Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion
  • A proposal to gradually offer both wikitext and VisualEditor to new accounts
  • Discuss proposals for celebration of the upcoming 5 millionth article on English Wikipedia
  • An RfC for a banner alert campaign on the threat to Freedom of Panorama in Europe
  • An RfC for a four-day delay period for deleting abandoned AfC submissions under G13
  • An RfC to permit trusted non-admins to close TFD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes
  • A proposal to forbid IPs from participating in the RfA process.
  • A proposal to elevate WP:BRD to guideline status
  • An RfC on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User: Stemoc[edit]

After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.

In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.

The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...

If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.

Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.

Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.

Here are links to edits where the user has reverted me in a hounding manner. [1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7] [8] [9] [10]

Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcing his own images into articles and right after usurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote

If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Also I'd suggest acting more Civil instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.
I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Wikipedia is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You also used caps on your talk page once because someone "needs to get glasses." Calibrador (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [11] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (tJosve05a (c) 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Wikipedia from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I never said I'm an admin. I just came as an uninvolved editor. --TL22 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yikes! Bbb23 just brought the hammer down on both Stemoc and Calibrador for 24 hours at WP:ANEW... I'm guessing this one can (and probably should) be closed now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks. I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. Nick (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the previous discussion involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion EdJohnston warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--Stemoc 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Umm Stemoc I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it Face-grin.svg, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Say, Davey2010 could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of WP:BOOMERANG and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Jusdafax - That's actually a good idea ... Should've done that sooner as anything's worth a shot tbh, MrX, Spartan7W, Lady Lotus, Dwpaul. –Davey2010Talk 09:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions for Calilibrador[edit]

  • Agree, completely, with Nick's suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef block for Calibrador - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. Jusdafax 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef Calibrador - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be this discussion all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree -- In complete agreement with Nick here. The 1RR proposal for Calibrador makes a lot of sense. However if that doesn't work an indef seems like the only other option. -- Shudde talk 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stemoc is hounding Calilibrador and is seriously refusing to drop the stick. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I can understand 1RR and renaming of the files to remove his name (per DGG's comment), but before this last Bbb23 block for edit warring, he's never been blocked, and he has over 25,000 edits behind him. Indef blocking is excessive at this stage. Dennis Brown - 17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of that was to get him to respond, which he's now doing, if less than satisfactorily. But Dennis, it's my firm belief that if he gets off with 1RR and renaming, he's getting off easy. I really don't want to go wading through his edits, just to find more examples. We are already at TL,DR. Davey 2010 has it right. Jusdafax 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Current and past problems with Calibrador, formerly Gage Skidmore: suggest extending current BOOMERANG with indef block[edit]

Good double block, and I share Nick's concerns. By the way, isn't this diff above in this very ANI complaint (!) using "very close to libel" as an implied legal threat in violation of WP:LEGAL, as well the use of the term "paranoia" an attack on the mental condition of the editor Cali/Gage has brought to this board? If so, wouldn't a continued block of C/G be protective in nature?

In any case, I've had some troubling issues with Cali/Gage Skidmore at the L.A. Reid article. In brief, he lies, distorts, ignores and in general does whatever needful to get what he wants. My involvement began in 2012 when I cordially welcomed him to the page while expressing concerns about his captioning. He gave no reply.

In August 2013, he repeatedly inserts his own photography as the infobox photo and refuses to reply on his Talk page or on the article Talk page when I attempted again to discuss. When challenged, he lied in his edit summary saying, as clearly shown in this diff that I had reverted him without explaining, which the diff shows my edit summary had, and that I was in violation of WP:OWN, when in fact I had repeatedly asked for Cali/Gage to discuss the matter.

I also noticed others had similar issues and Cali/Gage failed to respond to them either. Finally in disgust I walked away from what I felt was an unpleasant and manipulative editing experience. And this editor has a serious set of issues, as noted above, and in his warning at AN just last month, also as noted above. He's a fine photographer, but we can do without his hostile gamesmanship and relentless self-promotion, in my view. Jusdafax 12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The use of "very close to libel" once probably shouldn't be construed as a legal threat per WP:LEGAL. I don't really see enough diffs to support this strong of an action. I started looking through some of his photos and they are quite good. Personally, I think it would be a shame to loose his future contributions. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - Not to go all Wikilawyer on you but the pertinent paragraph in that policy: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation. As for photographers, he's good but not good enough to allow his brinksmanship and outright bad faith editing to continue, in my view. Jusdafax 06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think you are Wikilawyering at all. I just think his phrase "very close to libel" is not quite the same as saying it was "libelous" nor did he do it repeatedly. I think before an indef block is decided, there should be more discussion about whether adding his name to the end of file names is a serious issue. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Darn it - that's not the only issue, as I demonstrate in this section just above. He's been abusing the place for years. You're right, the word "repeatedly" is in the policy too. But, now that he's unblocked, what does he do? Wipes his Talk page clean, and ignores the issues raised here. He does not apologize, does not comment, just up and vanishes. You OK with that? Why? Because he takes good pictures? Jusdafax 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with you that there are serious issues. I just did Google search in images for "Gage Skidmore" and it returns pages of his photos. So, maybe 1RR or 0RR would be a better starting point for now? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the first thing we all need to agree to is to get him to talk. He has a well-established history of avoiding discussion. That has to stop. Indef him, he's forced to face the music on his pristine talk page. He can answer questions there, express contrition and understanding of our policies, etc. Seriously, he must not be given a slap on the wrist and turned loose again on the project. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Calibrador response[edit]

If you look at my more recent edits, aside from accidentally reverting too many times on one article without knowing (trust me, it was my mistake), I have begun using edit summaries, tried to seek consensus, and mostly tried to avoid conflict. Stemoc reverted several different edits over several different pages within a short span of time simply for the fact that he believes I am somehow a COI violator. What should I really have done differently? I tried to include discussion, and a clear edit summary at every opportunity.

I sincerely apologize for my past indiscretions, I have seen the error of ways in the past about not discussing changes seen as controversial. I don't need to be punished in order to see that, I see it clearly already. Also, I did not disappear, and inviting everyone that has had something bad to say about me with no one on the other side to defend me is a little biased.

The main issue that was at heart here that was underblown because Stemoc enjoys making a lot of noise, and crying COI at every possible chance, is the WP:Wikihounding and uncivil nature of their edits. I have no idea why this has changed into a discussion about me. I've realized my edits in the past were disruptive, and if you look at my edits recently, I made sure to include an edit summary in nearly every contribution, and when necessary, created or participated in discussion. This includes the 3RR that I accidentally got myself into without realizing, I created a discussion on the talk page, and included a reason for making the edit in my edit summary. Unfortunately that was completely ignored by Stemoc in favor of COI accusations, and stating that I'm profiting from Wikipedia, which I have not ever. I suggest concentrating on that rather than my past mistakes which I apologize for, and have tried to amend. Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also the thing on my talk page was a mistake, I did not know about that policy, and when it was re-added, I accidentally thought someone re-added it to my talk page just to rub it in or something like that, I didn't look at the history page until after I had made the edit. My mistake once again. As for now, all users have control over their talk page, I think Stemoc is once again assuming bad faith, and made another COI allegation that was unfounded. I don't want to distract from the main issue though that I think has not even been addressed yet, so please discuss Stemoc's offenses. Calibrador (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually found Gage creating this article really odd until I did a bit of research and found out that he is somewhat of a "follower" and then i found this..should we now assume Gage is a Paid editor as well cause your edits related to Rand Paul sure looks a lot like public relations work..no? So you use the wiki to push your own agendas, create articles on stuff which again boosts your own career and then you lie about it and then come here and blame me for foiling you? Just claim that you are a political photographer and you are doing all this just to boost your own career and this will all be over...Heck, you even uploaded a new yet poor picture of Donald trump because you didn't like the one I added as it wasn't one of 'yours'...When i first came across you a few years ago, I thought you were a hero for adding HQ pics of celebs and politicians free of charge, boy was I wrong and yet even when multiple users above have claimed that you have been 'gaming' the system, you still deny it and deflect it back to me...Honestly, if all this does not result in a ban or a block for you, I worry that you will do it all over again cause honestly, I do not think you joined wikipedia to help grow the database and you have no intentions whatsoever to follow our policies if they contradict with your ambitions and you have already been on the Edit Warring notice board 3 times over the last 50 days and yet you keep blaming others and refuse to accept that you made mistake after mistake and you even blanked your talk page twice even after 2 admins warned you not to and then you blanked it again the 3rd time just 10 minutes after your block was lifted..Why would anyone not worried about their image do that?...If you somehow walked away from this with just a slap on your hand then this would mean Wikipedia has failed...--Stemoc 13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop stalking my edits and crying COI. You've made your same point over and over and over, I'd like an admin opinion on your behavior, not your same opinion. Calibrador (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No doubt, Stemoc has his own issues. But this is the first I've heard of this Rand Paul article, which opens a new and distressing window on your POV pushing activities, Calibrador. Leaving that aside for the moment, as well as your excuses for blanking the block notices on your talk page repeatedly, which strain credulity since you are saying you didn't read the admin postings at all, we come to the issues I have delineated in detail above. You have posted a lot of words here. Not a single one addresses my specific and documented concerns, and those of others who have further concerns. So is this the best you can do? A "sweat promise" to now, after years, act like most decent Wikipedians, and actually use edit summaries, actually seek consensus? Now that major sanctions are under discussion here, I challenge you to address the charges that have been brought forward. Jusdafax 13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I thought I addressed them? I admit I should have participated in discussion in the past instead of acting in a cold manner. I hardly even remember the incident you are talking about in regards to the LA Reid article. FWIW, that was not my photo, I did not take it. I was acting like any other editor looking for a better image that was freely available on Flickr, and thought that better illustrated the subject of the article, and thought it was weird that a photo with someone else in the photo that was years older was preferred. I did not look at the article history you linked, I'm just going by memory. Not sure what else I can say, but I'd very much like a response to Stemoc's behavior, as absolutely no one with any authority has had anything to say about their hounding and uncivil behavior that I documented in my original report. Calibrador (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, not to make this any sort of issue, but I just looked at the article, and would note that the photo that I added is now the photo that is universally used to illustrate the article across Wikipedia projects, and not as a result of me. Someone else did that. I really have no memory of that situation though, it was several years ago. I know I was in the wrong on that though, so I apologize. Calibrador (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that GageSkidmore/Calibrador suddenly changed his username is an indication that his intentions here are likely less than good faith. I really don't see a pressing issue at all with Stemoc, but with GageSkidmore/Calibrador we see a user who is all about self-promotion, and in many regards, whose motivations, i.e. Rand Paul book, etc. are questionable. He likes to ensure his pictures retain precedence over all others; yes, he takes many pictures that are free-use, and that is good. But many of his pictures aren't of article quality and composition, and he many times fights for ones that are the least worth inclusion. There have been problems in the past, and I see them again. He likes making great streams of edits on pages, rather than carefully consolidating his efforts, he continues to put 'by Gage Skidmore' on every single picture uploaded to the commons, obvious self promotion, and his consistent efforts to evade (name change and notification deletes) demonstrate his negative impact here. Spartan7W § 14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to note that I stole that idea from David Shankbone, should we bring David Shankbone to AN/I? The stream of edits that I think you are referring to were an effort to try to control my own content. Many (not all) of the photos that were uploaded from my photostream were cropped very poorly, or were not the best one to illustrate an article in my opinion. Most (not all) of my recent photo additions were replacing of my own photos with an alternate crop, or slightly different color, sharpness, etc. Some mistook that as simply uploading the same photo with a different title, but that was not the case, people were adding my photos to Wikipedia unknowingly to me, and I wasn't particularly a fan of the way they looked, however minor it was. I don't specifically recall very many instances where a "stream" of edits other than that one instance where it was controversial and someone took notice of it. After I was brought to the noticeboard, I did not continue that behavior. Despite what you may think, I'm capable of learning from my mistakes. As was the case with the recent noticeboard discussion, and is the reason I used an edit summary and created discussions on several recent articles. Unfortunately that was disrupted by Stemoc who reverted several different edits across several different pages, crying COI and that I'm somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia, how exactly should I have responded to that other than the way that I did? In the first few instances on one specific page, I reverted with a descriptive edit summary stating my opposition to the revert of my edit, and also included a talk page post. That post was met with a paragraph of COI accusations. In the end, another user, PrairieKid reverted the page back to my version twice more when Stemoc reverted it to their version. The fact that I overstepped 3RR was an accident on my part, I understand that policy very clearly, I would not have overstepped that if I had known the first edit I made also counted as a revert, I was simply re-adding official portraits that were replaced for some reason unknown to me. In regards to the Paul thing, I would simply consider myself an expert on the topic, the book article was added because I was trying to keep it consistent with the previous two book articles. Not sure what you were trying to imply with that, especially since the article is not written in a biased manner. I don't believe I've ever made any sort of NPOV edits to anything Paul related, if I did that was a mistake, but I do not believe I did. The only thing I can think of are stylistic article choices. Calibrador (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Really Shankbone? the guy that took random celebrity pics and never had a COI or ever pushed his POV across wikimedia? only a handful of his celebrity pics were with his name in the image title which i mentioned above, we ALLOW...not 100% of his images..He rarely if at all replaced someone's images with his own unless it was outdated and I doubt he made a single-cent out of doing this..I would be really surprised if he was ever dragged onto any of the WP:AN boards..and again, you are deflecting..Now you are claiming that users like Lady Lotus and I made "bad" crops?. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, this image by Lady Lotus was so "badly cropped" than you just had to replace it with this image of yours? or replace this with your cropped version or replace this image with one of yours for the exact same reason.. I don't think you care about the quality of your images cause if you did and you thought your version was BETTER, you would have uploaded your version over the "same image" that you were trying to replace, instead of uploading a same if not similar crop with again, your name in the image title...I have told you on multiple occasion that if any user on enwiki or commons finds an image on flick with a free licence and they find there is a need for that image on ANY of the 700 odd wikis we have (300 of which are wikipedias), they will freely be allowed to upload that image to commons so if you have a problem with it, please, feel free to change the license of your images on flickr to ARR (All Rights Reserved) but at the same time, you won't be allowed to upload those images here either without scrutiny....and regarding the PrairieKid edit, If you actually see the history, he changed an image because another user reverted my edit because he didn't understand why my "revert" of your edit was a "self-promotion" because you had your name changed which is why you did it (you can lie about it many times but we all know why)..infact there was no 3RR by me but I accepted the block because I felt that maybe NOW people might see exactly what I have been saying all along, I don't have to repeat myself again as everything i have said is listed above..You may not see it but even though you have been around since 2009, you still refuse to understand or follow our policies so you have not only violated one, but MANY of our policies over the years and you only got away with it because of your name. I have listed a few of your violations above and on the 3RR thread which you keep going back too, this board is NOT for 3RR....this board is about your attitude on this wiki and how you deal (or lack thereof) with other users and your ability (on inability) to both understand or follow our polices and your insistence of claiming over and over again that you are the victim here when its clear that you are not....So instead of deflecting to me, why don't you tell us why an admin should not block you? and P.S, I'm NOT Hounding you, I'm getting you to talk because over the last 6 years you have been on this wiki, you REFUSE to talk when posed a question and you always ignore hierarchy on this wiki and now when you have this opportune time to save yourself, you deflect, passing the blame onto someone else without realizing that this will only make it worse for you....the only reason I'm replying to your posts is because you keep mentioning my name and pointing fingers at me, i know how to defend myself since I have been in similar situation a few times....Everytime I post, I added more proof regarding your edits, and everytime you posts, its just more accusations hurled at me without an ounce of proof and yet, I'm the one hounding him as you claim....anyways I have wasted too much time on this, I have better things to do across wikimedia--Stemoc 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Stemoc, first off, you gotta learn to not slap up these giant text walls that make the average editor's eyes glaze over, and tone down your use of caps. That said, it appears to me you have a number of decent points. There is no doubt that Cali/Gage has utterly and repeatedly failed for years now to discuss and come to consensus, except when he is lying, which I document above. I'm hoping by keeping this thread open that others will come forth, so we can establish what kind of sanctions Cali/Gage will be facing. There is growing consensus something has to be done. Cool out, man. Jusdafax 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Haha, yeah can't help it bro, once I have something to talk about, my wall can be higher than the Great Wall of China..I actually cut myself short there cause most of the things that needed to be said has already been said....I have mentioned a few times that i use Bolds or Caps or "quotes" for "emphasis" only, I'm not really "shouting"..I agree, this has dragged far too long and needs to be solved once and for all...I have no interests in making edits to the wikipedia-space as i prefer most if not all my edits to be on the main space..--Stemoc 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Three words: Use paragraph breaks. BMK (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I was notified about this discussion on my talk page. I do not favor an indefinite block of Gage Skidmore (the username change was in bad faith, however, and should be reversed imo). Though he has demonstrated a strong POV against notable minor candidates for office as I documented here, my main issue with Skidmore is his lack of communication, specifically his refusal to discuss contentious edits he makes in furtherance of his POV. Nevertheless, based on what he has written above, I believe he has the potential to change. He adds great content to articles and wikipedia should not eliminate his ability to do so through an indefinite block. A 1RR restriction seems like a fair remedy. This may encourage him to discuss his edits (as part of the WP:BRD method) rather than reverting reverts without providing any justification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for interaction ban[edit]

