" or not, this was in response to a string of clearly disruptive edits Cyrus made on Nishidani's talk page. Telling someone to stop following you when they are clearly following you is the opposite of a bad-faith action, and it is not standard practice on Wikipedia to sanction editors for getting annoyed when someone harasses them just because the harasser wants us to. @Cyrus the Penner: If you have Nishidani's talk page on your watchlist, please respect his wishes and remove it.

I'll get to the rest in a bit.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing: I DON'T have his talk page on my watchlist, never did, never will. If it isn't personal attacks he's guilty of, then it's making these baseless accusations and assumptions. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, then you should read his comments (including this later one) as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect. See this thread further down this page. His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page. WP:BITE is an essay you might want to cite when justifying your actions with I'm still learning the ropes around here, but WP:TEMPLAR is a just-as-widely-respected essay that you definitely should read. It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand. And "don't understand" is me being generous and assuming your inexperience actually is responsible for your not knowing what a personal attack is. Now that I have told you that you are incorrect, inexperience is no longer a valid excuse, as even new editors are expected to listen when they are corrected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Well, then you should read his comments as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect." Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool?

"See this thread further down this page" For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation.

"His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page." Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too.

"It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand." Most points taken, but...what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is).

Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool? Again, when I first posted in this thread I was working under the assumption that Nishidani had been provoked, since I know from experience that he has a frustratingly long temper. Further inspection revealed that you had provoked him (you posted a string of bogus "warnings" on his talk page based on your own flawed understanding of what constitutes a "personal attack"). You then revealed that actually you are much more likely to use your cool than Nishidani (the shouting above).

For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. No, he was almost certainly well aware that you used the template. He was joking about how ironic it is that you would use a template that so clearly reflected different sentiments to yours. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation. You realize that by continuing to actively request sanctions for him based on nothing, you are likely to earn yourself a WP:BOOMERANG, right? Your claiming that you intend to honour his request to stay off his page is pretty pointless in light of this.

Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too. No. You came onto his page and started lecturing him about what a bad widdle boy he is. Blame the wording of the templates (which are meant for new users anyway) if you like, but that excuse will not get you very far. He is under no obligation to continue to be "nice" to you on his own talk page when you treat him like that.

what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is). New editors are not allowed edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per this 2015 decision by the Arbitration Committee. We have had a bunch of instances of editors trying to game the system by quickly racking up 500 edits (self-reverting in their own user-space, for example) and then waiting a month before jumping into articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. You don't seem to be one of those editors (my looking through your edit history indicates you like articles on recent crimes, particularly murders, and happened across this AFD by accident), but you are still a new user, and new users, even extended-confirmed ones, should be editing cautiously, and humbly, when in the I/P area. You clearly have not, or else this thread would never have started. In fact, you made thirteen edits in December and then disappeared for three months, so you really only meet the ARBPIA3GP cutoff due to a technicality -- if you had registered your account at the same time as you started actively editing, your account would still be only three weeks old.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a right to edit whatever I want. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't. You do not have a "right" to edit anything on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation grants you, at its own discretion, permission to edit a lot of pages on English Wikipedia. But even if we take your use of "right" figuratively, you are still wrong. There are a bunch of things on English Wikipedia (not going to go into other Wikimedia projects) that no editors are generally taken as being free to edit (other users' user pages, for example) and pages that it's generally seen as poor taste for any random editor to edit (talk pages of long-banned users, for example). Brand new accounts are generally banned from contributing to AFDs and the like because they were almost certainly canvassed off-site. There are also a hell of a lot of articles that new editors (IP editors and accounts with fewer than ten edits and four days since they were registered) are not allowed edit, and even some that there is a much higher bar (500 edits and at least a month since the account was registered) to pass before one is allowed edit them. The article in question (and the accompanying AFD) are in this latter group. You technically pass the bar, but only technically. You have more than 1,000 edits to your name and your account is over four months old, but of those 1,000+ edits, all but thirteen were made within the last three weeks. Editors who are only allowed contribute to an AFD because of a technicality should not be complaining about alleged violations of policy by other editors.

And by the way, I am now 100% certain your templating of Nish's talk page was done in bad faith and not merited, since you did the same thing to me for my participation in this ANI thread. "Welcome" messages from people who claim to be new users still learning the ropes are incredibly annoying for editors who have been here for more than a decade. Please stop doing this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's messed up, dude. I thought Wikipedia was a place for everyone to edit and share knowledge. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani has previously accused me of violating WP rules, here [34], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack, he accuses me of "ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem." I honestly do not know what policy I was accused of violating. I had created an article about a terrorist shooting attack in which 6 people were wounded and 2 killed on the day the attack happened, as is usual in terrorist attacks with multiple deaths, and had returned to source and expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Here [35] is an administrator closing an AfD on an article I created about a 1936 anti-Jewish riot in Mandatory Palestine: "The result was keep. After discounting the "delete" opinions by Ijon Tichy and Nishidany because they are mostly personal attacks, nobody except the nominator supports deletion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For Nishidani's PA that Greg mentioned, it's here. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this still going on? There's absolutely nothing in the diffs presented in the original post. People are reduced to dredging up all sort of nonsense from months ago. Please either sanction Nishidani, or close this with no action. Also, please don't amend some vague closing statement in the latter case, otherwise people will use it to try to justify some nonsense complaint in the future, just as Shrike cited the AE report half a year ago. No action was taken, but a vague closing statement asking "all sides to chill" was appended in that case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest closing with a general admonition based on the following advice at WP:NPOV?

'Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.'

I have always taken this practically to mean that in editing or writing articles on areas where conflict between two parties or states is described, editors are under an obligation to paraphrase sources in such a way that all due information regarding the respective POVs is reproduced. To take snippets from sources, while ignoring anything that makes the picture look more complex, is not acceptable, yet is repeatedly done. Editors whose record is one of making edits only in favour of one POV should be reminded that we are obliged to cover all sides. Bolter21, for the 'Israeli angle', consistently does this, and his example is generally ignored by many of the plaintiffs here.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

There is far too much reverting on spurious grounds, without talk page justification, as opposed to waffle, and rarely do you see someone honouring the general rule to rephrase what you think tilted to bias.

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia.

They're not permitted, but are endemic in this area. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani here makes a more formal version of his familiar demand that attacks: shootings, stabbings, car rammings, bombings - terrorism-related or merely criminal be forbidden. Instead, such attacks (he calls them "POV forks") should be covered only as part of a list. This would require deletion of yesterday's 2017 shooting of Paris police officers as a "POV fork... not permitted in Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Nishidani is arguing that people like you who create articles only on one side of the conflict should not be allowed to get away with it, because it a violation of NPOV. Here's a very simple example, taking the start of the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine. You created articles on the 1936 Anabta shooting and The_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa (where Jews were killed), but for some strange reason ignored the intervening incident when the Irgun killed two Arabs in retaliation. A more blatant example of POV forking can scarcely be imagined. There are dozens of such examples. I think Nishidani's hope is forlorn, myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, dear. In that case we must eliminate George Washington's tent, which I created as a POV fork of the Museum of the American Revolution; China: Through the Looking Glass, which I created as a POV fork of Metropolitan Museum of Art; The First Monday in May, which certainly is a POV fork of China: Through the Looking Glass (worse: I have never created an article about a Tibet or Uyghur exhibit at the Met. We will also need to delete Jacob and his twelve sons, a blatant POV fork of Francisco de Zurbarán, and George Washington, George Washington is a clear POV fork of American Revolution as evidenced by the fact that it was created by an editor who has never created an article on George III. We need to find that editor and ban him from editing any articles about the British Empire. sigh Now can return to rationally discussing whether Nishidani should be warned on his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards editors with whom he disagrees politically?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, E.M.Gregory. I have never censored anything. I and Bolter21 from a different perspective have consistently added material regarding Palestinian attacks on Israelis for some years now. Check my record. I have written many articles on things that are of deep importance to Jewish settlers, like Joseph's Tomb, etc. I, like all editors here, do not create articles on Palestinian youths being gunned down for throwing stones, 17 cases in 2016 or of incidents of soldiers murdering a woman because she brandished a pair of scissors at them, as they stood protected by armour and a barrier some distance from her. It would be easy to ratchet up my 'article creation' figures by jumping at these weekly occurrences, to push a pro-Palestinian POV. I refrain from that temptation, as I think editors with the other POV should refrain from making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian. That is my reading of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. And if editors rack up a record for creating article only on victims from one side, I am entitled to think that they are abusing wiki mainspace to promote an agenda. I'm quite sure, from the outset, that this practice will not stop, but I will continue to exercise a right to protest at what I believe is an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please check you tendency to make grand, sweeping, patently false assertions of fact, such as the assertion that editors are "making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian." Nor have I accused you of "censoring" anything. And stop attempting to hijack this discussion by making up new rules. In response to your latest accusation, I write all kinds of articles, including articles about terrorist attacks in many countries. NPOV editing requires that editors stick to the facts and maintain a neutral tone, it does not require that any individual editor create or abstain from creating articles about any topic or category of topics, so long as the articles themselves are reliably sourced and written in a neutral tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Read closely. censor rephrases your inference from Kingsindian's point (while dodging its gravamen) that if the arguments he and I supplied are correct, 'In that case we must eliminate . .'. I did not make up new rules, I insisted the existing ones be correctly interpreted rather than wikilawyered. If, by analogy, we had an editor only writing instant articles on Black Americans involved in homicide, while ignoring incidents of homicidal whites, the deduction I make here, which is contested, would be considered fair. It's that simple. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory NPOV, in the broader sense of reducing systemic bias, also requires that the rules are applied evenly to everyone. If we interpret and apply the rules differently for editors who represent one perspective on a topic, then we would have interpreted Wikipedia's core policies in a way that is destructive to the goals of this project. In other words, if WP:NOTNEWS is interpreted as permitting articles about crimes against Jews in Israel, then articles about crimes committed against Muslims or Arabs in Israel are also allowed under the same reading of this policy. Would you support this? Sometimes if you have a bias, it is more constructive to think about what effect your reading of the rules would have on analogous cases. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory: Here's why the articles you created were POV forks. The section in the main article: origins of the 1936 Arab revolt has one sentence each, for the incident on 15 April (two Jews were killed), 16 April (two Arabs were killed), and 19th April (the disturbance spread and many Jews were killed by an Arab mob, a general strike was called and the Arab revolt began in full swing). The section also contains background from the early 1930s and gives explanations of what all sides (the Zionists, the British and the Arabs) were doing. A person who wants readers to understand the events of 1936-39, and not propagandize, needs all this information presented in context in one place. Now, you create articles on the incidents on 15 April and 19 April, strip all the context, and make the story a straightforward "Arabs killed Jews". This is so blatant that it is impossible to believe that it isn't intentional. You do this again and again, and pretend not to understand what you do.

I have concluded that it's a waste of time trying to stop you, because many of these AfDs end up "no consensus" based on a "party line vote"; and the articles are kept. Congratulations on finding a loophole and exploiting it to the max. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

regardless, the issue here is not about content. It's about Nishidani violating 5p. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how those would constitute POV forks. I think Greg's just trying his best to inform readers about the violence Arabs have committed against Jews. There's really nothing in there that would benefit the information. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In 12 years of editing, I have made, as a last resort, 2 cases at AN/I or AE against abusive editors, despite the huge number of POV pushers there. At the same time, I have been brought to these boards dozens of times, mostly by editors who then later get banned, not least because they jump at frivolous stuff to try and get me off the I/P area, and engage in a lot of dubious behavior, like sockpuppetry. Many here pushing for my exclusion on these trivial grounds should ask themselves why they keep reporting me, and I don't retaliate. I believe it is because I don't think we're here to play games. Editing is a serious science, not a POV playground. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why people tend to report you. There's clearly a cause for that if not one, not two, but four or five different users agree that you're being unnecessarily aggressive. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus, the reason people report Nishidani is because they are belligerent. Nishidani's point is that he, by contrast, is extremely tolerant and patient. Sometimes frustratingly so. User:Curly Turkey and User:CurtisNaito can attest to that. The latter engaged in a war of attrition on numerous talk pages over several years that wore my patience thin fairly quickly to the point where I gave up and moved on, while Nish kept arguing, but it never occurred to him to open an ANI thread, while the former opened an ANI thread after only about a month of it, which is pretty standard. And in fact when Nish opposed Curly's ANI solution on one occasion based solely on the principle that, essentially, "banning editors sucks", which was extremely frustrating for the rest of us, but which also proves pretty conclusively that one cannot doubt Nishidani's patience, tolerance and willing to assume good faith to the bitterest end. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've had no previous interaction with any of the principals but it's hard to miss this discussion. There's no question that some of the comments made on that page are over the top. One I found offensive: someone said "stick a knife in this" (a reference to the article). But there's a lot of heat in this general area and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. All involved and particularly Nishidani should be cautioned to assume good faith (no matter how much that principle is observed in the breach). Full disclosure: I just !voted to "merge" with the rail article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The knife comment was mine, and I got it after seeing someone else make an identical remark on an AfD discussion on 2017 Paris machete attack, which I thought would be appropriate to use in the Light Rail stabbing as well. But I apologize if you were offended. That was never my intention. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait -- really? Black humour on Wikipedia is generally tolerated, but those commentsyour comment makes light of an incidents where peoplesomeone recently (!) lost their liveslife by being stabbed. That's pretty grotesque. Don't do that again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Will be sending a warning to the user who made the first comment. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop templating the regulars, as you have been told by several users multiple times in this discussion, and stop trying to blame other users for your own poor taste and lack of judgement. If you actually template @Lugnuts: as you are threatening to do, you should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind, as you are clearly trying to be antagonistic at this point. By the way -- I was being polite (and admitting my own ignorance of recent stabbings in Europe) by implying that my comment was not directly aimed at you and solely you. I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities. It's still a black, and arguably poor-taste, joke, but not the kind that should necessarily be censured. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?! He made the comment first and I followed because I thought it was funny and wanted to use it, but then you told me it was a very inappropriate comment to make. Shouldn't it be fair that he be informed of how inappropriate it was to say that too? I was not doing this just to be trolly, I was doing it to be fair because I shouldn't get flak for doing something that had already been done by someone else without any sort of admonition or other response. By the way, I did not template him; I wrote the entire warning myself.

"I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities." Someone was injured by being stabbed, though, which does still make Lugnuts' comment inappropriate. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the only section of this thread that seems unresolved. Do editors want admins/the community to do anything? If so, what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• It now appears that I was the target of User:Cyrus the Penner, an angry troll/sockpuppet who flung an accusation at Nishidani in an attempt to provoke me into saying something that would get me banned from the project. I suppose I am guilty of WP:AGF. My thanks to the editor who ran the user check and uncovered the nasty sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus the Penner's behavior

The preceding was thread started because Cyrus the Penner jumped into the deep end of the pool before he knew how to swim. (Gee, I didn't understand the difference between I/P and an IP address.) Directly above, he congratulates himself for giving an experienced editor a warning for a comment made at an AfD more than two months ago.

Yesterday, I tagged a sentence at 2017 shooting of Paris police officers, asking for clarification because the sentence makes no sense: "[French President François Hollande] later released a statement saying French authorities were 'convinced' the shooting was a suspected terrorist attack." Either one is convinced, or one suspects terrorism, but one cannot be convinced of a suspected terrorist attack. Cyrus the Penner removed my tag, writing "That's what the source says." Doubly false. There were two sources at the end of the sentence, and neither one said that. When I asked him about it, he dissembled and finally removed my questions from his talk page without an explanation or an edit summary. He has zero credibility in my view.

I recommend other editors scrutinize his contributions to Wikipedia, as I intend to, to ensure that there are no other ridiculous instances of original research or just plain foolishness. I recommend an administrator close both the preceding thread and this one, or consider a boomerang against Cyrus the Penner for initiating and continuing a silly and baseless complaint out of his own foolishness. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting what Cyrus the Penner just wrote on E.M.Gregory's talk page: "The coordinated effort to discredit us over at ANI is astounding, mind-boggling really. I never knew people on Wikipedia are capable of going out of their way to shut us truthful users down just because we are disseminating information they don't want us to disseminate to the public." Here we have an explicit serious personal attack against everyone at ANI who disagrees with Cyrus or Gregory. Yet Cyrus came here to accuse others of personal attacks! As well as a personal attack, the statement has the "we are on a mission to spread the truth" aspect which marks Cyrus as exactly the sort of editor that Wikipedia doesn't need. A boomerang is strongly called for here. I propose an indef. Zero^talk 06:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, LOL. It's true, though; E.M.Gregory, me, and like-minded users get loads of trash and our voices are always silenced because we have differing views on how Wikipedia should present Islamic terrorism to an audience. They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create an article about Islam-related terrorist attacks. Apparently, the mainstream thing to do in Wikipedia when it comes to Islamic terrorism is delay categorizing attacks as such, citing stuff like WP:BLPCRIME, even though MULTIPLE media reports have consistently mentioned the perpetrators' sympathies towards radical Islamism and Islamic terrorist organizations. You should see 2017 Stockholm attack; it's CRYSTAL-CLEAR it was an Islamic terrorist attack, yet no one is allowed to use the I-word in there. Certain editors have even gone as far as removing WP:RS like The New York Times, claiming that Swedish government sources are more reliable than that. Wikiwashing truly is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed ASAP. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you sincerely believe that's why User:LeoHsn was blocked? For creating that article? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, someone might like to check (I don't know how)the use of the unusual term 'wikiwashing', which I distinctly remember being used by a former banned I/P editor (I can't remember which, they are legion).Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hardly an unusual term, I'd think. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: It's not a term I've ever seen before, and I had the same thought as Nishidani.

@Nishidani: I did a tiny bit of sleuthing, and the user you are thinking of is almost definitely either Bachcell (talk · contribs) (who used the term on the AFD that led to this discussion but does not appear to have been banned at any point) or Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (who was banned for a month, then later topic-banned and blocked indefinitely, before both restrictions were lifted by the same admin who imposed them, and used the term several times in the reports that led to his bans). However, it's also possible that rather than being malicious sockpuppetry, Cyrus saw the term being used by Bachcell in the AFD and decided to borrow it. Given the "knife" incident with Lugnuts, this actually seems like the more likely scenario to me at this point. I might do a bit more sleuthing though, as if either of these users exhibited other Cyrus characteristics or fitted the profile of a sockmaster, my opinion might change. All that said, the Kamel incident was fairly recent, and Bachcell used the term last week, so your not remembering it might imply that you were thinking of someone else from long ago.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is extremely acute, and indeed a prop for this failing memory. Yes, it was Kamal Tebaast I was thinking of. The bumptious style is also similar. But these things are somewhat subjective. I must admit I go by a hunch for style and tone, and, from the outset of CtP's badgering me, I felt I was dealing with a sock. But I just asked him to stay off my page, since I, as usual, have no evidence but instinctive impressions. It may be a coincidence, as you say, in any case. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