At this point I think it would be very wise to consider implementing an interaction ban between myself and Stemoc, I don't conceive this ever resolving amicably as far as their prerogative goes, so I think this would be the best way to not be disruptive. Calibrador (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose such interaction ban since the only one to benefit from it would be the proposer himself, who would get rid of a vocal critic. Criticism that IMO is justified, because like many others here I see Calibrador's activities as using Wikipedia for promotion. Thomas.W talk 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Yup Thomas's hit the nail on the head - WP:IBAN states and I quote "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved - There is no conflict - It's simply one (well actually quite alot) of editors unhappy with you and your self promotion here. –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment If they were civil about it, I wouldn't have made the request. Unfortunately they are one of the most uncivil people I have ever had interaction with. Calibrador (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

They have been civil tho so that doesn't wash either..... –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Not true. Calibrador (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - per Thomas W. I'm fed up, obviously. As I comment above, Stemoc's off-putting delivery is annoying, and post-block, he needs to cool that down. But Stemoc's got some valid points, and I for one am glad he's making the push to inform the wider community about Calibrador's promotional and conflicted edit history. This self-serving proposal merely continues that pattern, and coming in the midst of an ongoing discussion of boomerang sanctions against Calibrador, is arguably disruptive. Cali/Gage has clearly learned nothing from the way this thread has gone. If this is the best he can do, indef him, and we can discuss it without his attempts to turn the discussion. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits we should not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article, unless relevant to the subject, but just having taken a photo of the subject of an article does not IMO make the photographer "relevant to the subject". So I propose a ban on Calibrador/Skidmore to add his name as creator/author/photographer to articles on the English language Wikipedia, whether it's done in the image caption, as a footnote, as a reference (yes I've seen his name added as <ref>Author: Gage Skidmore</ref> to articles, so that his name appears among the references at the bottom of the page, see Matt Groening) or in any other way. Having his name on the image page, visible when clicking the image, should be more than enough. Several proposals to add image attributions to articles have been made through the years, but all have AFAIK failed, so we should go by what MOS says, that is no image attribution unless relevant to the subject of the article. Thomas.W talk 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Any actual mention of my name in an article, whether that includes a reference like you mentioned, or in the caption, was not done by me, and I oppose that as well. Calibrador (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What about taking that to ArbCom so that arbitrators decide what to do? --TL22 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because no admin wants to dig into this murky time sink. But who's gonna file it? Jusdafax 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not moaning but I guess Arbcom's better than no action at all, I wish an admin would deal with it tho but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Gone through this 3 times so definitely won't go through it the 4th time, An admin should deal with this now..as i said before, I have no time for this type of stupidity and also, this is not ArbCom worthy as its an open and shut case of policy violation..any high ranking and uninvolved admin should post a verdict in the next few days as this has dragged far too long....--Stemoc 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support You do have the MOS on your side. We can just remove them whenever they are in violation. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at Jackson, Michigan high schools[edit]

JacksonViking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been brought here before by me (see links below). He has a very big WP:OWN problem with Jackson High School (Michigan) and to a lesser extent, Lumen Christi Catholic High School, the two high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence to his constant and unchecked WP:GAME and WP:IDHT have, IMO, risen to the level of WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for an indeff per NOTHERE, or lacking that, broadly construed editing restrictions on topics connected to high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence follows. I leave the rest to the community.

I believe the above, along with a browse of his talk page and contributions, shows amply evidence of a WP:SPA who has no interest in conforming to the community standards for either content or civility. Thanks. Notifying him next edit John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary "Deleted a lot of content that was not cited similar to what John from Idegon does" seems more than a bit pointy. While much of the content was appropriately removed, there are some non-controversial bits which were blanked as well. The resulting page is left with several "place-holder" section headers needing cleanup. I'll look at that page a bit closer when I get home tonight to try to sort it out. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
And now you see the WP:DICKish behavior this user engages in regularly. Thanks to MarnetteD for reverting it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely aggravating how literally every mistake I make on here you bash me. A lot of those things you're complaining about were noob mistakes. I do not how to contact other users and you refuse to help me but instead you refer to me with vulgar language such as "bub". Second, every single edit I make is reverted by John too. I say he gets off my back. JacksonViking (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at this too, John referred to my first comment on his edit page as taking out the trash. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_from_Idegon&type=revision&diff=668569410&oldid=668569387 Very unprofessionalJacksonViking (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know if you're not able to read a diff or if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of it, but all John from Idegon did in that edit, and what he referred to, was removing a duplicated section header... Thomas.W talk 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd lean to misrepresentation. In the prior paragraph, HE referred to me as "bub" (not at all vulgar BTW) in the diff above labeled "further user page vandalism..." and I replied "So it's not bub now?" It's just another example of GAME. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Might not have been the best edit summary though. Soap 01:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you guys not even going to acknowledge the first paragraph I left here? JacksonViking (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

JacksonViking, has it occurred to you that the reason no one is responding to the first paragraph you left is there is nothing to respond to? There is a welcome template on the top of your talk page that has links that could answer many of your questions. There is an invitation to the Teahouse, another place you can get your questions answered. You are posting here. You have (finally) posted at the article talk page, nearly 2 years after this whole debacle started. You are posting at the AfD another editor started on an article you created. Your claims of not knowing how to communicate are disingenuous. When you do communicate, you attempt to obfuscate the problem. You for example readd a huge block of BLP violating crap that you've refused to discuss numerous times, along with a minor and unneeded change to the notable people list. I revert, and You them charge to my User page, blank the entire thing and insert a whiny complaint about me removing your change to the notable list, totally ignoring the real problem. In the process, you refer to me as "bub" a term you find offensive enough to complain here that I used it. Is it any wonder you are not getting help from other editors? John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon All I come on here to do is make edits and help educate the community of the world. You have been bullying me since I've joined by deleting all my edits regardless of their value. JacksonViking (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
JacksonViking continues to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against me here, is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND discussion at Talk:Jackson High School (Michigan), and has refactored my comments here (sorry, can't seem to get the diff to paste from my phone, but it is the strikeout showing in my last entry above. If you look at the history you will see he did it and I cannot imagine a scenario where that could happen accidentally), all the while not even beginning to explain the behavior he was brought here for. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The diff showing JacksonViking refactoring your comment is here. I have reverted that change and posted a caution on their talk page. Thomas.W talk 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • JacksonViking, are we really going to have to block you to prevent you from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and to help you grasp whatever is you don't understand? That's what happens here at ANI, you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In light of the latest, creating an article now at AfD that was primarily a copyvio (here), I would suggest that might be what needs to happen. An indef, with the requirement of accepting mentorship before an unblock can happen. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay firstly, someone changed a comment I made on page and ran a mark through it like I did to the typo John made so I didn't know it was so offensive. Secondly I wish someone would give me a clear cut message about what wrongs I am performing. I have Been a huge contributor to the Jackson high school wiki and added a bio box and a picture and curriculum and alumni. JacksonViking (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In case you aren't hearing us, vague excuses are not getting it. Who did that? where? when?
  1. An explanation for why you named a reference "Penis" is needed.
  2. An admission that you knew you were doing something wrong by using deceptive edit summaries, along with a promise not to do it again, is needed.
  3. An indication of a desire to learn how to do things right, such as requesting WP:Adoption would be a big positive step.
  4. An indication that you have up to now refused to listen and in most cases even acknowledge that there is no-one showing you malice and people have been trying to help you would be nice.
  5. A promise to quit taking things personally and throwing tantrums (such as naming references Penis).
  6. Showing some understanding that a large amount of what you have been doing has not been encyclopedic. You need to perhaps spend time editing articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jackson, Michigan so possibly you can develop a sense of perspective on why your additions have not been that helpful.