...and then I read Kamel's user page. While he was using the term on AE last summer, he posted a definition on his user page in Decembe, and explicitly claimed he had coined it on an AFD in July. He also complained, in the same edit, about POV-forks from the violent incidents list getting deleted and post that he was "semi-retiring". Except for two edits in March, the Kamel account has been inactive since then. The Cyrus account was created four days after Kamel's retirement.[36] This duck is quacking like crazy. I'm posting this to SPI to see if there are sleepers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that scholar Mayo Fuster Morell independently coined the term some years earlier, with a completely different definition.[37] This actually argues in favour of the accounts being related, as there is one term that is used in the real world, and one that was coined by Kamel on-wiki, and Bachcell and Cyrus have followed the latter. Not posting this to the SPI, as I suspect the SPI clerks and especially CUs might see it as off-topic rambling. Just putting it on the record that I am aware of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the article that sparked this discussion was started by a SPA [38].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that ThePagesWriter is also a sock of Bachcell/Kamel? That seems unlikely since, if Nish and I are right, he was extremely careful not to violate ARBPIA3 under the Cyrus account, so creating an account with the intention of immediately violating it seems like a stupid move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: I'd like an answer to EvergreenFir's question, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• So ... is the OP going to be blocked? He has now essentially admitted to being here to spread the "truth" about "Islamic terrorism", even admitting to discussing it with his off-wiki friend LeoHsn (talk · contribs) (They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create [an article that was created by LeoHsn] per this tag dating from the days when the page was live, for those who like me can't see the deleted edit history -- I'm not sure if Cyrus thought this information would be hard to find). The fact that no one else is talking about "Islamic terrorism" (even Nishidani and Kingsindian are talking about false equivalence and POV forks) makes it pretty clear that this is really about Cyrus. Now, if Cyrus's accusations about E.M.Gregory, both here and on the latter's talk page, being similarly motivated by things other than the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia are accurate, I believe this thread should remain open until that is also investigated (Nish, do you have any evidence, like links to the previous POVFORK-production you appeared to allude to?), but blocking Cyrus seems like a no-brainer at this point. (Note that User:Curly Turkey expressed a similar sentiment on my talk page as I was typing this -- pinging him in case he wants to formalize that in the form of a !vote; I don't think anyone would say he was canvassed, given that his first involvement here was as my talk page stalker who saw Cyrus trolling me on my talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Looked a bit deeper at the on-wiki relationship between the two. Cyrus has been complaining about "censorship" for at least the last several weeks.[39][40][41][42][43][44] He has also been making some pretty grotesque islamophobic comments.[45][46][47][48] He even got called out by a bunch of editors for using an article talk page as a soapbox for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. And I found out that he directly canvassed E.M.Gregory on the latter's talk page (not just a ping) and was almost certainly aware of what I/P meant since Gregory used it in converstation with him and he responded, meaning he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts above and only backtracked when I caught him out.[49][50][51] The deeper one goes down this rabbit hole, the worse it gets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel right "formalizing" things without going thoroughly through the diffs, etc., but it should be clear at this point that Cyrus is WP:NOTHERE for anything but anti-Islamic POV pushing. And I think this is enough Israel—Palestine for me for 2017 ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, me too honestly. I just saw a familiar name show up on ANI for the first time in a while. I might be able to get some article editing in over GW, thankfully. Work's just been pretty hectic lately, so reading and contributing to the drahma boards -- which apparently includes RSN now (!?) so that I can't really be blamed for picking ANI -- is a lot easier than researching Chinese poetry at the moment. But yeah, Nish was probably right when he warned me away from I/P a few months back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on? Please don't block anyone. This complaint was silly (overreaction over a trivial or nonexistent matter) and a boomerang would be silly. The longer this ANI complaint runs, the sillier it becomes. Please just put this thing out of its misery. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Didn't you see the "religion of peace" diffs? And the censorship ones? Yes, this whole ANI thread was bogus, but the OP knew that before he opened it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I did; someone told Cyrus that Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox, and the discussion was hatted. That advice can be repeated if necessary. There wasn't any disruption to the encyclopedia (unless one counts this ANI thread). An indef is too harsh. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri-san. I appreciate all that work - I never check backgrounds and the diffs are quite illuminating. However, the problem with the I/P area is that it sucks the life out of editors by drawing them into endless ANI/AE dueling, and the best way for admins to handle this is simply to suffocate nonsensical reports and tell people to desist from frivolous vexations. That's enough, though admittedly the repetition of these AfDs over what exactly WP:NOTNEWS allows and disallows points to a serious issue. Though I dislike the terms, 'Pro-Palestinian' editors don't make these articles, but simply list them in an incidents page (though the kill ratios are still around several Palestinians for any Israeli killed in either outright terrorism or IDF/police gunnings), in a few lines. 'Pro-Israeli' editors make endless attempts to get an independent page for any incident involving Palestinian violence. The whole issue requires some administrative oversight or clarification.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I am finding that myself just briefly scanning it (I did start looking through Gregory's article count). I also don't like the terms "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli", which is why I put them in scare-quotes further up. Setting aside that, when applied to Wikipedia editors, the terms are inappropriate, since everyone is supposed to be assuming that everyone else is here to build an NPOV encyclopedia, it's not even accurate in real-world discourse, since "pro-Israel" invariably means "pro keeping Israel in a state of unending war and instability", and also tends to include reprehensible antisemites with ... "interesting" views about Judaism and what will happen to Jews during the end-times. (Please note that I'm not talking about Martin Luther King. I don't know MLK's views on Judaism. I think that image is grossly out of place where it is. I really hate having to clarify this, but we're all treading on tiger's tails here so I assume I'll be forgiven for being cautious.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

By 'pro-Palestinian' of course I mean editors who are attentive to the WP:Systemic bias consequent on the fact that no Palestinians are active in this specific area, and in lieu, some folks have to make sure that NPOV balance is maintained. It's true that, merely doing this means one is endlessly accused of being anti-Semitic, or anti-Israel, but one gets used to (yawn) that kind of limp-brained smearing cliché, to the point of ignoring it as petty.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

After going through a bunch of diffs and the editor's contribs, I don't think a block is warranted. The issue seems to be the user's strong POV on Islam and terrorism. But Cyrus seems to be constructive in other areas, and a block would remove a constructive editor. We can attempt to address the disruption with a t-ban, which will allow the editor to remain active and contribute positively in other ares. This seems like the most balanced solution given the editor's behaviors and tenure on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very sensible suggestion. While I've always felt that Kingsindian has an excellent record for providing us with very sensible advice, doing nothing would ignore the points raised by equally neutral editors like Malik Shabazz and Zero. This is not a place for crusading.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Cyrus the Penner (WITHDRAWN)

Per all the nonsense above, it's clear that the OP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and he's wasted a hell of a lot my energy and that of others already. He has been deliberately trolling, posting "warnings" on talk pages despite multiple user telling him to stop, using article talk pages as forums for general anti-Muslim babbling, canvassing, making very serious accusations of bad behaviour and repeatedly refusing to provide evidence, twisting peoples' words... There is clearly no good that can come of him continuing to edit here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is going nowhere, especially considering the overwhelming support for the alternative proposal below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. See my comment above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, however the fellow needs a stern warning per WP:Boomerang. This trivial nonsense has caused a lot of editors to waste time.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing sufficient reason for this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

...but honestly, it looks like Coretheapple is posting these comments without looking at any of the diffs. Remember, their first comment placed particular blame on Nishidani, despite the fact that comment they found particularly disruptive was written by Cyrus. See also the post-withdrawal commentary in the subthread immediately below this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said "someone" had said "put a knife in it." I didn't say it was Nishidani. I didn't care to personalize the discussion further. I wish you guys would drop the ad hominems and get a grip in general. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, but a ban from terrorism and Islam related topics would be palatable and appropriate imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am with EvergreenFir on this one. A ban is quite justified. GAB^gab 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Some kind of BOOMERANG for E.M.Gregory (WITHDRAWN)

As the original proposer of this bogus ANI thread[52] and someone who has apparently been engaged in no shortage of disruptive POV-forking himself (I am trusting Nishidani's word on this, admittedly), I don't think it would be right for this thread to get closed with the one who opened this ANI thread on the direction getting indeffed and the one who egged him on not getting some kind of sanction. If no one else has, I might consider going through the 301 articles he boasts of on his user page, and see what percentage of them are POV-forks on random cherry-picked instances of anti-Israeli violence by Palestinians.

Gregory, though, has been here for a while and I am not comfortable saying unequivocally that he is NOTHERE, so I don't know if an indef would be appropriate. What does the floor think? TBAN from "terrorism and actions that have been described as terrorism, broadly construed"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can see this is going nowhere. Two opposes before there was even a concrete proposal to oppose, both from users without a vested interest in preemptively shooting down any proposal, must be some kind of record. I'm gonna let the other one run, though, since it got a bunch of direct and/or implied "support"s before I formally proposed it, and if it's still on the table I'm in the "support" camp (I think the NOTHERE evidence is too compelling, and I don't agree with Kingsindian's "the only serious disruption was this ANI thread" argument -- the unending "warnings" say otherwise, as does the "I'm not here!" shouting from the rooftops both here and on E.M.Gregory's talk page). If Malik, Zero and CT all U-turn and it turns out the proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance I'll accept that, but I don't want to unilaterally "withdraw" something that other users have already supported. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. See my comment above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While E.M. Gregory, as the diffs show, and as this (Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis) ridiculous stub confirms, appears to be on a mission to write articles about every incident where Palestinians have killed people, while staying mum about any incident involving Israeli violence, his numerous articles consistently get some backing from other editors in AfDs, which means he is under the impression that long discussion has not set forth clear guidelines which would deny him the liberty to continue writing such things. As long as the rules allow the kind of equivocation over Notability he can't be punished for what he does.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I hope editors will take a look at Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a solidly sourced article on a notable murder. Nishidani has a bad habit of making grand, sweeping, unsupported assertions. A couple of days ago he asserted that he remembered that "quite a few... of the of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs."[53] This is untrue. It is untrue because while I do start articles on terrorist killings of Israelis, I do this only when a particular killing appears seems notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly I don't see the point of this entire discussion and suggest that it be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The point of the entire discussion was to get me banned on zero evidence. While I oppose drastic sanctions, I think frivolous baiting, open bragging about running an Islam-as-violent agenda, and vexatious use of ANI merits some consideration by the closing admin. We do have warnings.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It kinda seems over the top to block someone over the fact that some articles he creates are unnotable. Blocking him may lead to another possible boomerang on the blocking admin. —JJBers 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Two month ban for Cyrus the Penner from Islam and terrorism-related topics

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

---

Proposal: Cyrus the Penner is banned from making edits related to the topics of Islam or terrorism, broadly construed, for two months.

Reason: Cyrus the Penner has

1. expressed a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about Islam ([54], [55]) and casting any disagreement as "censorship" or "suppression" ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]),
2. demonstrated a strong POV to the point of apparent inability to edit neutrally (including comments demonstrating a disdain for Islam) ([63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]),
3. an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy against original research vis-a-vis Islam and terrorism ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]), and
4. has engaged in interpersonal disputes due to that POV ([75], [76], see discussion above)

Comments: Cyrus the Penner seems to have a general issue with immigrants ([77], [78]) but the majority of this disruption seems to stem from Islam-related topics. As Cyrus the Penner is an otherwise constructive editor on other topics, it seems to me to be in the best interest of the project to ban Cyrus the Penner from the topic of Islam while allowing them to continue their constructive contributions in other areas. The length of the ban is intentionally short, given the user's relative newness to the project. The hope is that the time will allow Cyrus the Penner to gain more experience editing on the project, demonstrate "hereness", and learn how to manage strong opinions and emotions on a contentious topic. This short topic ban will (1) prevent further disruption while (2) assuming good faith that the editor will improve and (3) allowing for further building of this encyclopedia by an otherwise constructive editor. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely seems necessary given the above diffs and discussion, and a better option by far than an indef. GAB^gab 20:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I dont support an indef, but I am in serious doubt if Cyrus the Penner has the ... "temperament" (for lack of a better word) for editing in the I/P area. I would support a one year ban from the I/P area. If that is not on the table, then I would support this remedy...as an absolute minimum, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support EvergreenFir's proposal. A mild suggestion, considering the disruption. But let's try it, and hope indeed, as EvergreenFir says, that Cyrus will use the two months to demonstrate "hereness" on other subjects. Mind you, if similar behaviour recurs after the two months are up, we should be looking at a lengthy block. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support EvergreenFir's proposal, and, in addition, I would also support a two-month ban from the Israel/Palestine area. This will give Cyrus an opportunity to contribute productively to many other areas/ articles that need improvement while working collaboratively with other users with whom he may sometimes disagree on various issues, and let him gain greater and deeper familiarity not only with the letter, but more importantly the spirit and intent, of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: to me, the Israel-Palestine dispute would fall under the "Islam broadly construed" part of the tban as the dispute is rooted in issues of religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A two month ban from Islam and terrorism related articles seems reasonable. As seen in the diffs I have previously noticed and challenged Cyrus the Penner's battleground behaviour relating to Islam. Their attitude to Wikipedia is wrong; hopefully they will learn from the ban to change that attitude. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Bishonen. I hope that, if disruption continues after two months (or, indeed, continues immediately in an unrelated topic area), I don't have to be the one to open the ANI thread. Remember, Cyrus is also a serial canvasser, and has a bunch of editors who "like him" and showed up in this discussion to support him just because they don't like Nishidani, and refused to recognize that this complaint was bogus. I can definitely see Cyrus pinging a whole bunch of "anti-Palestinian" editors to request that they show up and ruin any further ANI complaints about him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know any so-called "anti-Palestinian editors" on here, so why the hell would I try and ping any over here. It's clear that even if I knew anyone who'd spring up to my defense, you and all the others would find a way to snuff them out, just like you've done with my friend and God knows how many others. I might as well rename myself as "Wikiwashing Warrior" because all of this is definite proof of coordinated suppression. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I should correct some things. Cyrus did not canvass anyone. Cyrus only talked with EMG before coming here, because the interaction in question was towards EMG, and Cyrus didn't know where to file a complaint. They did not canvass the other editors. EMG correctly told Cyrus that ANI is the venue for complaints. Unfortunately, Cyrus was not warned of what really goes on at ANI. Since this is Cyrus's first time, they should have been warned that ANI is a shark tank, and a WP:BOOMERANG is a possibility. If they had come to me for advice, I would have told them to drop the matter, or at least read the essay WP:ANI advice. This is why I am reluctant for any sanctions being applied, because I know how new-ish editors typically fare at ANI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point and is part of the reason I am proposing a rather short tban. Unfortunately, what's been said at, and as a result of, this ANI is already said. However, Cyrus's behavior was an issue before this ANI and given that past and present behavior, the tban seem the most reasonable option to me. The goal is to retain an otherwise constructive editor while addressing the root of the problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and EvergreenFir: My earlier "canvassing" comments were before I saw the discussion on Gregory's talk page. If this report had been a spontaneous, unilateral action by Cyrus (as it appeared to be if taken on its face), the selective pinging of E.M.Gregory would have been canvassing. But even knowing that E.M.Gregory was the one who originally suggested coming to ANI, Cyrus's repeated pinging of Sir Joseph et al. in his responses to me was ... weird, if it wasn't meant to get them to show up and back him up. Ditto for the "Hey, they're trying to ban me" comments on E.M.Gregory's talk page -- even if not technically canvassing because the latter user was already aware of this thread, it was definitely inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And the root of the problem would be wikiwashing. Forever a warrior against wikiwashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus the Penner (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support It should probably be longer, but this may act as a deterrent against future problems. – The Bounder (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Block

I've gone ahead and blocked Cyrus the Penner for 24 hours for being in breach of the topic ban, noting that future blocks will be dramatically more lengthy. El_C 10:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus was indeffed by Bbb23 as a check user confirmed sock of DisuseKid. See this SPI EvergreenFir (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Woah. Didn't see that coming. I mean, I guess a joe-job designed to bring down E.M.Gregory makes a little sense, given the repeated attempts to drag "Greg" into a lost-cause ANI discussion and the refusal to formally withdraw it despite admitting that it was a lost cause, but the repeated pings of Sir Joseph et al. meant he was essentially canvassing users to !vote against a proposition he was secretly hoping would pass? I agree with Gregory that at times this discussion did look very much like a set-up, but it's still super-weird.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep trying to figure out what DK's long game was, mind you. This thread should be closed as resolved at this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gianluigi02 - Persistent addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material

• Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is a mess of WP:OR and failed WP:V. In 99% of cases, the source provides does not explicitly call the even terrorism.

One editor, Gianluigi02, has a history of adding incidents to terrorism related lists where the sources do not support inclusion. Examples: [79], [80], [81], [82]. This user has racked up multiple final warnings regarding this behavior, most recently on April 2. Given that it's not "obvious vandalism", ANI seemed to be the appropriate forum to bring up this disruptive behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how the first three aren't terrorist attacks. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not label them as terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a custom final warning [83] instead of a template. If they ignore, ping me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

GTVM92

GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been previously blocked for "persistent addition of unsourced content" three times, has recently started a new wave of his unconstructive edits:

1. In this edit, the user has fabricated the results of separate approval pollings for the candidates and presented them combined as an opinion poll for voting. He also brought 22% voting for "others", out of nowhere. I checked the source and added the genuine results in this edit.
2. Here he adds three sources for his own original research. This source does not mention any reason for disqualification of Ahmnadinejad, but is used as a reference for the reason "possibly for the opened legal file at the court". This source was used to verify disqualification of several candidates while they are not mentioned in the source at all, and the reason "due to age".
3. This edit is a total hoax. The sources cited do not mention any party conventions held. This one is for example an interview with Hossein Marashi. You can ask a Persian language native editor to verify what I'm saying.

   When you remove all the section, said "What's this? Fictional party convention held in your own fantasy?", but you know that Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces and Islamic Coalition Party are held conventions for selecting candidates, as you add to their article. Reformists are also do soo, just not helding congress but selecting candidates with votes. This is one of the examples that you are removing many things that are correct and occured in Iran, just not a good source I found for them because many news in Iran are said just in telegram and other apps. GTVM92 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: It's kinda hard to prove something, at least on Wikipedia, without source. If you can find reliable sources for the information, that's fine. —JJBers 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: Why don't you confess that you made up the Council for Coordinating the Reforms Front party convention? I assume you can easily read Persian and see that ICP did not held any convention, per the source you gave. I can't also figure out the difference between "Not nominated", "Failed" or "Eliminated" in the "rainbow of colour table" you made for a plurality-at-large voting of an umbrella organization (The real results are here). Pahlevun (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1. In this edit, the source provided does not even mention radio programs. It does not mention time dedicated to each candidate, airing dates or channels airing programms. And yes, this is also a hoax because I cannot find any source citing such information, even in native Persian!

—Pahlevun (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a disruptive account from looking at the contributions. User is most likely WP:NOTHERE, and hasn't bothered to respond to the talkpage, or the ANI. —JJBers 14:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Updated at 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people are trying to obstruct use of Talk page for discussion of edits to main article.