No one is out to get you. ALl anyone here cares about is the quality of the encyclopedia. If you are interested in contributing to a quality encyclopedia, by all means, stick around. If your only interest is adding what you want without restriction to articles relating to Jackson, then perhaps you should spend a few bucks and start a website. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Naming the reference Penis was because I figured there was no harm since no one can see it and the reference needed a unique name that helped differentiate it from the dozens of other things on the page JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If the above is not enough for some kind administrator to use his buttons, perhaps the conversation on my talk page will help. Or maybe this. Or this, where he reinstated s copyvio, removed a BLP citations needed tag an just to put some whip cream on top of it, added a good article template (to a sub stub at AfD) . The conversation on my talk page is making me think we have a CIR scenario here, but either th st or nothere, it needs someone to swing the mop. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not reintroduce copyvio. I paraphrased the entire substance of the article. Willis is also a freshmen not a junior and he says he wants to study to be an attorney in college. JacksonViking (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you added the Good Article template. Here I removed it. My apologies, Barek removed the reference needed tag, I am guessing on the theory that as a completely unreferenced BLP, it was probably a bit redundant. Here you inserted the uttterly false and impossible piece of info that as a freshman, he was majoring in law. According to the conversation on my talk page, you deduced this from his statements that he enjoyed law and wanted to be a lawyer. Again, I have to apologize, you had properly paraphrased the source on the bit on the recruitment violation. I am not going to restore this to the article however, because it is much more about MSU than Mr. Willis. I am sorry for these errors, Jackson. However, hopefully you can learn something here. I honestly admitted I made them and stated what I was doing to correct them, which in this case is nothing, because they are either already handled or don't need handling. When you make an acceptable edit followed by two bad ones, sometimes the good gets tossed with the bad.
For the adminstrators: My action in reverting the non-copyvio are regrettable and I should not have done them. However, his conversation here and above on the subject of naming a reference "Penis" support the undeniable conclusion that either he is extreamly disruptive (making WP:DICKish edits and lying about them) and hence WP:NOTHERE or he is grossly incompetent and WP:CIR. The two articles he has created recently that are both at AfD also support this conclusion (Khari Willis and Michael Funkhouser. The discussions at the respective AfD's and talk pages for those articles are also informative to this conclusion). In either case, I am asking for some action. A quick scan of his talk shows this is not a personal issue with me about him. I am far from the only editor that has tried to get him to see the errors of his ways. This has gone on long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I accept your apology and forgive your mistakes. JacksonViking (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Before I discovered this discussion, I had already decided to block JacksonViking for a short time, because of persistently replacing article content which is supported by sources with content which is unsupported by any sources I can find, often directly contradicted by reliable sources, and in some cases adding false "references" which do not support his edits. Reading the above discussion, and realising that the problems are far more extensive than those I knew about, I wondered whether to block for much longer instead. However, for the present I have decided to give him every chance to improve, so I have blocked for just 48 hours, and posted a fairly long block message to his talk page, trying to encourage him to change. However, I regard that as a minimum block, in view of the extensive history of problems, at least some of which look as though they may not be good-faith mistakes. If he does not benefit from the second chance I have given him, I do not think a jump directly from a 48 hour block up to an indefinite one would be unreasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cliff1911[edit]

Adds unsourced material, eg. [12], despite warnings. Never adds edit summaries, despite requests to. Does not respond to talk page requests from other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I only saw the one revert, but he is actually right. Took me 10 seconds to find the citation for it at [13] The best thing is to just put it back with that reference. Dennis Brown - 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I also linked him to the essay WP:Communication is required. If someone is going to revert back, they need to be willing to discuss it, via WP:BRD. Since I've found the citation, told him on his talk page, I think we can wrap this up for now. Dennis Brown - 00:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the person's edit analysis. Behold and be awed.
Yeah, discussed this person here a while back. The general consensus of the admin corps was leave him alone, he makes occasional minor mistakes and won't talk, but his overall contributions are net positive by far, so let him carry on. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cliff1911 has more than 40,000 edits and it looks like every one of them is mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits, and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, much of it potentially useful, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever. This is the world's worst case of WP:IDHT. How do you deal with an editor who refuses to follow policy and refuses to communicate about not following policy? Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the past, IPs have gotten blocks around here just because they won't respond to Talk page comments. I've got to think the same would apply to account-holding editors. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, and not responding to queries, etc. pretty much destroys that. The other editor I can think of in this vein is basically a Wikignome, and about 80% of his edits are constructive, while the other 20% are more unhelpful, but their edits are so gnomish that no one has pursued it further in that case. But I'm of the opinion that not responding to queries at all is unhelpful, no matter the "quality" of the edits, and can and should be the basis for Admin action. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor helps create content without creating drama. Leave him alone. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Editors don't edit or create content in a vacuum. Is an editor really adhering to the fourth pillar if they never communicate... well, ever?! Look, I'm not saying to block for not communicating in this instance. But the discussion on their Talk page is entirely correct – the first time this editor commits an infraction, possibly even an inadvertent one, they're likely to end up indef blocked because the Admins will have no other choice if they never communicate. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Amazing that the only non-mainspace edits were also article edits, to an article that's now in someone's userspace (and someone might want to take a look at that too). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd probably recommend an attention getting block. I can't remember the name of the editor but I remember a similar case from a year or so back where an editor refused to reply to comments on talk pages. If I remember correctly, it took 1-2 blocks for him to realize that people meant business and he eventually began responding to comments and leaving edit summaries. Honestly... at this point he's been getting so many warnings that at this point the only way to show him that we're serious about talking with other editors is to actually back up our words with actions. While he may have made beneficial edits, he's also made some non-beneficial edits and he's continued to do this despite several very clear warnings about a lack of sourcing. I'm of the mind that his continued actions (despite warnings) shows a refusal to follow the rules. If this were any other editor he'd have been given at least 1-2 warning blocks by now. The only reason he hasn't received them is because he hasn't responded to anything. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support attention-getting block. If he were just making helpful edits, it would be no issue. But there's some problems with his edits. Looking at his talk page, he doesn't just add info, he removes it without explanation, and does not respond/correct various problems like disambiguation links he adds. МандичкаYO 😜 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A very recent precedent of a user making (some) bad edits and refusing to discuss with others, leading to them being blocked. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support attention-getting block. If he doesn't want to communicate with people that is absolutely fine, but that does not mean that he can continue editing in a way which, whilst it is not going to break enWiki, has received sufficient attention here and on his talk page from numerous editors that it is now disruptive. I don't really see a material difference between his behaviour and point 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. His behviour is taking up more and more of other editor's time. I don't really see why he should not be blocked until he states, however briefly that he will act on the repeated suggestions of the community as I don't see a single post on his talk page that could be deemed to be a positive reaction to his editing. If he then wishes to return to silence that is his choice Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not yet. We've had a few of these lately, which inspired me to write WP:ENGAGE. The key here is asking how much disruption has he caused. One or two recent reverts is not enough. I've put him on notice, pointed him to the information that he can get blocked if he continues to revert without talking about it, the fair thing is to wait and see if he stops reverting. No one is required to talk here, as long as they aren't doing something that requires talking. The last thing we want to do is run someone off when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord. Leave him/her alone. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "Not yet"? "Leave him/her alone"? Cliff1911 has made 40,000 edits in seven years, refuses to leave edit summaries, refuses to communicate and -- most fundamentally -- refuses to add sources for anything. If either Dennis Brown or Anthonyhcole would follow every one of Cliff1911's edits and add the reliable and verifiable sources required for these edits, I'd have no issue. Until then, we have an editor who refuses to follow bedrock Wikipedia policy and who seems to be operating in their own encyclopedia, not ours. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue with this is that he's done this for years and he's been receiving warnings about his various edits since 2008. This post from 2011 shows that he'd been warned several times. He's clearly been warned dozens upon dozens of times about his editing and at this point he should be clearly aware that we want him to at least respond when people have issue with him. I mean, he's been brought to ANI TWICE, both in2013. He never responded in either circumstance and he was never blocked. At this point he's extremely unlikely to pay any attention to further warnings. I mean, at this point our lack of action is pretty much giving him the message that not only are his actions OK, but that Wikipedia is condoning his actions because he made a lot of edits. I mean, that's the message I'm getting from all of this, that an editor can be problematic and have the same problems over a period of six years and never actually have to face repercussions for repeatedly going against people's requests and Wikipedia policy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Think about it this way: if he'd responded to us and basically told us "no way, I'm going to keep doing this, forget you guys" then we'd have at least blocked him temporarily. Well, that's pretty much what he's telling us with his outright refusal to even respond to anything. I mean, what does he care? If we continue on the way we have, he has nothing to fear - he doesn't have to change since people will argue that his amount of edits gives him immunity. (And yes, that is essentially what is being said here.) The length and amount of edits are nothing to sneeze at, but right now this is pretty much setting a dangerous example, that Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to problematic editors if they exist long enough on Wikipedia and edit enough. I mean, come on guys- this guy isn't going to change unless we make him pay attention and if he's not going to change then he's going to continue to make problematic edits, leave no edit summary, and refuse to talk with other editors. I'm not saying we should hang his head on a spike and never allow him to edit again, but clearly he's not going to change or respond unless he's at least given a 2-3 day (or even a week) block that forces him to stop and respond. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When I get time, I'm going to try to count how many of his last 50-100 edits have been unsourced. I'd say that the bulk of them (like 70-80%) appear to unsourced and while these aren't huge BLP concerns (ie, he's not saying that Cher married a fish), they're still BLP concerns because they're unsourced. He's fully aware that we require sources, yet he also refuses to source. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to add citations to your edits. If someone challenges what you add without a good citation they may delete your contribution. I'm fairly sure edit summaries aren't mandatory either - at least, they weren't the last time I looked. Perhaps I misunderstood the above, but I thought his/her contributions were good faith efforts and generally good. I thought he/she wasn't vandalising, edit-warring or in any other way harming the encyclopaedia. If I've got that wrong, I apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is correct, though most people start to get upset when they keep finding their edits get reverted and either learn policy or quit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Refusing to talk isn't a violation of policy, and specifically, a person can NOT be compelled to participate at ANI. He's been put on notice: if he edit wars (an actual violation), then he will be blocked. Blocking him solely because we want him to talk isn't supported in policy. Unless someone can point to a specific policy that he is violating, then a block won't stand, as it would blocking to force them to do what we WANT them to do, not what policy requires. We aren't here to do that. There are many, many individuals like this here at Wikipedia, who act in good faith but won't talk. I'm not prepared to get into the psychology of it, but it is common enough. If he edit wars, I will happily block for 24 hours the first time, and otherwise follow normal procedure for behavioral issues. Not talking, by itself, is not a behavioral policy violation. It is a pain, but not a violation. Dennis Brown - 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've spun through the last couple of hundred edits by this editor, and I cannot see any obvious clear policy violation other than possibly mild violations of WP:BLP through adding unsourced content. Most of the work seems to be insignificant plot summary gnoming. As Dennis says, if he starts to edit-war or violate real policies that can be backed with diffs, we'll look into it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's where I am now too. But I agree with the discussion on his Talk page as well – if it ever comes to a block, it'll probably have to be an indef, as that may be the only way to get this editor to communicate... In the meantime, if this editor continues to add anymore unsourced info to any BLPs, they should simply be reverted as a matter of course. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely do not block this person. The only question for this particular person, since he's so unusual, is: is he a net positive, or not? If he's not, kick him off for good. If he is, leave him alone.

We cannot be at all certain that he is even aware of the existence of his user page, his talk page, or article talk pages, or how to use them. Any block of this person would perforce be permanent in my opinion, since he would presumably continue editing exactly as before when the block expires (which would then require longer and longer blocks, unless we were to back down), and he would presumably be unwilling (or possibly unable) to request reinstatement.