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

---

The following is a copy of a paragraph I just posted to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

"The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now.)" 97.120.54.196 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) You must notify an editor if you are going to discuss their behaviour on here. Instructions are provided in the large orange box at the top of the page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

97.120, please read the advice given to you here, under the heading "Purpose of Wikipedia", when you were editing as 97.120.31.14 (talk · contribs). Your involvement on the talk page is mostly building of your own original theories. Several editors have counseled you about this. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't control my changing IP. I'm on a system which can have a single IP for a day, or perhaps as much as a week. Then it changes; don't know why. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While I think the IP is probably hedging on original research and likely cannot implement what is suggested, I do think that the claim made by johnuniq on the IP's talk page "An article talk page is for discussion concerning actionable proposals to add or remove text from the article, in accord with reliable sources." is rather extreme. A talk page is used to discuss improvements to an article, which may require discussion that does not immediately involved anything immediately actionable. I know that there have been a few exceptional places where talk pages have been highly restrictive and only "actionable proposals" and discussions related to them were permitted (Gamergate, for instance), but that's the exception and doesn't seem to be the case here. The IP's posts don't necessarily violate FORUM, were there no original research , there may be something to be added to the article, so the outright removal (rather than hatting) is a bit of a questionable action. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Johnuniq removed the section as the IP was simply re-hashing the section they'd posted directly above that one, which had long been asked, answered and hatted. There is no point posting large screeds of exposition if it also doesn't include a precise explanation of what they want the article changed to (i.e. "Change X to Y", or "Add X to section Z". Otherwise it is completely pointless. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

True, different IP but repeating same claims, but then were I in johnuniq's position, that should still just have been hatted with comment "Asked and answered immediately above". I'm a very bit wary when, for a talk page not under any protection, even one that is likely to draw anonymous editors with their personal theories, to try to claim that only "actionable proposals" can be suggested on a talk page. I'm sure that just judging by that history that watching admins don't want to put up with a bunch of IP coming with bogus arguments and frustration can set in, and this might have been a curt statement in that light. If the IP problem is that bad, then one can turn to 500/30-type protection on the talk page as per GG. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP's posts seemed in violation of WP:FORUM because it was essentially WP:OR, i.e., disassembling the cited reliable sources to "show" they actually stand for the opposite of their stated theses. User:Johnuniq hatted one such discussion, and the IP's very next post continued as if the hatting had never happened, so User:Johnuniq presumably escalated by deleting because the hatting had proven to be an ineffective deterrent. Weazie (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You said, "disassembling the cited reliable sources..." You don't seem to acknowledge that reliable sources can be misrepresented as to what they actually say. You are implying that if a source is reliable, anything the (former) editor said the source said somehow goes, and nobody else can challenge that assertion. Do you see the problem?

• Also, if I can address the elephant in the room: Birthers are morons, and we don't need to bend over backwards to let them spew their idiocy all over every talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: I certainly don't disagree that some "birthers" are morons. But your statement, "birthers are morons", implies that they all are, including each and every point that any one of them has ever made. Is that really your position? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I watch several pages like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories because they have been raised as problems at noticeboards. Recently, I have been feeling guilty about leaving Weazie to do all the work of repeating and repeating and repeating standard advice. I think the first occurrence from this IP can be seen in Weazie's full and patient reply on 13 April 2017. It appears over 50KB of text has been added to the talk page since then, not counting where the IP restored text that I had removed after leaving an explanation at User talk:97.120.31.14. If anyone feels the IP should have a place to post their views, please add a link to your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the IP's first post on that page (that I can find) is as 71.222.50.217 (talk · contribs), here, on 21 Feb 2017. Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh Dear Someone should point out that the BLP policy applies to talk pages, not just the article itself. Those walls of text are disruptive and the IP editor is clearly an experienced editor who has logged out (which isn't allowed). The talk page should be given the same level of protection as the article, to allow a general cooling down of temperatures. From a thorough reading it appears that Johnuniq has been very patient and has assumed good faith. The IP editor has abused this, and unless someone can show me where WP:AGF means that talk pages can be flooded with BLP-violating nonsense, the page should be semi-protected. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347: Could you explain why you believe that there is a violation of the BLP policy in the Talk page? Assuming you are referring to ex-President Barack Obama himself, this implies you believe that the content of the Talk page has some sort of libel against him. (Libel, I understand, is the primary issue that would lead to a BLP violation.) But it is not libelous to (hypothetically) assert that a person was born in Kenya, or was not born in Hawaii, for example. Barack Obama himself. like most people, has no personal recollection of where he was born; his knowledge where he was born comes from his recollection of statements of other people made as he grew up. The main issue I am currently addressing is the fact that Sarah Obama (Barack Obama's step-grandmother) was recorded twice in a 2008 interview claiming that she was present in Mombasa Kenya when Obama was born. Is that somehow really a BLP violation? I am pointing out that the source with this information was actually being misused to ignore this statement by Sarah Obama. I believe this study is no more Original Research than the study done by somebody previously who used that source, and asserted a fact in contradiction to that fact. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to far more than libel. BLP requires that we write Wikipedia articles, and discuss topics related to living people, using only high-quality sources; that we avoid gossip, rumormongering and conspiracy theories; and that we treat living people with respect and sensitivity when writing about them.

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia talk pages are not a platform for you or anyone else to "hypothetically assert" a factually-wrong claim about a living person. There are many, many wretched hives of scum and villainy on the Internet where you may do such things. This is not one of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Well said, Exemplo347. I've semi'd the talkpage for a couple of weeks per WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. It's a bit of a pity to have to close it to all IPs, of course, but since the OP here jumps about, it's not possible to topic ban them from the page. I agree they're most likely an experienced editor logged out (which is indeed a neat way of avoiding topic bans and blocks). Sorry, but my AGF wears thin. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

Considering the fact that the IP editor continued the conversation after it was hatted by User:Johnuniq, I would be wary of the WP:BOOMERANG, if I were the IP editor. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand all of the terminology, but I assume you are suggesting that one user (in this case Johnuniq) can unilaterally cut off discussion on a subject, against the will of another user (me) without as much as a vote on the matter. Am I interpreting this correctly? This implies that johnuniq has some sort of special authority that I do not have. Who gave me that authority? May I read about it, to learn what he is entitled to do that I cannot? What if somebody disputes the assertion that a point was actually addressed and answered? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There isn't much that can be done, though. We could have the IP blocked, which might be an inconvenience, but I agree with Exemplo that this is sockpuppetry, and CU won't identify the master so we can indef. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)\

I read somewhere on one of WP's background (rules) pages that a person who can't avoid changing IP is NOT engaging in sockpuppetry. I wish I could find it again. Or does that make too much sense? Keep in mind that I still believe that there has been much abuse so far, and this WP:ANI thread has barely scratched the surface of it. I could easily make a list, but it's obvious. Statements like "birthers are morons", "Those walls of text are disruptive...", etc. Also, I challenge the idea that I was doing Original Research: I was simply addressing sources (alleged to be reliable) that appeared to me to be misrepresented in their use in the article. Editors are allowed to do that, right? Indeed, the fact that above, someone claims to have semi-protected the Talk page, but that happened based in large part on the abuse I've already experienced there. Until that abuse is actually addressed, here, I suggest that is highly premature. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

97.20, I believe the people talking about sockpuppetry aren't referring to the fact that your IP changes, but to the likelihood that you're an experienced editor logged out. I know I was. You're certainly very good with the Wikipedia jargon for a new user. When you say I "claim" to have semi'd the talkpage — no, no, I don't claim it, I have semi'd it. You can't edit it now unless you get an account/log in to your account. I took that action because WP:BLP applies on talkpages too, and because Wikipedia talkpages aren't intended for constructing your own theories based on primary sources, or for arguing with secondary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The "abuse" you complain about has merely consisted of attempts to point these Wikipedia principles out to you, here and on Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Wikipedia isn't your soapbox, and this board isn't either. The page has been semi'd so I don't see what else there is to do here. Time to close? Bishonen | talk 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

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

Дагиров Умар

Дагиров Умар was warned for "Edit War" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladikavkaz , but he continues to edit the page as User:46.125.250.124. --Edmundo Vargas —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting, Edmundo Vargas. You must tell a user you have reported them here, see the top of this page. For another time, WP:AN3 is the noticeboard dedicated to edit warring. I have blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring and avoiding scrutiny. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

• Update: and I have unblocked per WP:AGF, as they deny being the IP. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

This member removes information from sources. Please explain to him that Wikipedia is not a Russian site. I gave authoritative sources where there is a title. Ingush are also citizens of this republic. Most of the Ingush population from the republic was expelled in 1992. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A request had been made for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I declined it because each party had made only one statement on the article talk page, not a real attempt to discuss on the talk page, and one of the statements was in Russian anyway, and this is the English Wikipedia and discussion should be in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that I've fully protected the page for four days per Robert McClenon's request at RFPP. El_C 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:The discussion is over. "And what you say does not matter"(C)Дагиров Умар https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladikavkaz --Edmundo Vargas (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright problems?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – issue is at commons.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/010-XXXX-XXXX

I hate to do this, because the content the user is uploading is quite useful buuuuut... I really doubt they own the copyrights to these images, or at least not most of them. It might just be a case of a user not knowing how to use the site. I know this is linking to Wikimedia, but the user is hosting there and then putting on Wikipedia. I just thought I should bring it up with admins. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This absolutely should be brought up with admins.... at Commons, where the uploads are occurring. Correct page is here. User has no edits to en.wp in nearly a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik improper consensus closure

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

---

User:Nihlus Kryik has improperly closed a discussion regarding a consensus for the table progress for the RuPaul's Drag Race individual season pages. As you can see from this discussion here [84] I mentioned multiple times that consensus is not reached based on the number of votes. User:Nihlus Kryik blantly ignored this and decided that a consensus was reached and went ahead to implement the proposed changes. I do not believe someone with 14 sporadically placed edits should be deciding whether or not a consensus has been reached, especially with basing the closure on votes. Brocicle (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't closed it yet, and he shouldn't be trying to declare consensus since's he commented on this proposal.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't been formally closed but the user has already implemented the proposed changes "per consensus" as shown in this diff [85] Brocicle (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This "notice" by Brocicle is wildly predictable based on his/her WP:BATTLEGROUND style of editing over this topic and his absolute refusal to accept any argument that does not align with his. It is precisely why I warned him about tendentious editing moving forward. Let's discuss why I did what I did.

First, I was going to go to WP:ANRFC to request a formal closure since I knew Brocicle would not accept anything but his point of view. However, when I was there, I saw this right at the top:

"Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."

So, I decided to "declare" consensus without attempting to officially close anything. It was very clear where the consensus was heading, and per WP:SNOW, it was easy to decide on which way to go.

Second, Brocicle has done everything in his power to revert any changes made that go against his view on how the page should designed. He has been grandstanding for almost an entire month on this issue, constantly telling everyone what consensus is not, but not telling anyone what consensus is. At best, this type of behavior is disruptive.

Examples showing pattern of grandstanding: [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

Honestly, there are so many more that I just recommend you look at his edit history. The edits he is reverting show an attempt by the reading community to restore a previously obtained consensus of utilizing the HIGH/LOW method. Take this with the arguments made by the editors (including myself) on the talk page, and it is extremely easy to see how consensus was reached. Brocicle is the only one who has truly shown he is against it, and his arguments of been summarily dismissed based on policy. So, no, my "closure" was not improper. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice that pages remain how they were PRIOR to discussion on change until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached. HIGH and LOW is against policy as stated numerous times by editors other than myself. I stated each time in my summary and posted on user talk pages to get them involved in the discussion. My arguments against the change is based on policy while yours is based on the current depiction being "trash and confusing to fans". I have linked multiple times to the WP:CONSENSUS page for you and other editors to read at your own discression, I cannot force you to read it and learn. I respect admin closure, not improper closure based on voting. Brocicle (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to tell anyone what consensus actually is. Your only argument thus far is that it is not a vote. I showed you how I reached consensus without a vote. We are here merely because you fail to accept it. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the consensus page for people to read and learn about what consensus is. Stating it isn't a vote isn't an argument when it's the policy. I'm here because of your improper closure, not because I "refuse to accept it". Brocicle (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have clearly demonstrated, it is not improper. This is a waste of time. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is improper which is why I brought it to admin attention, like you suggested I do if I felt further discussion was required which it clearly needs. Brocicle (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I suggested you reach out to an administrator if you felt someone should officially close it. One person brigading should not subvert consensus. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

reach out to an administrator if you feel further discussion is required your exact words. I'm not here to go round in a circle with you, I'm here because of your improper closure and for an admin comment/decision or whatever they choose. Brocicle (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Clarification request on 1RR

Could an admin or two weigh in on what is meant by the 1RR on the Donald Trump article? The page notice is here. I understand that if an editor has several edits in a row, that can be 1 revert. But what about when an editor gets reverted and then comes back and revises the same content in less than 24 hours? Or is it that you are limited to just one revert or revision that completely wipes what was there before and that's it for 24 hours? I've read comments from some editors where they ask another editor to do copyedits for them because they can't go back now they've made that one edit, while other editors seem to make multiple edits, even coming back after their serial edits are interrupted and continuing to make copyedits, deletions, additions, etc. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask different admins, you're going to get slightly different answers. Keeping in mind I take a dim view of anyone trying to game 1RR to get someone blocked, here's mine: The addition of significantly new material is obviously not a revert. Re-adding the same or similar material after removal is a revert. In the case of multiple interrupted edits I'm looking if the editor is trying to stick in similar content/viewpoints in different ways after a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

By contrast, a removal only counts as a revert if it can be connected to a recent addition. I noticed a lot of editors having trouble with that one. Removing something that was added months & years before, or possibly through multiple edits, is exempted from 1RR. With days & weeks it gets more complicated. El_C 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I don't get the "game 1RR to get someone blocked." I've seen experienced editors bait newbies into a block because the newbie doesn't understand how they're breaking the rule. I do understand the rest of your comment. That's what I'm curious about. You add somerthing, it gets reverted, you come back and say it in a different way, that seems to me like violating the rule, and maybe that's a gaming the system thing, too. Thanks, that's very helpful.

@El C: I had no idea about that and I don't think anybody else does either. But there are so many changes on that page, I don't think there is any material there that one could say are old enough to qualify for that. It would be nice to standardize these things. I will link to these answers.

Thank you both. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

When you are an admin and are asked to rule on whether a removal of text counts as 1RR violation, these are the factors and considerations one has to weigh. In revertland, removing something that was added is the dialectical flipside to adding something that was removed. But just like not all additions are reverts, not all removals are, either—even if you are removing some editor/s text, by definition. El_C 05:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Also, looking at the content focused on and a pattern of editing would be helpful there, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Example: I've had editors ask for sanctions because another editor removed content (a revert), got reverted, and then proceeded to do some uncontentious copy editing in a different section which technically "undoes other editors' actions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It always seemed silly to me that editors would ask others to do a copyedit after they'd revised something for fear of doing it themselves. Copyedits, real copyedits that is, and not just slipping in content that essentially is the same as before but with a different spin, should not count. But editors who add content, are reverted, and then come back to the very same section, same sentence and put in a modified version, that seems like a 1RR violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that was me User:NeilN. I actually sympathize with User:SW3 5DL about this. If the written rules would simply say what you admins have said in this section, then editors like me and SW3 would not have to go through this painstaking process of trying to figure out how things work. We could just read the rules. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It's happened a few times - I don't keep track of the requesters unless there's a reason to. And you can't write down each admin's thought processes. In the example I just gave, if the editor removed content from the lead pertaining to a embezzlement scandal, got reverted, and then their copy editing "just happened" to soften the wording about the scandal in the article body, I would be looking to block for 1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC}

@NeilN: Well, since Anythingyouwant has brought himself here, I will also mention that he has been making multiple edits for some time now that do just that. I just yesterday questioned this because I wanted to sort if this was a violation just for my own edification as well as others on the page, and to stop him doing it if it is a violation. I brought these edits to @Ad Orientem:'s talk page. He's been editing on DT and doing a great job. He sorted a problem with his own edit which settled the matter, but that now means he can't act as an admin. But I thought he could at least give his opinion. Here are the edits I questioned and Ad Orientem's reply:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• I reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then Anythingyouwant revised it again here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

• Ad Orientem comment [103]

I think I put him between a rock and a hard place since he has edited there, and I probably should have brought it here. But this type of edit seems to me to be a violation and from what I'm reading in your comments, they do seem to be. Now, in regards to what El_C has said, if there is old material that is being revised, especially if there's discussion on the talk page, that could be seen as not a 1RR violation. But when the material has been recently revised, as this had been, and then he comes in a makes an edit that is then reverted, and he comes back and as you say, 'softens' things a bit, that seems a violation. The clarification here is wanted because if so, this behavior must stop as he's done this before, and it needs to be made clear for all editors what precisely is 1RR as applies to that page. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of remarkable that even after these patient explanations from uninvolved Admins about what a "revert" means, you yet again bring forth this bogus 1RR accusation that has already been dismissed by an involved admin. I have banned SW3 from my user talk page, by the way. This is just bizarre. Happy Sunday! Incidentally, I already responded to the accusation here, and also in multiple threads at this page. Should I repeat it all now? Should I present a detailed explanation of why this user is the most unsuitable and unhelpful editor I've come across in ages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL and Anythingyouwant: This is why WP:AE exists. Ask one admin and you are relying on a single opinion. AE is designed so that multiple admins can chime in if needed. In this particular case, I would have issued a clear warning or blocked if there were recent DS blocks in history. Unfortunately Anythingyouwant, on that article the restrictions have got you either coming or going. Calling it a 1RR violation is debatable but if that's the case, there's also the "Consensus required" restriction which seems to have been broken. Yes, the editing seems to be somewhat trivial to uninvolved eyes but that restriction still needs to be followed if you're going to "play it safe". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil. And knowing that I will bring any future issues here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Not here please. WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. AE. I would not have thought of that first. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does appear necessary to play it extremely safe, which I did not. I attempted to follow WP:BRD after being reverted with an extremely vague edit summary. I did that quickly, going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert. Instead, the reverter took off for well over 12 hours. No one objected during that period to me restoring part of the removed material, and --- thinking that that part of the removed material could not have been what motivated the revert ---- I restored it. I was mistaken, either because of a sincere disagreement, or because of a set-up, take your pick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A set up is when you make the edits yourself after putting an artificial clock on how long you will tolerate having your edit reverted before you restore it. 24 hours, not 12 is the rule on 1RR on that page. Talk page discussion does not have a clock on it. As I've mentioned to you before, other than BLP violations, there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. It could have kept. None of us here is on your clock. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no 1RR violation, and I agree with Ad Orientem about that. As for your behavior, I commend to you the essay WP:Revert which says: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting." I didn't pick a "half-day" out of thin air. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that essay is valid advice User:SW3 5DL? Also, please STOP editing your talk page comments after they've already been responded to, without indicating the changes. Per WP:TPG, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll reply SW3. You seem to be available.[104] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sunuwar/Sunar

This isn't a major editwar or incident but I'd like some input. Murder of Maina Sunuwar is an article about the death of a girl in Nepal. Most sources call her Sunuwar but Dskoich keeps changing/moving the article and Talk to Sunar, claiming that's the right spelling. I've made a redirect from Sunar to Sunuwar to solve that but he appears to insist on Sunar, even changing the name in URLs and reference titles (thus breaking links). I've tried to explain things to him on my Talk but it doesn't seem to do any good. Can somebody take a look at this, give an opinion, etcetera? I'm a bit at a loss. Yintan  08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move protected--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

The user KJFS, who states they are a US presidential candidate, has made what seems to me to be a legal threat [here, stating "It would probably be best that I not have to take this issue to the Article III branch and the FEC for them to address; it is my unsolicted advisory opinion to wikipedia, as someone who studied constitutional law under some of the best at Claremont, that you should probably let me have a page, to protect free elections and prevent electioneering." (article III being the judicial branch in the US) and "just trying to mitigate the potential for international incident and litigation in clear (yet opaque, as always) legal jargon." I've reported them to AIV (as they also only seem interested in promoting themselves) but I thought I should here as well. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. If/when he states in unambiguous terms that he's not going to take legal action, anyone can unblock. Katie^talk 12:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit that any unblock request would need to address their desire to use Wikipedia to promote themselves as a presidential candidate as well; in the post I link to above they essentially state that they feel they have every right to use Wikipedia for their electioneering activities. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"in order to protect the U.S. Constitution, I have to ask you to please allow me to keep this page". That's just about the silliest deletion contest I've ever read. I mean, come on, that's just nonsense. Yintan  12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I blocked for the legal threats. If another admin believes the silliness will stop, that's on them. :-) Katie^talk 14:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I've declined the WP:G11 speedy nomination at Draft:Kelan John Farrell-Smith, as it only applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" (emphasis in original), and I really don't see that at all - it's actually written in a straightforward encyclopedic tone, I'd say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Legal threats are not cool. User is correctly blocked. Have tagged the article with "COI". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding patrolling/reviewing by overwriting a redirect