Some situations just need a good leaving alone. This is one of them. Herostratus (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The question we should be asking is whether the disruption caused by this editor outweighs their positive contributions. While Dennis Brown's essay is very good and highlights good reasons why users should strive to communicate, there is no policy that requires any user to respond to talk messages or to use edit summaries, and I think it sets a poor precedent to start sanctioning users just because they don't use their talk pages. From what I see, this is an editor who is occasionally an inconvenience, but the disruption is extremely minor, and a long way off from being blocked under WP:CIR or any other guideline/policy. We all probably have better things to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • While it may not be an "explicit policy", communication is absolutely in an implicit requirement of the fourth pillar. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The calls for an "attention-getting block" are ridiculous. So this guy/gal operates in this odd way -- big deal. On balance he's way more helping than hurting, so leave him for God's sake alone. EEng (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We can, but you've got to figure that he's had dozens of complaints over his edits and thousands of unsourced BLP edits. He's been asked to explain his edits multiple, multiple times. My biggest point with this is that the only thing he has going for him is that he's edited a lot. It's kind of well... this is what people talk about when they say that we play favorites. We could just ignore him now, but I can guarantee that he's going to end up being brought up at ANI again and I can guarantee that he's going to continue to collect complaints on his talk page from multiple different editors. Maybe it seems like this is all minor, but what we have here is essentially someone who is following their own rules and doesn't even have the consideration to at least respond to people's complaints. He's not following Wikipedia's rules, he's following his rules. If the two come together, then that seems to be mostly coincidental than anything else - he's been warned about several policies (using citations, for example)... and his reaction was to continue to ignore those policies. It looks pretty clear that nothing is going to be done to him, but I still have to extend the warning that eventually it's going to become necessary. He's adding BLP material without any sort of citation. The material may seem minor, but what happens when he adds something major? Something that someone might actually want to complain to Wikipedia about? What do we do then? Just say "oh, he edits a lot and refuses to talk to anyone, but he edits a lot, he gets a pass"? He doesn't have to write a book or anything, but to my knowledge he's never spoken to anyone since he's signed up with Wikipedia and there have been multiple complaints about him - and those are just the ones on his talk page and at ANI. I have no doubt that there are probably at least a few dozen more in the edit summaries of the articles he's edited. Long story short, at some point we're going to have to deal with his BLP violations (even though they may seem minor to some) and his constant refusal to talk to anyone or to even follow basic guidelines. If he'd at least started using citations in his edits that'd be some improvement, but I don't see where he's ever really done even that. I really don't think that a long edit history and seemingly beneficial edits should give you immunity to everything on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to keep pushing this, you need to stop saying he has to use citations. Except in certain circumstances, citations aren't actually required. Is he disruptively restoring unsourced material removed by other editors? I really get the feeling a few people just can't stand this guy's eccentricity. It's weird but leave him alone. EEng (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh... sourcing absolutely is a requirement on BLPs, which is what this discussion has been about. Yeah, sure, explicit sourcing isn't needed on all articles. But it pretty much always in on BLPs – adding unsourced material to BLPs is definitely not "OK" in most of the circumstances that count. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Is he putting in negative or controversial BLP material? And the graph above showing how all his edits are to articles....we are here to build an encyclopedia, so someone who is dominated by article edits doesn't inspire me to instablock. We keep rehashing the same arguments, but he has been warned, and unless he has new actions that warrant a block, then blocking is improper. And this talk of an indef block is completely out of policy. We use escalating blocks as needed, we don't indef block someone out of the gate for stuff like this. The tone is almost vindictive and I simply don't understand why, and frankly, it doesn't matter: we don't block punitively, we block to prevent disruption, meaning even if he needed a block, it should be proportional to the risk he poses, NOT just to twist his arm. Dennis Brown - 06:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennis, please see what I said above, as a follow-up to Ritchie – I don't think a block here is appropriate right now. That said, if this editor is adding unsourced material to BLPs, it should essentially be reverted as a matter of course. I'd like to believe that such reversions much get this editor to actually communicate then, but I suspect it's too much to hope for... But my overall point stands – we are building an encyclopedia together, in a collaborate environment, and as such communication is key. Those editors that choose not to communicate (like, at all) will sooner or later likely crop up as a problem. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, when that actually happens we can deal with it. Or are we putting people in jail now for crimes we predict they will commit? EEng (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think the problem is that Cliff's editing is already an issue – not a "blockable" issue – but an issue (e.g. adding content without sources, adding overlong plot summaries as was potentially done at The Postman (film), etc.), nonetheless. Which I think is Tokyogirl79's point. And that's where the lack of a communication becomes a problem – without communication, there's little hope of getting across exactly what others' problems with Cliff's editing is (the details just won't come across in single templated messages, even assuming Cliff is reading those), or prodding Cliff to change and improve as an editor. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much my point: he's already done things that people have had issues with and he's had people flat out ask him to source material and to communicate. He's done neither of those things despite many, many, many requests. There's something very troublesome about the fact that we have an editor that continually refuses to add sources to articles or talk to anyone. The lack of communication wouldn't be as huge of an issue if he would just do something to show that he's actually listening to anything anyone says to him. That's what is most concerning here - he doesn't even seem to show that he's willing to do even the smallest amount of work to back up a fact with a source. It doesn't matter if it's something seemingly small or not - what bothers me is the implication here that Cliff is essentially editing by his own rules. Not Wikipedia's rules, but Cliff's rules. What if something changes and it's something that's direly serious? He clearly doesn't respond to comments on his talk page or anywhere else, nor does he even show any indication that it has even registered? That leaves Wikipedia liable for pretty much everything that he writes. It may seem small because the edits seem inconsequential to everyone else, but what if he writes something that's blatantly incorrect and someone takes serious offense to it? He's obviously not going to respond at that point in time either, nor will he likely pay any attention to anything anyone writes. Basically, what bothers me most here is his continued refusal to communicate and his displayed indifference to the fact that people have repeatedly asked him to edit within policy. Odds are that this is going to end with nothing done to him, but mark my words - this will be back on ANI in the future and eventually something will have to be done. I just really dislike the fact that the only thing this guy has going for him is a long edit history. We've temp blocked newer users with less edits for stuff like this (small edits that seem inconsequential, no communication) so it just seems massively unfair for us to allow an older user to get away with this. I mean, people accuse us of having a bias all the time and while most of the time it's full of crap, stuff like this does kind of lend credence to this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me give an example: He was threatened with a blcok by an editor on his talk page for adding someone to the list of people born in Goldfield, Nevada. It was a final warning. It took me all of 5 seconds to find a source proving this fact: [14] (there are others, I just grabbed this one). It was an uncontroversial fact about someone who died 13 years ago. Magnolia677 threatening him was completely inappropriate. It wasn't a BLP issue. People put in correct but unsourced facts all the time, it is how a Wiki works. WP:V does NOT require we source all facts. It requires than they are able to be sourced, and it assumes that someone else will source them. Obviously contentious facts about living people should be avoided, but this isn't the case here, this was a matter of where a dead guy was born. It isn't against policy to add this to an article, and it isn't proper to warn. Period. Revert as unsourced or simply go find a source like I did, we are here to build an encyclopedia, after all, but you don't warn or block. Dennis Brown - 07:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the level 4 on that was overkill. So was the level 1 vandalism warning that Cliff just got from User:NeoBatfreak for the additions to The Postman (film) – Cliff's plot summaries there might have been over-long, but they certainly weren't vandalism... --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dennis Brown, it's impressive that it too you "all of 5 seconds to find a source". The problem is that Cliff1911 refused to spend those 5 seconds. He's never done it. He won't add sources, he won't leave edit summaries and he won't respond to talk page messages. If you're willing to clean up the crap he leaves behind after each and every edit of his, adding the required sources that he refuses to add, that's great for you, but Cliff1911 isn't doing that. We're here to build an encyclopedia by working collaboratively; he isn't. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That pie chart must be unique for that number of edits on Wikipedia. However, what nobody has noticed or cared to mention is he extroadinary cyclic monthly editing pattern. Now that tells a story, but not one for which I am going to commit an indiscretion by publicly hypothesising. I say we leave well alone. If he does s do something egregious enough to be blockworthy, we block, but certainly not before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A further thought: If this person was editing anonymously on rapidly changing IP addresses, we wouldn't even know they existed, let alone be talking about "attention-getting blocks". We would just wonder why none of these constructive IP's bothered to register. Perhaps this tells us why. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
  • I'm curious, can anyone who has already investigated the particulars here tell us if there is any history of even light edit warring or other efforts to force his preferred version of content without discussion? At first blush, I am inclined to agree that refusal to discuss content and procedure is grounds for some kind of action, but if the editor never quibbles over reversion of his content, I'd need to see more information that details instances where his decision not to engage led to unambigous disruption. Even if that disruption were very minor, I'd probably support a short block to try to make it clear that collaboration through detailed communication is the rule of thumb here. If, on the other hand, the user never pushes for an edit once it is rejected by one of his fellow editors, and the vast balance of his edits are thought to be beneficial, I'd say there's not much harm in his peculiar manner of involvement in the project -- though clearly it is a less than ideal approach. Afterall, it'd be pretty difficult to reach 40k edits without having some of them challenged, and technically he's not obligated to engage in discussion on any particular content matter -- though he does himself no favours by staying quiet if he in some way breaks policy with his mainspace edits.
And that's the distinguishing point -- I agree with others here who have said that his refusal to engage in discussion is not necesarily in itself a breach of policy or inexcusable, but this does not preclude him from justifiably receiving a block for any of his other behaviour. For example, if upon review his edits are found to too often make unsubstantiated claims lacking appropriate sources, the he certainly should be blocked for that. And for those who have leaped to defend him in a more blanket fashion (some I think from an unworkably abstract position), we wouldn't be blocking him for not talking, but rather for the behaviour that was less ambiguously problematic -- it's just that in this instance he disadvantages himself in not discussing the issues; most admins (and other editors broadly) would be inclined to give him a pass on a few instances, provided his other contributions are overwhelmingly positive and that there is at least some minimal recognition that the concerns raised have been acknowledged and that the editor will work within policy and consensus.
But I find the filing of the ANI to be inadequate in fleshing out the details of this user's contributions to suggest whether such problems already exist or if we are putting the cart before the horse. Personally I have a hard time imagining 40,000 edits without having made at least a few mistakes that require discussion to iron out, but I'm not willing to presume mistakes on only statistical suggestion, and if another editor wants to seek community sanction for problematic behaviour, that behaviour should be detailed more significantly than was done in this case so the rest of us need not search through 40,000 edits nor pass judgement on principle without specific instances of problem editing provided. Snow let's rap 02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple of quick points, and hopefully someone will just close the thread: If he does have some edit warring in his past, no one is going to block him now that it is stale. That would be punitive, and we don't do that. Second, putting in facts that aren't sourced isn't blockworthy. Putting back BLP claims might be, but that isn't the issue here. We don't block someone "to make a point"...that is the definition of a punitive block, and is considered abuse of the admin tools. Rich sums it up best above: if this was an IP we wouldn't have even noticed, so we are actually dissuading people from registering with this exercise. Dennis Brown - 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
In response to each point: A) Any block or sanction would hardly be punitive if they were meant to address recurrent and ongoing issues, which is the context I was referencing. I just don't know if there are any such issues, and I don't get a definitive sense from anyone who has posted here that we know if such exist. B) I wasn't inquiring about whether the editor in question put in facts without sourcing them -- I was asking specifically if they have edit warred to keep any such claims in, which is a different matter altogether and most assuredly a blockable offense (and a block would be the only option open to admins/the community in such cases, since Cliff1911 does not seem to want to communicate on the matter). C) I'm not sure where in my post I gave the impression that we should act "to make a point"; the very aim of my comments was to inquire if there were any specific and unambiguous violations of policy that this editor's detractors could point to that would require action in order to address (for purely practical reasons, rather than getting vague objections to the refusal to engage generally). Snow let's rap 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio creation[edit]

USER BLOCKED:

After the SPI case was moved to the correct casefile, the user in question (and other accounts) were blocked at SPI for Socking by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Ali_qahremani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In the past few hours, Ali qahremani has done nothing but create articles which plagiarize different sources, under titles that are only related to the article topic, in may cases topics that should be covered by existing articles. User does not respond to any messages, even when a non-template one was sent. Conservation may not be the best option. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked and asked for feedback.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, this is slightly more complicated than it appears at first blush. In some of these articles there is an indicator of the copyright problem but the duplication detector report shows no overlap. While not having confirmed this my guess is that the copied material comes from the text of the article as opposed to the abstract. In one case Oncogene virus I'm puzzled, as the attempted an article is clearly a copy of the abstract, yet the duplication detector report shows no overlap. I haven't fully investigated why but this puzzles me. However because the editor manages to include the copyright notice in the article, and in at least one case there is substantial overlap, it makes sense to stop this editor and make sure they engage in discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eyeballing it confirms the copyvio (or at least enough of a copyvio), I'd have to guess that something's gone wrong with the copyvio detection software(s). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's copy vio detector shows a 99.4 % overlap. It's actually the better tool, and I use it almost exclusively. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The new batch of articles he has created seems almost exclusively machine translations from the equivalent Persian Wikipedia articles. Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, these really ought to be deleted. They also have no valid sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 has already raised the possibility of puppetry between Ali_qahremani (contribs | filter log) and Ehsanghandchi1375 (contribs | filter log).[15] I want to add Mahdi moallemi (contribs | filter log) to that list.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Like the articles I referred to above, User:Alidezhpasand/صفحه تمرین is also a machine translation of a Persian Wikipedia article (compare: [16]). McGeddon has raised the possibility that Alidezhpasand (contribs | filter log) is an alternate account of Alidezh1559 (contribs | filter log).[17] Pages created by the latter are also based on machine translations of Persian Wikipedia (compare e.g. [18] vs. [19]). It could be a coincidence that all these accounts decided to fill Wikipedia with machine translations within the span of the same two days, but I suspect it is not.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Deception, impersonation, sock puppetry, vandalism, topic ban, block, and scrutiny evasion[edit]

I apologize for the long post, but I feel it is necessary for the reader to get a full sense of the entire picture. A TL;DR summary is at the end for convenience.

AnulBanul (talk · contribs) is an account that demonstrably belongs to user Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) a fact that runs counter to his blatant lie that he has "no connection to the said user whatsoever". [20] The user, in spite of his "Armenian who lived in Serbia" persona [21], has never once edited the Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org) or Serbian Wikipedia (sr.wikipedia.org). [22] Note that Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [23] and that later AnulBanul joined WikiProject Armenia as editing from Georgia [24] then Russia [25]. He then began building his persona changing his intitial name from Anulmanul to Anna Sahakyan [26], then Anushka [27], then Yerevani Axjik [28], and then to his current name AnulBanul. He then uploaded a selfie image [29] to presumably impersonate a person named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan that he took off a Facebook profile or VK (Russian social networking website). He proceeded to use that image on his userpage and refer to himself as "Anna" [30] and created a backstory for the said individual. Numerous FB and VK profiles exist under that name, but I won't link any for their privacy.

Note that AnulBanul instead edits the Croatian Wikipedia which when he does concerns right-wing and far-right Croatian politicians and parties. [31] which is quite odd when the user labels himself a liberal from the University of Belgrade. [32] Indeed it's hard to believe it's anyone other than him when he does such obscure and specific edits such as [33][34] (among the litany of other identical ones shown below). Note that the Wüstenfuchs account became inactive on 20 September 2014, [35] two days later the AnulBanul account became active on 22 September 2014. [36] The last edit of Wüstenfuchs (Bilal Bosnić, ISIL recruiter) and first edit of AnulBanul (Military intervention against ISIL) are both related to Islamic extremism. Further note that Wüstenfuchs' Mostar IP was blocked for block evading in order to edit war. [37] That same IP (93.180.104.124 (talk · contribs)) edited three articles, all of which were created by Wüstenfuchs and all of which were later edited by AnulBanul/Wüstenfuchs with the same POV: Avdo Humo (IP: [38], AnulBanul: [39]), Hasan Brkić (IP: [40], Wüstenfuchs [41]), and Osman Karabegović (IP: [42], Wüstenfuchs: [43])

On 26 May AnulBanul was topic banned from anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina for 3 months [44] Immediately the day after he proceeded to vandalize a Bosnia and Herzegovina related userbox in order to troll. [45] A week later he violated his topic ban via IPs 185.38.146.201 (talk · contribs) and 93.180.126.249 (talk · contribs) both Mostar IPs. Both have the same exact lines and POV on obscure articles with one of them being pushed against Dragodol, his edit warring buddy that was also topic banned, in the Nijaz Duraković article [46][47] and in the Jovan Divjak article the same exact line of unsourced nonsense that he was a "show general". [48][49] Note that the 93.180.126.249 Mostar IP's contributions on the Croatian Wikipedia. He picks up where Wustenfuchs and AnulBanul left off on the Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina article [50] and on the Croatian Democratic Union 1990 article [51] where his Herr Ziffer (blocked) and Wustenfuchs accounts formerly edited and on the Croatian Party of Rights (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [52] article where Wustenfuchs formerly edited. Another IP (blocked) that edited all those same articles in the same manner also created the Nijaz Duraković article on the Croatian Wikipedia. [53] He later admitted that those were indeed his IPs [54] however those were not the only topic ban evading IPs. Other discovered evading IPs that AnulBanul did not disclose include 85.94.128.192 (talk · contribs), 46.35.153.151 (talk · contribs), and 46.35.131.167 (talk · contribs) and there are more than likely many others out there. The story does not stop with using IPs to just topic ban evade as he has also used them to vandalize, commit BLP violations, edit war and circumvent 3RR, etc and the AnulBanul account is not the only sockpuppet he has and has used the K. Solin (talk · contribs) and RossaLuxx (talk · contribs) accounts to split his edits, evade scrutiny, and have sleeper accounts. There may be many more such accounts out there.


Evidence that ties the accounts together:


Note almost all of his discovered accounts have been indef blocked on various Wikis for tendentious editing and sockpuppetry:

As shown above the user shows a propensity to evade scrutiny throughout Wikis by constant logged out IP hopping, fragmenting edit history among new accounts, and making sleeper accounts. In addition to this he has also:

His Wustefuchs [189] and Wustenfuchs [190] accounts were both blocked on commons "unfree files after warnings" and abuse of multiple accounts. [191][192] Despite this he has evaded his block via sockpuppets and continued to purposefully upload copyrighted material under false CC licenses with his Herr Ziffer, AnulBanul, and K: Solin handles as the authors.

  • Uploading as AnulBanul an image crop of a file uploaded by Herr Ziffer which was removed for copyright violation [193]
  • Uploading as K. Solin an image crop of a file uploaded by AnulBanul which was removed for copyright violation [194]
  • Uploading an image [195] taken from [196] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
  • Uploading an image [197] taken from [198] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
  • Uploading several other copyright infringing images as sockpuppets Herr Ziffer [199] and AnulBanul [200]

TL;DR:

In summary his activity on Wikipedia involves:

  1. The absolute denial of any connection to his sockpuppet AnulBanul account and creation and non-disclosure of any other sockpuppet and sleeper accounts (K. Solin, RosaLuxx, etc)
  2. The impersonation of an Armenian female individual named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan to appear more neutral, completely unrelated to past edits/accounts, and assume her identity (even going so far as to upload her selfie image) in order to deceive other users
  3. The constant splitting of his past edit history through new accounts and IP hopping to game the system, sockpuppeteer, deceive users, vandalize, commit BLP violations, circumvent 3RR, and avoid scrutiny
  4. The forging of a clean slate that is without previous ARBMAC warnings and blocks to appear in good standing and receive more leeway around admins
  5. The willingness to repeatedly avoid blocks and topic bans if he was sure he wouldn't be caught

--Potočnik (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not once edited with any of those accounts at the English Wikipedia, except Wustenfuchs, and I have the right to do so, I can switch to another account for several personal reasons. This was in order to protect my privacy and to protect myself from vandal attacks and other attacks after I edited several pages related to the Syrian civil war back in 2012. It is not my fault that Wikimedia creates accounts on all wikis if you create an account on a Croatian one. Those accounts remained inactive and will remain so. I was blocked for using IPs on your report, and my block ended today. Moreover, I said those were my IPs. Another thing, you will respect my gender identity. I'm not "he". --AnulBanul (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know you that finally admit to the fact that Wüstenfuchs is indeed your account after claiming that you had "no connection to the said user whatsoever" and again admit to editing from Mostar and not Armenia, Serbia, Georgia, or Russia as you wished to purposely mislead others into believing.
The valid reasons for multiple accounts are listed here. None of them state that doing what you claim to have done it for is valid. In any event all the edits of the K. Solin, Herr Ziffer, RossaLux accounts were in 2014 and so have nothing to do with some 2012 harassment.
Nonsense those accounts have edits on English Wikipedia and correspond with your POV as demonstrated by a litany of diffs. Accounts are automatically made when you visit Wikipedia in another language (that's understandable), but you not only did this and edited on the English Wikipedia. You edited the Milan Gorkić page on 27 November 2014 as AnulBanul with HHVM (note tag in summary) ‎[201] and then three days later as K. Solin on 30 November 2014 with HHVM [202] Adding content as AnulBanul [203] and picking up where you left off as K. Solin [204][205] with references you had previously added as Wüstenfuchs. [206] But I suppose that the brand new account adding info in your POV in an obscure article that you created with the same 1984 Croatian work you used is not you?
In my past correspondences to you as Wüstenfuchs I referred to you in male pronouns (Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male) and you never raised this issue, and up until this point the same with your AnulBanul account. I have a hard time believing that you're a female... or that your name is actually Anna, or that you are Armenian, or that you studied at the University of Belgrade, or that you were born and lived in Yerevan, or that that is your selfie image. More likely you are impersonating some poor girl using her name, photo, and location to deceive users. --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly my name is not Anna, as I said, I used this previous account. You can proceede with sock puppet investigation, if you wish. I'll admit I used K. Solin as my account. But had no intention of hiding my edit history. If that's wrongful, I'll suffer the consequences. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't be shocked if others don't jump in on this, very much TLDR. Let me clear up a couple of things here and allow you to restate the things that really matter: First, whatever happens at Commons or other Wikis, we don't really care so much here. We have no authority there, the rules are different on different wikis, so our focus is really on activity HERE, under most circumstances. Having the account does't matter, only what you do with it matters.
  • Next, ANI is the wrong venue for a sockpuppet investigation, and in fact, it is the worst possible venue because it doesn't generate all the autolinks for investigating and ANI isn't a formal board like SPI. Regardless it is here, but you've made it more difficult to investigate.
  • What really matters most is overlapping edits on the same article, etc. Secondarily, a clear showing of avoiding scrutiny. If they are avoiding an Arb warning, you can typically just add that Arb warning to their page and be done with it. If they are using multiple accounts for reasons under WP:SOCK that are acceptable, then they aren't sanctionable. It isn't clear because you have focused on quantity rather than simple linkage here. Can you please narrow it down to what really matters. Dennis Brown - 06:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned commons and the other Wikipedias to demonstrate that the behavior isn't restricted to a single language or part of Wikipedia and to show what he has a propensity for doing. I didn't dwell on it much. A sockpuppet investigation shouldn't be necessary in the first place as users who do have multiple accounts are supposed to have them "fully and openly disclosed" and not create personas for them, deny any connection to them, and keep them hidden. But if you insist then I'll post the matter there also. None of the valid reasons for using multiple accounts is applicable here. As shown above he has been "avoiding scrutiny" by "using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. (...) it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" (AnulBanul, K. Solin) and "editing logged out to mislead" by "editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy." (edit war and avoid 3RR, delete sourced info, POV push, sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, troll) --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The point is, you muddy the waters when you add all that extra stuff. Show links to articles where he edited first as an editor, then as another editor or IP. Those are facts, all the other stuff just makes it too long to read and determine. Sockpuppet investigating is about dry facts, no opinions. Honestly, WP:SPI is where it needs to go, as you are claiming four accounts, and there is the need for a formal board where random input from other editors isn't an issue. They key is getting it right, not getting it fast or in the ANI crowd. Dennis Brown - 15:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have violated my topic ban, and was blocked for ten days - that is, until today. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree this goes beyond sockpuppet as it seems to be all about long-term gaming the system and may need to go to arbitration. Even if it's tl;dr, I read and it's good detective work. The whole back story doesn't matter (there's no problem to invent an identity, outside of taking someone else's photo) except it's very easy to prove untrue and thus provides no plausible alternative as to another identity. Additionally, someone who goes to extravagant lengths to edit here is not likely to be dissuaded by the usual sock blocks. AnulBanul, if you are an Armenian (or Russian-Armenian, by your name Anushka) would you prefer to discuss this situation in Armenian or Russian? You only edited one article on the Russian Wikipedia and I can't understand it [207] - in the infobox, you changed the link to Split (town) to Split (the disambiguation)... a bit odd. МандичкаYO 😜 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I already explained myself. See my other post. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry AnulBanul, which post is that? This one? МандичкаYO 😜 11:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No. The one where I said, that I created additional account in order to distance myself from possible vandalisms made on my old Wustenfuchs account, after editing Syrian civil war topic. --AnulBanul (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What vandalism against Wüstenfuchs? Your account was already blocked! You made AnulBanul in September 2014, right after Wüstenfuchs was finally blocked on the Croatian Wiki. (Btw, Wüstenfuchs was blocked for two-years after 19 PREVIOUS blocks on the Croatian Wiki. Wüstenfuchs was also blocked eight times on the English Wiki.) Then you made K. Solin in November 2014. So you didn't just make one additional account, you made at least two.... all to "protect yourself" from retribution against edits you made two years earlier? МандичкаYO 😜 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep picking and it all falls apart. First he claimed he had "no connection whatsoever" to the Wüstenfuchs account and that it wasn't his, [208] then claimed all accounts but the Wüstenfuchs account weren't his, [209] and then claimed all but the Wüstenfuchs and K. Solin accounts weren't his. [210] Note he's deleted his AnulBanul userpage likely to make evidentiary diffs of his user page null and to make the RossaLuxx claim unverifiable. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal to take this to arbitration. I have been trying to go through all this information across the various wikis and admin reports, admissions of using multiple accounts without disclosure, admissions of ban evasion, admissions of violating topic bans, etc. I don't think ANI or SPI is the right place for either as the response will be "tl;dr" which is benefiting AnulBanul, as is the "different wikis have different policies" reasoning. He created the AnulBanul account after being given a two-year ban on the Croatian Wikipedia, in order to evade the ban (behavior not allowed on any Wikipedia) and AnulBanul was indeffed on the Croatian Wiki after being caught. As AnulBanul's favorite topics are areas under oversight, I think it needs to be taken to arbitration. Taking a random person's someone's photo off the Internet and uploading it to Commons as a "self-portrait" in order to use it on the a Wikipedia userpage to disguise oneself (sorry, this is not you [211]) is a significant violation of the rules, and should be investigated. МандичкаYO 😜 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You don't propose to take it to Arb, you either take it there or you don't. Please note that if you haven't even filed an SPI so a formal investigation can be done (and likely completely deal with since they can deal with anything, even behavior, and use Checkuser) then it will surely get thrown out. Arb is the final step after everything else has failed, not the first. Dennis Brown - 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
See my comment to Мандичка above. SPI is unnecessary and the evidence against the other two accounts are just as definitive. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK struck out the proposal part. But my intention was to ask the people more familiar if they would like to take it to Arbitration. I just became aware of this situation, but it seems to me that the usual check user/ANI is not being effective in this case and are only of slight inconvenience to this editor. There are not enough people interested in taking the time to wade through this information on ANI. There is considerable, very aggressive gaming the system to avoid blocks and topic bans on multiple wikis, going back to at least 2008, all in order to make disruptive posts, and IMO there needs to be some kind of global checkuser to see the full extent. I've never created an Arb case so I don't know how to proceed. МандичкаYO 😜 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly cut-and-dried. The report is a bit TLDR, but its pretty blatant when you take a look. Uh.. will someone step in? -- Director (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Director, I honestly don't know what it is going to take for anyone to actually pay attention. Dennis Brown's response ("that's too long for me to be expected to read") is indicative of the apathy that has allowed this to go on. МандичкаYO 😜 09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will eventually take the time... -- Director (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the complexities involved here (stemming from apparent wiliness in a seemingly problematic editor) mean that an arb case might be the most ideal solution, but those who want action here really ought to heeding Dennis' pragmatic advice on the matter. The arbs are going to be less than impressed by the issue being dropped into their laps without any intermediate steps in formal investigation. No matter how much a foregone conclusion the linking between the accounts is seen to be by those seeking action here, if they are not willing to file the arbitration case themselves, the best alternative course of action remains SPI. From a practical respect, it is most likely to lead to action regarding any breaking with policy. And if it doesn't work out, you'll be able to demonstrate that lower channels were pursued before taking the matter to ArbCom. Snow let's rap 03:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda[edit]