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

---

A short while back we had a (paid?) editor who under various names, hijacked a redirect by overwriting it with their new article and then moving it to the new title, thus avoiding scrutiny by newpage patrol and reviewers. The page Shelley Bridgman has been raised at WP:BLP/N and was created by exactly such a process by an editor who has edited nothing else. Question: Did we block the editor(s) doing this, and what was the outcome (I can't find the original discussion)? (Note: I haven't informed the relevant editor as they haven't edited since creating the article over seven months ago). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I've fixed the history issues by splitting Bridgman's history and moving the relevant revisions back to Shih-t'ou. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: I think I handled the majority of these cases as they popped up on ANI. My actions were always the same. Indef block the editor and delete the article as undisclosed paid editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this linked to this at VPP? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Yes. Thanks for providing the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Jvm21

This user systematically violates WP:NMOTORSPORT, creating the articles about drivers who have only competed in the F4 Championship or even karting drivers. Now he recreates an article about a driver who is not notable and was deleted two weeks before. Please somebody reason him, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the article per G4. Can it be made clearer in NMOTORSPORT which series of racing are relevant, and which not? F4 clearly isn't, but is F3, for example? Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations, disruptive editing

Some unacceptable stuff going on around British TV programmes. Under the Hammer was deleted this morning as an unambiguous copyvio (my nomination), and re-created within hours by Swiftsave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), little different from what I remember of the earlier version, and riddled with copyright violations. I blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. When IP 86.161.175.64 removed the copyvio template I restored it; another IP, 86.175.66.99, has removed it again. I've asked for semi-protection, but on looking a little further I'm pretty sure we are dealing with a single editor –with an idiosyncratic and laconic taste in edit summaries – who shows little sign of being here to improve the encyclopaedia. Similar behaviour at Full Stretch, foundational copyvio by Swiftsave, G12 tag removed by 86.161.175.64. Advice or help appreciated, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for copyvios, "Under the Hammer" redeleted. His other articles need to be carefully examined and G12/RD1ed. Further IP edits (it's a WP:DUCK) can be blocked for block evasion. BethNaught (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of articles by this user needing review. Time to open a CCI? BethNaught (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh Lord – I'm looking at To Be the Best right now, and it's saying it premiered on "WCBS" in the U.S., but that's nonsense as there's no such thing as "local affiliate miniseries" on anything other than PBS in the U.S. – it must have aired on CBS... (Yep.) If this is the kind of thing this user has done consistently, his articles are likely to be problematic, quite aside from the Copyvio stuff. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A number (though not all) of the TV series articles look to be effectively unsourced (and so are possibly not notable TV series), and thus are probably good WP:PROD candidates. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who've dealt with some of this, particularly BethNaught. I've looked at some more of them myself. They're not only riddled with copyvio – parts are assembled out of quite short passages copied from elsewhere – but, as IJBall notes, there are serious problems with both sourcing and accuracy. A couple of examples: in A History of British Art, the text "takes a walk through the newly re-hung galleries of London’s Tate Britain – and wonders what makes a national style of art" is copy-pasted from this BBC page – but that page is not about A History of British Art, and the person taking the walk is Alastair Sooke, not Andrew Graham-Dixon. In The Polar Bear Family & Me, the text "follows wildlife cameraman Gordon Buchanan as he spends a year with a family of wild …" is apparently copied from this BBC page about a different programme, The Bear Family and Me (it may or may not still be right, I don't know). BethNaught, rather than add yet more to the CCI backlog (somewhere around 80,000 articles waiting to be checked) and indeed to the CCI request backlog (about 40 requests waiting to be evaluated – admins, you can help!), I'd like to propose a more immediate solution: the nuclear option. Please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: that all articles created by Swiftsave be summarily deleted, without prejudice to re-creation by bona-fide editors; and that all edits by him and his team of IPs be summarily reverted unless they are only to add reliable references or verified factual information (not running text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Contribs for Swiftsave are here. This would affect 14 articles created, and up to 15 where he made at least one edit over 150 characters while logged in. Oh, and I support it as proposer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support – I would basically support WP:NUKEing them all, with two exceptions: To Be the Best where I've added a Variety source and which seems to be clearly notable, and Red Fox (TV series) which seems to have two bona fide sources (though I can't really check them – it might take a British editor to check to make sure those sources aren't "made up") – as long as those two don't contain any WP:COPYVIOs, I think they should be kept. The rest can go though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, partly in response to the comment by BethNaught but also relevant to this proposal - it does indeed sound like a WP:CCI would be appropriate. However, do CCI requests still get dealt with? The backlog even for requests to be assessed now seems to be at years -- the next request due to be considered seems to be nearly two years old! -- and I think I saw a comment that most copyright work does not take place at CCI now. Should dealing with copyright issues now be done elsewhere by default, and should all of the pages be updated to reflect this. Anyway if that is the case, then adding this case to a backlog that will never be cleared, may not be appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's very little work going on at WP:CCI any more, unfortunately. As an alternative to creating a new case there, I have gone through and cleaned up the edits of the named account and as many of the related IPs as I could find. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

User User:KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even insulted me and made personal attacks here on my personal talk page. I think this user will continue doing this and not sure what to make of this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

That is not a personal attack... --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: Well, you really did the exact same to him.... —JJBers 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage, considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, I'll make it clear to first look at the edits in the talk page and article in topic before jumping to conclusions. KazekageTR made long and very extreme changes without even providing a single source nor gaining consensus for his changes. Since I opposed, he/she comes to my talk page and drops F-bomb on my talk page. That's not what I call a productive behavior and something I would never dream of doing. If someone makes radical changes like he/she did, you first discuss and or present sources to back your claim, until then, the article should stay the way it was in its original form. (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: this is why... —JJBers 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers The only thing I see is a concerned Wikipedian telling the editor stop making crazy arbitrary edits and to gain consensus. with capital letters to make the post more noticeable since KazekageTR didn't notice my first post, nothing wrong with that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for a more authoritative figure whose made as much contributions to Wikipedia and have been around long enough or longer than I have. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: That's still uncivil to just go to someone's talkpage and "scream" at them, and calling them a vandal. —JJBers 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage. Well, he/she DID vandalize the article since he/she kept adding unsourced content without consensus after been told not to, while cursing at other's talk page. You seem to not know what you're even talking about. In case you didn't notice, this is ANI, "A" as in Admin, something you're not. I think I'm wasting precious time with two interloper who didn't contribute nor has been in Wikipedia for as long as I have, bye. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: Please read WP:AGF before commenting anything else on this. —JJBers 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: This is vandalism. This might have problems but it is not vandalism. Don't misuse Wikipedia behavior policy. Further, all-caps comments and edit summaries are strongly discouraged at WP:SHOUT. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Before you open an ANI complaint, be sure your own hands are quite a bit cleaner than they are in this situation. And make sure you have followed dispute resolution guidance at WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Although not vandalism, this user did constantly put radical unsourced info without consensus, not to mention that this user used the F-word on my talk page. I simply restored the page to its original form, I tried to do the right thing. As for mines, I just knew about the all-caps rule and other once you told me, my bad for the misdemeanor. (N0n3up (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Harassment and personal attacks

Resolved

 – No administrative action taken—but everyone is sentenced to binge re-watch The Wire. El_C 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it harassment to say that someone is adding a "stupidly unreliable source" when the source is produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, as VQuaker did here? Is it harrasment to repeatedly posting annoying comments like I ""play dumb", that I "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions"? Is it a personal attack to accused me of "cherry-picking quotes" when I quote the most relevant part of a policy? Is it a personal attack to accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for the accusation? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, to all of the above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes he is. If you don't believe it from him, then no to all the above. (If you think it's harassment to point out that "Moon of Alabama" is a stupidly unreliable source for an article about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, I really don't know what to say to you.) ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The source is not moonofalabama. It's produced by an established expert. Theodore Postol. It's added per WP:SPS. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And also. The policy says WP:AVOIDYOU Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Isn't it valid? Something I am missing here? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol is an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, and were he to self-publish on those it might be considered an acceptable exception under WP:SPS. This is not a self-published paper on ballistic nuclear missiles, and Postol's views have no more weight than do Linus Pauling's claims that vitamin C cures cancer. As I suspect you already know perfectly well. Before you post here again, as has already been explained to you you may want to actually read WP:HARASS, as I don't believe it says what you think it says. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read a bit more. Postol is not just an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, ref. MIT and he has been used as an established expert on this subject before, even on this incident, ref. Deutsche Welle, TheNation among others. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack for users to question the intelligence of an action, but it doesn't help foster a civil environment, either. I'd hate for Erlbaeko to be treated differently just because he promotes a minority position (against the mainstream view of US interventionism ^{(Postol is mentioned as an expert in this The Wire piece, too)}). El_C 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: may not be the same The Wire I had in mind. El_C 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an expert on The Wire, does that count? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah! It is your town, after all, so it counts! That show (and Battlestar Galactica) brings me back. El_C 23:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it might even be nonsense. Do you think a MIT professor would misspell the word "occur" on the title page of every page of his report? [105]. I suspect this report has had Postol's name attached to it based on his previous work on Syrian attacks. I note that not a single RS appears to feature what would be a significant development (A Google for "Theodore Postol Syria 2017" reveals blogs, political sites and Russia Today).Or maybe not. You'd think it would be presented better, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look here, and here: With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough - but in that case, why on earth didn't you use that source in the first place, rather than the completely unreliable one you used? Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of it. Another user posted the PDF-version first, I re-added it. And please, don't mix up mis-spelling with stupidity. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We're actually discussing behavioral issues. You have basically asked if these things are attacks and the answer is no, they aren't. The veracity of the cited source would be discussed at RSN. No foul committed that I can see...play on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is mostly about harrasment, but if it ok to repeatedly post annoying comments like you "play dumb", that you "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions", then I guess the working environment will be quite nice onwards. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. There isn't any administrative thing to do here, but next time you are spoken to in this manner, remind that editor that characterising your edits as lacking in intelligence works against fostering an environment of civil collaboration. El_C 23:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have a good one. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