After an admin posted a warning not to violate WP:BLP at Talk:Battle of Shuja'iyya, the author of the source being discussed, Max Blumenthal, was then described by User:Averysoda as both an anti-Semite and a bigot, in successive edits.

Averysoda was further advised by an admin on the inappropriateness of these remarks yet he brushed them off.

I advised him to strike out the offensive comments.

I notified him on his talk page of the problem.

He appears not to take these warnings seriously, since he talks past them.

The user has been alerted here.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Given his personal hostility to a known and established writer, his insistence on smearing him, I ask that he be sanctioned by being asked to refrain from editing any articles or pages where Blumenthal is being cited or discussed.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? I didn't know how to "strike off" comments until now. It wasn't my intention to offend your sensitivity and I deeply regret it.--Averysoda (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Your edit summary says:per censorship asked by Nishidani.
This means that you think striking out a smear is not compliance with policy, but bending to a threat by another editor who is acting as a censor. If you believe Blumenthal, against all the evidence, is an anti-Semite, and a bigot (as opposed to a critic of bigotry, you shouldn't be editing anywhere near articles where he is cited, or discussions boards regarding him as a source. My sensitivities have nothing to do with it.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent. Notice the sanction being requested (for an alleged first offense by a relatively new user) would solve a problem for Nishidani, not the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's problem, as far as there is one, was solved when "bigot" was struck out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Another personal attack, as several on the page. I am asking for an independent judgement not a partisan harangue by either side. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Nishidani. I recognize I made a mistake. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Strong words like "antisemite" and "bigoted" are not appropriate, even when they were written in the heat of discussion, as you may understand (in response to the "repulsive Jewish state" you mentioned). I won't repeat those words again. Could we move on with the main subject of the debate, which is to determine whether Blumenthal is a reliable source or not?--Averysoda (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Averysoda's recent comment suggests the editor doesn't understand that WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, not a matter of violating another editor's delicate "sensitivity". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read his comment just above yours? You neglected to mention he removed the comment you reference above, 15 minutes after posting it and before you brought it up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you follow the sequence of events before claiming a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent? Cus I see the user declining to strike claims that a living person is a bigoted anti-semite until this was brought here. Might be a better idea to advise your pal to not smear living people on Wikipedia instead of arguing with the people who specifically asked him to remove the comment at his or her talk page before anyone brought it up here. And even after being brought here, its not that the smear has no place here, its that Averysoda thinks the problem is offending [Nishidani's] sensitivities. You know what is pretty clear here? When a user goes through these acrobatics at AN/I it isnt because they actually recognize a mistake, its that they are worried about being sanctioned so they say whatever they think they need to so that they may avoid that. Oh, and its also pretty clear that a support network will come to their aid in waving off any problem instead of trying to take them aside and informing them that we have certain standards of behavior here, and insulting living people without basis violates that. nableezy - 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that most of your edits in the last month were either reverting or talking about edits by the subject of this report, regardless of a BLP violation. I doubt your ability to read their mind (or perhaps you were just projecting). It's also pretty clear that a new editor is unlikely to respond well to this kind of "request". And lastly, it's pretty clear that treating new editors harshly doesn't serve Wikipedia's dwindling editor count that well, either.
He made a minor BLP violation and corrected it. Please explain why you are agitating for a sanction for a first offence that was corrected fairly quickly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I didnt know my edits were the subject here. Or yours for that matter. Calling a living person an anti-semite and a bigot is not a minor BLP violation and refusing to take it down when asked to by 2 editors until an AN/I report is filed, and then saying that they are taking it down to rectify the offense to another's sensitivities is not correcting it fairly quickly. I havent agitated for anything by the way. Id just like to see a Wikipedia in which people dont rush to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating, and instead tries to advise them what the proper thing to do is. Guess that aint what this place is yet tho. nableezy - 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A. He called him a bigot, not an anti-semite. B. It was corrected within 2 hours and 7 minutes. That's fairly quickly in my book. C. I'm fairly certain he now understands what he can and can't say re living persons. D. Do I need to show some examples of you "rush[ing] to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating"? Because that won't be hard to do. So kindly cut the bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A. he also said And I don't care if that guy is Jewish ... I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him. B. It might be fairly quickly if it hadn't been a shade under 2 hours from when this notice was posted. A notice that was answered in 2 minutes with a I'm going to completely ignore the issue comment. And then another request that the material be removed was likewise fairly quickly shrugged off as "meaningless". It only was fairly quickly removed when it was brought here, when a praise the heavens Saul has fallen off his ass moment appears to have struck, and either it was that the user self-reflected during the 15 minutes between the last time the user decided that it was meaningless to call smearing a living person offensive and come to the conclusion that it really is against out policies to use such language, or it was fear of being sanctioned and doing whatever they felt necessary to reduce that chance. Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say it was the latter. C. Im not. D. Go right ahead, though that would once again fall under obfuscating from the issue at hand, but I would be interested in seeing what you come up with. Because I, nor you, are under discussion here. And as much as you would like to deflect from what is, the fact remains that it is Averysoda's actions that are pertinent here. nableezy - 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That was very long and I kinda lost interest somewhere in the middle. What's your point? That he should receive some kind of serious sanction because for two hours it said on a talk page that a living person was a bigot, and that Averysoda didn't respond well to someone who was a complete jerk to him? What do you want exactly? I think the fact you follow him around and revert him on pages you've never edited before [212] is quite relevant to why you're here, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe if you pay attention and make it past somewhere in the middle youll see I havent actually asked for sanctions. As far as following him around, when a user repeatedly makes poor edits and says dishonest things in their edit summaries which result in unambiguous violations of policy, I sometimes check where else that has happened and correct those issues. I think you should actually read WP:HOUND and see the part about fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. But again, my edits arent the subject of this report. Deflect all you like, but your pal is the one that has been editing poorly. nableezy - 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Averysoda seems to be engaged with various editors on a number of pages, he seems not interested in dialogue but to create various edits to suit a POV or nationalist agenda. Another report has been added on his page today, I fear this will only escalate as obviously Averysoda has been caught up in a very serious nationalist agenda. I see no alternative but to a 6 month topic ban in relations to History of Israel, conflicts in involving Israel including pre-modern state and all Arab-Israeli conflicts. --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This was a WP:BLP violation, but in my limited interaction with Averysoda, he seems to be amenable to reasonable argument. For instance, he reverted his edit here, after I explained policy to him, and also he understood my explanation of WP:PRESERVE here. He seems to be a new user, so a bit of leeway is fine. Kingsindian  08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I think this latest edit sums up what we are dealing with here. Averysoda actually broke a 1RR rule, but then relised his mistake reversed this, and wait until today to revert without breaking the rules. Surely if we were dealing with a constructive and friendly editor in the time awaiting to revert within the rules, he could have taken to the talk pages. This will only get worse. When I have more time I will go through his full history --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That does look bad. I wonder if he realizes that WP:1RR and WP:3RR are simply bright lines, and edit warring, even if slow-moving, is not allowed? He should read WP:GAMING. Kingsindian  12:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I've now started to look at his history, I can say with full confidence Averysoda is fully aware edit-waring isn't allowed, there has been enough warnings on his page. He has also demonstrated he is not willing to engage with anyone in the talk pages, as I'm really struggling to find any talk page comments from this user. Clearly has set himself on a path of editing and edit warring until pages look how he wishes with very little engagement with other users.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
LOL! That's funny. The pot calling the kettle black (Rockybiggs is seeing the mote in one's brother's eye without noticing he has been engaged in clear edit-warring many times before).--Averysoda (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Far from pot kettle, this was clearly edit warring by yourself, I've engaged on the talk page and a consensus was reached by a majority. You have taken no interest in that talk page or any page you edit, I cannot find one talk page comment. This causes myself and others great concern, as your actions go against the community, and why I strongly back a topic ban and until you prove otherwise--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Rockybiggs, can you please explain your next attempt to add "terrorist" word to a Lede w/out any discussion? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Next Rockybiggs's attempt w/out any reply, as min, here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Igorp lj I'm not actually sure if you are serious, as you mention 'attempt to add without any w/out any discussion?'. This has been discussed with the majority in favour of adding Terrorist to the lead. Averysoda is the one who months later has come along, NEVER posted on a talk page and started reverting. I presume you haven't seen this talk page or just a supporter of Averysoda POV agenda. here is proof we have an editor who is engaged in WP:IDontLikeit in nearly every page he edits and edit wars all over the place--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed now that you are plunking, without reading the text, a blob or two from a dated book by a novelist who ventured into the intricate history of the PLO, on several pages, and whose book is so dated she only got it back into print by self-republishing it. This is becoming a behavioural issue. At South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) here and here. This broke 1R. The same blob is introduced now at 1982 Lebanon War
That article has a well documented section which reads:

Between July 1981 and June 1982, as a result of the Habib ceasefire, the Lebanese-Israeli border "enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968."[7] But the 'calm' was tense. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig's fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.[29] The 'calm' lasted nine months. Then, on 21 April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer while he was visiting a South Lebanese Army gun emplacement in Taibe, Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force attacked the Palestinian-controlled coastal town of Damour, killing 23 people

The blobs you introduced from [[Jillian Becker] then read:

after constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee in northern Israel.(lead

From the ceasefire, established in July 1981, until the start of the war, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad).Becker, Jillian (1984). PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization. AuthorHouse. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4918-4435-9. 

I.e. we have sources saying there was calm on the borders preceding the war. And you come up with a source with an outdated piece of official propaganda no one takes seriously any more, which says the exact opposite, a piece of hasbara at the time which was buried by later research, and edit-war to keep it in.
(a) Becker's work is so dated, and is only the Israeli official line which historiography doesn't accept, even in Israel, that the edition you cite is 'self-published'.
(b)You haven't even troubled to read the text. The figures you introduce stand in start contrast to the actual data given by the UN peacekeeping body observing Israeli and Palestinian behavior on both sides of the border. Articles are meant to have internal cogency and be neutral. You cannot plunk 'stuff' in that implies the documented remainder of the text is false. You are hyperactively dumping 'stuff' without considering the mess it causes, as here. Sheer POV-pushing in multiple articles, with very little talk page justification. Any attempt to revert you gets reverted.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Becker is a reliable journalist that was on the ground during the Lebanon conflict. In addition, I found two more reliable sources (from books) in just a few minutes, also reporting PLO attacks from Lebanon as a reason for the 1982 Israeli invasion. In any case, I don't understand why you refuse to discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of here.--Averysoda (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Except you blatantly distorted at least one of those sources. nableezy - 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Averysoda: Violating wp:blp is a serious matter, but next time you might say: In 2013, Blumenthal appeared in ninth place on that year's Simon Wiesenthal Center list of anti-Semitic Ykantor (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be disruptive. Anyone critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians is ipso facto anti-Semite in a certain quarterbaked lowbrow variety of polemics that thrive on smear for want of arguments. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "reasons given (by Simon Wiesenthal Center --Igorp_lj (talk)) being that chapter titles in the book Goliath were used to "equate Israel with the Nazi regime" and that Blumenthal had quoted "approvingly characterizations of Israeli soldiers as 'Judeo-Nazis.'"
):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal mentions being on the Simon Wiesenthal Center list with pride. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWrOuGNrzZc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.178.10 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nableezy: pls more details about "blatantly distorted" --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Outside persuasion and canvassing from /r/pcmasterrace[edit]

There appears to be a co-ordinated effort from the subreddit /r/pcmasterrace to add derogatory information to a variety of video game related articles, and erase historical context from one other. A search for "wikipedia" provides some idea of the problem [213] One prominent example:

In this thread [214] the creation of new console list articles is proposed, with the purpose of "showing the peasants how small their collections really are". These articles were subsequently created by User:Wikinium but later redirected by other users. [215] Paid exclusivity was also targeted by /r/pcmasterrace. [216] It was nominated for deletion in April. The result was redirect to console exclusivity. User Wikinium ignored the result and quietly restored the page after attention had been diverted. (diff) The recent addition of criticism to Xbox One by Wikinium (diff) also correlates to a boastful submission on /r/pcmasterrace the same day. [217]

And today, the same editor is behaving in a disruptive manner on PC Master Race. In order to describe the development of the term, and how it was coined, a fleeting reference to Nazi ideology is made. This linguistic context is supported by reliable sources, such as PC Gamer's executive editor Tyler Wilde, who observes:

"It began as a joke from Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw, who was mocking our elitist attitude with the internet’s favorite analogy: the Nazi analogy. That was seven years ago, but the phrase is still everywhere, said without any consideration (or perhaps understanding) of the historical context, without any consideration of the original context, and without any of the original self-mockery. [...] I obviously realize that no one is actually saying that PC gamers are the preferred people of Hitler. That’s absurd, and it’s supposed to be absurd. It’s a joke. [...] I’d be mortified if my friends and family thought I were part of something called the “PC Master Race.” They don’t get the context, and even if I explained it to them, a half-forgotten seven-year-old internet joke doesn’t expunge the historical meaning from the phrase, which refers to the Aryan race, which is a term still used by people with swastika tattoos." [218]

I'm not sure which editor elaborated its etymology and popular usage, but our single sentence description appears reasonable. Wikinium nevertheless deleted the above citation, and others similar to it, without explanation (diff) It was restored by myself on the 26th (diff) but deleted by the same user, who described my restoration as "vandalism". (diff) It was reinserted again on the 27th, with a clear and helpful edit summary (diff) only to be deleted again by Wikinium without explanation. (diff) (diff) And once again today (diff) reverted as "troll edits" (diff).

A note on User:Wikinium's talk page has gone unanswered, and a clear warning ignored. Administrator guidance is welcome. — TPX 20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


I should include a reference to the talk page currently discussing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PC_Master_Race#Naziism_.26_Holocaust_troll_edits
Ever since discovering links from /r/PCMasterRace to Wikipedia in recent weeks, TPX has had a vendetta against the page and users related to these pages, and is attempting to include what I believe to be (partially) irrelevant material (the claims about Naziism, Master Race, and Holocaust are not entirely sourced within the article written by Tyler Wilde - he only briefly mentions "Nazi pastiches"). I proposed putting the section he wrote about Naziism and the Holocaust in a "Misconceptions" section, but he has forcefully put it back in the same section every time I reverted the section back to its original state. The fact of the matter is, the term was not created for and has never been used in a racial context. I stand by my suggestion that most of this be placed in a Misconceptions section, because that's exactly what it is. Wikinium (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
When did you make your proposal? I agree that adding Fanboy in the 'See also' subsection was not suitable. However the inclusion of Fandom does seem appropriate to describe the intense level of enthusiasm among some PC gamers. Can you point to another example of my vendetta, Wikinium? — TPX 21:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually made it just earlier today. I think it's a good idea to make a Misconceptions section. The information you want to include can be included (I was never against that), but it can be placed in a more appropriate section, rather than at the very front of the section that's meant to document the usage of the term "PC Master Race". Placing it in the absolute front of the section meant for "PC Master Race" kind of makes it look like the term has a racial or ethnic context. I don't want to dig for more edits (I referenced them in the talk page). It was edits like that that made me think you were there to vandalize it rather than actually help improve the clarity of the article. Wikinium (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you are referring to the talk page proposal you submitted literally as I was filing my complaint? (diff) If the answer is Yes, it does not support your contention (above) that "I proposed putting the section he wrote about Naziism and the Holocaust in a "Misconceptions" section, but he has forcefully put it back in the same section every time", as the editing dispute occurred at a time earlier than your proposition. Please clarify this point. — TPX 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Those lists need pruning of the non-notable redlinks. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You're telling me... I think 90% of the red links added to these lists are people just trying to catalog their own game rather than contribute a good item to the list. Wikinium (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments are not the proper manner for the notice board, but I wanted to 'bump' this section as it were, as the page in question has now been full protected as a result of the offsite canvasing and edit warring. @Ged UK:, not sure if you were aware of this section when protecting, just FYI. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't created a list page in a very long time. I created those hoping that people capable of adding things to the list, but a lot of them ended up being redundant due to pages like List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). Some ended up not being duplicates, and others did. You won't have to worry about me creating any more of the sort. Now that I've seen them all and worked on the majority of them, I believe every platform-related game list now exists on Wikipedia in some form or another. Wikinium (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the PC Master Race article? Nothing. If this is an issue, it should be addressed in a seperate discussion. Omegastar (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Only a cautionary note, though I'm not aware of any specific organized attempt to affect this, but some of these edits like the PC Master Race article has also been discussed on Gamergate-related boards. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the troll harassment and canvasing board "GamerGhazi" picked it up recently, which means the kind of troll edits that got us the frankly embarrassingly biased GamerGate Controversy article will be spilling over to this one. KiTA (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You predicted correctly. A request for deletion was started around the same time that GamerGhazi picked it up. Wikinium (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner[edit]

Page: Talk:Americans for Prosperity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This filing is a referral from WP:EWN. I am a participant in WikiProject Organized Labour. Americans for Prosperity is a member of Category:Labor relations in the United States. I added our project banner to Americans for Prosperity in March 2015. The reported user has repeatedly removed the banner.

  1. 08:39, 16 June
  2. 17:08, 18 June
  3. 19:14, 18 June
  4. 23:04, 18 June
  5. 00:13, 24 June
  6. 17:25, 29 June

After the reported user first deleted the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reported user had nominated the article for exclusion from the project. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Americans for Prosperity. Significantly, the reported user made no mention of his anti-nomination at article talk. Please see Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Article Wikiprojects and rating.3F. I nominated the article for inclusion in the project, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. A fellow project member concurred for inclusion, as did a third editor. Subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, and subsequent to a consensus for inclusion at project talk, in which both threads the reported user participated, the reported user reverted the project add five more times. Reported user's article talk page comments and edit summaries seem to indicate familiarity with WP:PROJSCOPE; possible WP:IDHT. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel I would be remiss if I didn't include a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing. Also, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for completeness. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This issue has just been resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD (Result:Page restriction applied). This is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOP. HughD fails to adhere to the consensus on the talk page. I don't know how many times HughD has dragged my name on to these noticeboards (I've lost count), all in vain, but at some point I'm beginning to think that this might constitute something stronger than merer forumshopping, or WP:ADVOCACY or WP:SOAPBOX. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::This also comes after the final decision here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29. IMO opening yet another thread about this smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:HARASS. MarnetteD|Talk 19:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"This issue has just been resolved" No, this issue was referred here from WP:EWN by the closing administrator Darkwind, who explained that repeated removal of a WikiProject banner from an article talk page was beyond the core scope of WP:EWN, of article space edit warring, please see the closing comment. Respectfully request assistance with a WP:IDHT issue with guideline WP:PROJSCOPE. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner." Thank you in advance for your time in addressing this issue. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you HughD? That's not what the closing admin said. The issue regarding the revert was closed on that page, as per the closing comment by Darkwind at the top of the discussion. Period. Darkwind's comment to which you allude, was at the end of the discussion, and was referring to your ludicrous request, here's the quote, "The admonishment/warning you seek is beyond the scope of this noticeboard". But again, not shocked to see you misrepresenting stuff once again. And continuing to fail to acknowledge consensus. Onel5969 TT me 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that Wikipedia guidelines are not being followed, and the disruption is severe enough to warrant administrative action, open a thread at WP:ANI. is pretty clear. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Council/Guide clearly lays out that a WikiProject ("WP") can choose to include (or disinclude) a page in its scope. A consensus-gathering action is presently ongoing at WT:WP OL regarding this subject, so from that point ANI is clearly the wrong discussion forum.

On the point of whether the guideline was not followed, so much so as to warrant administrator action against Onel, I would disagree, and personally find the edit restriction as provided for at AN3 to be sufficient for now. Suggest closing this discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Checking myself, it appears to me as if the discussion at WT:WP OL has stalled as of June 18, and some of the reverts above are from later in June. There seem to be editors on the talk page of the article who (perhaps?) still disagree with inclusion. I disagree with the aspersion of WP:CANVASS - the use of the WikiProject's talk page to discuss the article in question certainly un-cavass-like to me, even if the contesting editors were not invited to join in the discussion at WT:WP OL for the second go-around.

In conclusion, I would suggest someone get an RFC or similar together on one of the talk page to consider inclusion, ensuring they also notify all of the original editors who are interested in the (dis)inclusion of the topic under that WikiProject, as well as maybe also notifying the editors of the other listed WikiProjects. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The discussion at WT:WP OL did not so much stall out as end once two project members and a non-member concurred on inclusion, which simply seemed sufficient to us for satisfying the antecedent condition to "do not remove" in WP:PROJSCOPE. If WP:EWN is not the forum for repeated reversions of a project banner, and WP:ANI is not, what is? I recognize I have many, many RfCs in my future if Americans for Prosperity is to make it to good, so I am not adverse to that recommendation, but frankly I was hoping a project banner add might not be one of them. WP:PROJSCOPE reads to me as if the intention was that an RfC for a banner add should not be necessary. My humble read of WP:PROJSCOPE is that the clear request not to edit war was us all more or less agreeing with each other that project adds are way too silly to war over. I filed this hoping someone would simply say to the reported user "please stop," and we could all move on. I am not seeking a block or official wrist slap of any kind, just a little help educating an editor. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood me somewhere in there. ANI is the appropriate place for discussion of the content dispute from a behavioral standpoint, and my opinion on that should already be clear per my second paragraph in my comment at 21:22. (You'll note I said nothing of your behavior…. [ominous ellipsis, to be clear])