User:Jytdog is trying to own the discussion at Talk:Jews. The "votes" section is not for threaded discussion. In addition, I removed my own comment, and User:Jytdog is trying to restore it against my will. In the background is the fact that my opposition to his proposal is the only thing that can stop it from being accepted, so he is doing anything he can, including posting lies and misunderstandings, to detract from my vote. He has been doing so ever since the beginning of the discussion. In his latest edit he also removed a comment of mine in the discussion![106] Debresser (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you did. What you did, was this, deleting my reply and changing what you wrote. Your edit note even acknowledges what you were doing: "Some hothead just couldn't wait". Once you have saved your comment and someone has replied, you cannot delete the response and then change your comment without redaction. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff per WP:TPG. iIf you want to change what you wrote after someone has replied, you need to WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, because there should be no threaded discussion in the "votes" section. Simple as that. In addition, my comment was indeed not final and you should have waited more than 2 minutes![107][108] Especially since I changed my opinion considerably in your favor. No need to be a hothead and reply to everybody who disagrees with you. You don't WP:OWN that article or talkpage! You have been dragging us from one section to the other, to an Rfc, to other sections, and now a second Rfc after you yourself closed the first one. You are trying to own this talkpage and thereby stifle all opposition. It is about time somebody stop you. I recognize a WP:TE edit pattern when I see it. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Some RfCs have comments in the !votes, and some don't.

But you cannot change your own comments after I responded, nor remove mine.

You have just done it again. I will let that stand.

But this thread should produce a solid boomerang against you. So disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever they say here. In any case, you also restored a comment of mine that was not replied to by anybody, and removed a comment of mine from the discussion section. Those two things are not connected to WP:REDACT and surely make my point of the WP:OWN and WP:TE issues with you here (and elsewhere). Debresser (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

He's right, Debresser. You need to use strikeout—you can't touch his comment, at all. *** Although I encouraged the listing of this RfC, I see the contested passage/notion remains outstanding. We may need to sharpen consensus with another RfC just for that, once this one is concluded. El_C 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. Because that hothead just had to reply to my post within 2 minutes. That is how he makes people ignore all opposition, my turning it into endless walls of unending argument.

In any case, you are wrong. Once the Rfc is divided into a "votes" and "discussion" section, there can be no threaded discussion in the "votes" section. He can move his comment to the "discussion" section if he wants to. Also note that he restored a comment of mine that was not replied to by anybody, and removed a comment of mine from the discussion section. Why do you have nothing to say about that? Your behavior as a so-called "impartial" admin has been in Jytdog's favor for too long, and it stops here and now. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Rfc, I don't follow you. Why would we need a third (!) Rfc, if the issue can be discussed in this one? Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion is not prohibited in the vote section of an RfC, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. *** Yes, a third RfC. Because this 2nd RfC (1st one being premature) is about a lot more than just the contested passage/notion—and for clarity, I, for one, would like others to discuss and, hopefully, arrive at consensus about just the contested bit. El_C 23:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, there ought to be three steps: 1. Find out what you both agree on. 2. Find out what you disagree on. 3. List an RfC on #2. El_C 23:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to that conclusion based on experience with Rfc's.

Completely agree. But that should be done in one Rfc. Just like I did in my reply. I simply voted to agree with all changes, but one. There is no way to first agree with this version, and then say "oh, you all agreed, but now let's discuss just this one sentence again". Nobody is going to take that serious. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't start discussing content here; we can discuss other RfCs on the article talk page.

Debresser's behavior here at the article talk page is disruptive. I am not going to fight to restore my comments and notes making sense of them in light of Debresser's subsequent changes, but Debresser cannot keep on deleting other people's comments and changing their own, after they have been replied to. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify. See how that is done? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

How is a WP:ANI post disruptive? Apart from disrupting your plans to dominate the article, the talkpage and the Rfc, of course? :) Debresser (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this ANI report has served its purpose. If you both could take anything from it, let it be my three steps for DR. El_C 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, please remove that denigrating comment "See how that is done?" from your last post.[109] It is precisely this type of comment that makes you such a detested editor. El_C, didn't you promise to insist Jytdog follows decorum? Debresser (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was unnecessary. I think the stress of this dispute is getting to both of you and, perhaps, you should both take a breather for a few hours. Myself, I'm gonna watch Elementary, so will be unavailable for the next 45 minutes. El_C 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Two RfC I participated in recently Indicscript in infoboxes, which I authored, and Gender neutral language, both have threaded discussions in the vote section. El_C 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And did those Rfc's also allow editors restoring a comment that the posting editor removed (even though it has not been commented on)? And did it allow an editor to remove another editor's comment completely? Why do you continue to pretend as though those things didn't happen here? Debresser (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It would have been better to indicate it with a diff, yes. You both should approach each other more gently, like gentlemen. El_C 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now seen diffs now of both Jytdog and Debresser each deleting each other's talk page comments in ways the other person expressed they didn't want. Please don't do this. If it continues I will be supporting an IBan. -Obsidi (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Again, what kicked this off, is that Debresser did this, deleting my reply pointing out that his !vote made no sense, and changing what he wrote so that it made sense. (this is really terrible behavior)

My initial response was only this, simply restoring my comment.

Debresser then again deleted my comment.

I acknowledge that I just then started reverting them; I should have come here then instead. That was wrong of me and i see how folks could shrug.

The talk page still does not include my comments and includes only their unredacted changes to their own comments. (which is fine, i gave up on that; it is fine that his vote makes sense now, after all)

But this is not a parity thing. Nobody can change other people's comments this way, and change their own comments after others have responded. This is not how WP works and not how things should end up. But whatever, this is dramah by now. Debresser should get a sharp rebuke, i should get a trout, and this should be closed. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog's ArbCom warning: further sanctions discussion

Given the issues involved here, it is worth noting that among other sanctions, Jytdog has been warned by ArbCom regarding his civility within the past 18 months. The quote: Jytdog warned 9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. Since I notice Jytdog also deleted a warning from User:David Tornheim for disruptive editing from his (Jytdog's) talk page today, I suggest the community discuss, in spite of Jytdog's sudden desire to close with a trout for his self-admitted questionable editing, if in fact he is indeed disruptive and uncivil in spite of his formal ArbCom admonishment. Full disclosure: Jytdog named me as a party to the aforementioned ArbCom case in patent retaliation for my statement to ArbCom, an act that was never explained or mentioned further. Jusdafax 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Since when is deleting a warning from the other side in a content dispute uncivil? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I was about to say that...huh. —JJBers 01:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to overstep, but is blanking a page twice a content dispute? (I don't want to get overly involved, because I created the page that was blanked.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It was not blanked. It was redirected pending the outcome of a discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP is nonsense. Did you look at the diffs presented by Jytdog at 01:19, 24 April 2017, just above your subsection? Jytdog is being extremely self-deprecating to suggest he deserves a trout—he actually deserves a barnstar for patiently trying to have the issues discussed at Talk:Jews while others are deflecting, ducking, and using abusive edit summaries (as shown in the diffs). Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the OP is nonsense. I don't know Debresser, but his repeated implications here and on his own page that it was really Jytdog's fault that he, Debresser, changed his comment after it was responded to because Jytdog had responded too quickly, show him in a poor light and a battlefield mode. (Edit summary: "Some hothead just couldn't wait", "You should wait a second to let people finish", "my comment was indeed not final and you should have waited more than 2 minutes!... "No need to be a hothead and reply to everybody who disagrees with you.".) The idea seems to be that Jytdog ought to have foreseen, or mind-read, that Debresser "hadn't finished" his own comment and would want to change it. Debresser's violent over-reaction to Jytdog's "See how that is done?" above is startling too: Jytdog has actually demonstrated strikeout, and is pointing out, perhaps a little superciliously, that it can be seen in the wikicode for his comment, and Debresser replies "It is precisely this type of comment that makes you such a detested editor". My italics — really nice. It makes Jusdafax's focus on Jytdog's civility look very one-eyed. Debresser, it would be better to cool down a little and consider the strength of your arguments before coming to ANI. In this case, I don't see the need to come here at all. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Debresser, now you know to never modify another editor's comment because threaded discussion in RfC vote section is allowed. And all submissions are final—use preview if you're unsure. The detested comment was not civil, speaking of decorum, even if the strikeout demonstration from Jytdog's was unnecessary (I already demonstrated that beforehand). This entire encounter is superfluous to the content. Debresser was wrong on the policy and on the edit warring—Jytdog was wrong on the edit warring. I suggest that you both just move on from this distraction. And let this be closed, with lessons learned. El_C 03:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal

As may be observed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock, the blocked sockmaster who once registered as Iloveartrock has recently been using IPs from Peru in the range 179.7.99.0 to 179.7.122.0. Can we get a rangeblock to stop this avenue of disruption? Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Outlook not so good. These are all over the place without much consistency and rangeblocking looks to cause collateral damage. I looked to see if setting protections, an edit filter or finding a link to blacklist might work but I'm not finding a solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

AIV and UAA backlog, please

Not severe, but quite a few have piled up, if any adming is awake. I'll be getting off soon, so it's not likely to grow much bigger. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)