As for the recommendation regarding an RFC, you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL. This means I do not find it clear myself whether there is consensus for the project to include or not the project banner in question, and this is why you were slapped with an allegation of canvassing. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Please help me understand how the edit restriction addresses the problem of this report? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"...you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL." An RfC is our mechanism for assessing community-wide consensus on a issue. A thread on project talk is our mechanism for assessing project-wide consensus. WP:PROJSCOPE is rather strongly worded; a project's scope in terms of article inclusion is unusual in guidelines in that it is specifically exempted from community-wide consensus: "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article..." Reasonable persons may disagree with this, but there it is. In asking me to RfC a project banner add, are you asking me to right some perceived wrong? WP:PROJSCOPE does not require an RfC for inclusion of an article in a project. In fact, I read WP:PROJSCOPE as in effect us saying to each other, look, guys, adding an article to a project is way too trivial to edit war about, and it is way too trivial to RfC. What is your read? In asking me to RfC a project banner add, you are asking me to jump through a hoop beyond guideline. A key point in filing this report is that the reported user participated in a thread at project talk at which project members concurred on the project banner add, with no dissenting project members, and subsequently deleted the project banner five more times. The antecedent condition for "do not edit war" in guideline was met. Respectfully, please reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, I came here seeking a very little help with a simple issue of an editor needing a straight-forward clarification of a guideline that is clearly intended to help prevent edit warring, and upon reflection I still think it is a reasonable request, and I ask again for help here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help me understand how in your view an RfC is necessary for a project participant to add a project banner to an article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I did advise HughD (t c) to post here about his request for someone to admonish Onel5969 (t c) about the WikiProject banner situation if he still felt it was necessary, because his request was out of scope for WP:ANEW where he originally posted -- not because I find merit in any of the allegations. I encourage everyone to avoid seeing this as forum shopping. Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se a violation of WP:3RR, although it may be considered a very slow edit war due to the number of reverts. (corrected by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) I placed the 1RR restriction on the article and its talk page simply because the contentious behavior related to this article, and the ensuing allegations, are getting out of hand—not specifically (added by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) because this instance was edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for commenting to confirm the referral and to refute the reported user's defense of charging the reporting user with forum shopping. Thank you very much for your efforts to restore a collaborative environment at Americans for Prosperity. I am committed to restoring a collaborative environment and I look forward to your continued engagement. I view making explicit the broader stakeholders in a good Americans for Prosperity article, beyond WikiProject Conservatism, as a small but important step toward improving the collaborative environment, and I ask all for support here in that. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se." When you suggested WP:ANI, I thought fine, whatever, wrong forum, live & learn, I'll refile. Respectfully, upon reflection I find I do not understand how this is not edit warring. I understand it is not 3RR, but there was a 2RR in 6 hours on 18 June, and I understand there is such a thing as a slow edit war. Is it not an edit war because it is talk page editing? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help me understand why this is not edit warring. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why I phrased my comment above that way; in my ANEW closing I did not actually state my view on whether there was an edit war in this case. Reviewing it again, it could probably be called a slow edit war, but that would not have changed the action I took of applying a page restriction under discretionary sanctions. I'm also not sure why you're so eager to call it an edit war, HughD (t c); since you're the one who was putting the project banners back in, you'd be equally guilty of edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk[edit]

Count Iblis agrees to self-ban from the Reference Desk and agrees that he should be blocked should he violate the self-ban. That's the same result as a successful ban request, so no point in continuing this discussion farther. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

This is a request to topic-ban User:Count Iblis from the Reference Desk for offering medical advice and arguing with editors who say not to offer medical advice.

The following question was posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=668838130&oldid=668837837

Count Iblis then replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=668848835&oldid=668847816

There was a lengthy discussion at WT: Reference Desk, beginning with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=668979964&oldid=668974347

The thread continues as Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Medical_advice.3F.

As can be seen, there is consensus that this post was medical advice, but Count Iblis maintains, in spite of that consensus, that he was justified in making that post. His continuing arguments in support of being able to answer medical questions are tendentious and include https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=669127190&oldid=669126680 which is an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Since he opposes the proposal to close the thread with a warning, and insists on keeping the thread open to defend his conduct, a topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - At first I thought this was a bit much, but after reading the thread and watching Count Iblis actually make a holocaust comparison (thus violating Godwin's Law) it seems we kind of have to do this to protect Wikipedia's interests. Dennis Brown - 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - based on skimming the thread and in particular Count Iblis' responses, it's clear that there is no argument that the comment was medical advice, which would be kind of bad, but that Iblis insists they should be allowed to give medical advice notwithstanding the guideline, which is clearly wrong. They should therefore absolutely be topic-banned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Count Iblis is bound by the same rules as the rest of us, whether he acknowledges it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Count Iblis has caused enormous problems in the last few years on the Ref Desk. I have lost count how many times we have been here discussing his behavior. Despite all these discussions he still causes problems. We never ever had any other Ref Desk contributor causing any sort of problems during the entire existence of Wikipedia. If you search the archives of the Ref Desk talk page, you see virtually no discussions about editors' conduct exept when the topic is Count Iblis' disgraceful behavior. In fact, if you skim past all the threads there, you are left with just a few threads in total since the start of Wikipedia! Count Iblis has given medical advice to people a countless number of times, the WMF has been sued and found liable by a Court in Florida and ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damage. Jimbo Wales had to raise extra funds due to this. So, in short we're better of kicking Count Iblis out of here,. With him gone the Ref Desks can finally return to the good old peaceful times. Good bye Count Iblis, we hope to never see you again here! Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarify, please, as to whether this means banning Iblis from the ref desks altogether, or merely banning him from anything that is in any way medically-related. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems to be the Ref Desk (as a whole) because of med advice, not just from med advice at the Ref Desk. Dennis Brown - 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      Yup: He either agrees to comply by the rules, or he doesn't post at all - I see no reason to provide an opening for yet more Wikilawyering over what exactly is or isn't 'medical'. There has been enough time wasted over this already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, then, Oppose blanket ref desk ban, Support ban from medical topics on ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Dennis and AndyTheGrump. BMK (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic-bannning Count Iblis from the Reference Desk for offering medical advice against consensus. I do not support any lesser restrictions that still allow Count Iblis to edit at the Reference Desk; that would simply simply allow him to explore new and innovative ways of being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I intended my earlier comment as support for a complete topic-ban from the Reference Desk as well, and I'm now wondering if Iblis' trolling here points to a stronger sanction required. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure, ban him form Wikipedia indefinitely, remove all of his contributions because who knows what kind of dangerous medical advice is hidden in there. Count Iblis (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed, because if it were just this incident (that he has agreed to stop engaging in), it would be a different mater. But we've been discussing him for many years now and this is the final straw. Medical issues arise regularly and Count Iblis is always the first to respond on those threads, edit waring to keep his content in, and that's just unacceptable. Count Iblis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - (of course, given my role in the linked threads). Will add more when I get home later if the thread is still open Actually it doesn't seem like there's much more that needs to be said. Iblis kind of summarized the problem, irrespective of any of the particulars, with So, it should be clear that I will continue to answer any questions anywhere in the way I see fit, regardless of any restrictions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban and expect a hefty block if this continues anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not doctors and cannot take that responsibility on. The advice was reckless. Chillum 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - My original proposal was for a complete topic-ban from the Reference Desk, to prevent his providing comments that he would wikilawyer as not medical advice, to prevent him from giving legal advice, etc. (I had requested at the Reference Desk talk page that the thread be closed with a warning, but when he persisted in arguing his own right, I didn't see compromise as possible.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Under no circumstances should anyone be giving medical advice on here, If CI can give reckless advice like that then christ knows what he'll say if god forbid someone perhaps asks about suicide (I never visit the Ref Desk so I have no idea what people ask!), It seems the best idea here is to ban him entirely from the Desk. –Davey2010Talk 02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Doesn't get it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom's evidence and CI's own deliberate disruption within this thread. Resolute 16:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the mental gymnastics that have been performed in order to accomplish the level of ultimatiums and back and forth wikilawyering only indicates that CI needs to be restricted until such time that they can demonstrate (or the community decides to give him a opportunity) that they will not be disruptive on the Reference desks any further. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and given the continued lengthy disruption, misdirection, and game-playing on this interminable thread, support further, more stringent sanctions if the disruptive behavior merely moves to another venue. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the topic ban from the Reference Desk. It took a long time to read and ponder this whole thread, but after doing so, I do not want to see any more medical advice, or bizarre self justifications, or rationalizations, or weird logical contortions from this editor. I consider the editor's assurances worthless, and expect formal sanctions to prevent the disruptive behavior documented here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban based on Robert McClenon's argument and the possibility of him evading scrutiny using an IP. Soap 11:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have already moved to another venue, much more prominent than the Ref Desk here. You all have been misled by Robert McClenon into thinking that this was some sort of a big disruption of the Ref Desk, when in fact it was just a minor incident compared to the almost weekly infighting there which unlike this case does involve hugely disruptive reverts on the main ref desk pages. I did not edit war, and while my comments on the talk page might have been polemic, that was in the context of the older dispute where many have taken the very unreasonable position that you can't even tell an OP to go to the doctor because the issue may be more serious they think it is. Robert McClenon painted a false picture of me wanting to push dangerous medical advice, what happened is that people there are engaging in a faux outrage to get me banned because they much more prefer fighting their own battles.

Much more prominent sites like StackExchange that unlike our Ref Desk don't have the almost daily infightings, the content of which does turn up on Google searches, also have a Medical Disclaimer except that they won't hyperventilate over irrelevant issue. If there were any truth about what Robert McClenon and others are saying about this being dangerous medical advice, then such far more prominent sites where people like Peter Shor, Terrence Tao contribute, would pretty much all have adopted the same rules. The reason the rules on the Ref Desk are what they are in this case has little to do with preventing dangerous medical advice, it is just that it keeps the peace there. So, by making a subject taboo you can get from a big fight every day to once every few days.

I have pointed out the problem of the lack of prominence of the Ref Desk during the last few years, made the link to the very frequent fights, pointed that StackExchange could serve as a better model to make the Ref Desk more prominent. My position made me very impopular among the regulars at the Ref Desk. That's why notorious edit warriors from there typically don't end up here for their huge disruptions, and when they do get here, they still get support against the proposed sanctions. For me, things are different, not because I have created much disruption there (any disruption from my part is infinitesimal by the usual Ref Desk standards), rather because I don't belong to any of the gangs there.

It is this behavior of the regulars at the Ref Desk that has caused it to go down the drain. That also motivated me to stand my ground a bit more on this particular issue as a last ditch attempt to get people finally thinking there. Unfortunately that did not happen, they decided to get me railroaded over a non-issue here (non issue because when my contribution was hatted and removed, I did not edit war about that and the comment wasn't a big deal in the first place).

Fine, I'm gone, but the Ref Desk is nothing more than a big stinking cesspool. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A lack of ethics on those other sites is not a compelling reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If that were indeed true, but is it? Is there scientific research that has considered the best way non professionals should interact with people on medical issues to prevent problems? Is the Ref Desk following guidelines based on such research that have strong scientific consensus these other sides are so unethical in rejecting? Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are sincere about no longer working on medical topics on the ref desk, then why are you still arguing about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Be patient. First, I stop posting there, but there are still ongoing discussions and there is now a proposal tabled for a complete ban from Wikipedia. So, I may still need to reply in some of these conversations on the talk pages. But I just posted my final comment on the Ref Desk talk page. I posted my formal resignation from the Ref Desk in the section below the poll below. So, it is all headed toward closure today as far as I'm concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

It seems that Count Iblis is now posting as an IP and giving medical advice yet again, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fate of coronary artery plaques after rupture. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would you report yourself for sock puppetry? —Darkwind (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been asking myself the same questions. Count Iblis is reporting themselves for everything. They even supported the topic ban. Probably playing a game or I am to naive to know what's going on. Callmemirela (Talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
He's being sarcastic. The IP, who posted hours ago, surely isn't him. Mr Potto (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If so, it's sarcasm on the edge of disrupting the project to make a point, and does not help his case in the slightest. —Darkwind (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis, you are bordering on WP:DE, which you already know, and know the consequences of. If you have something constructive to say, or something to change someone's mind, by all means, say it. If you only want to disrupt, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    This is an editor who muses on their talk page about ignoring policies and ArbCom rulings, encouraging other users to do the same, and celebrating logged-out editing by blocked users. I suspect this is someone who has no intention to respect whatever sanction comes out of this discussion, and question whether this is someone interested in building an encyclopedia at all, or just having a laugh at our expense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I would agree with NOTHERE--the user in question has made only 300 edits to mainspace in the past five years. 5 edits a month is paltry given the disruption above and the questionable user page. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • (ec) Count Iblis is being sarcastic above, but he's actually hit the nail squarely on the head: we have been discussing him for many years now, and when a problem with him in one area is cleared up he simply moves to another. For his entire Wikipedia career his Mainspace (article+talk) edits are only 3852 (36.8%) while his Wikipedia space (Wikipedia+talk) edits are 5,225 (51.7%). For a non-admin, that's not indicative of someone here to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure if you have counted Ref Desk contributions here, and also you can't just consider all mainpage contributions as equal. My contributions have been significant edits to math and science articles, most of which are still there. You just can't compare someone who edits sections like this once per year or so to someone who does very frequent copy editing work here. These are two totally different disciplines. Also, it's quite natural that the former type of editor would also be interested in hanging out at other math and science venues on the internet, or here at the Ref Desk. Oh, and all these discussions about me, what was that all about actually? Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Please don't be disingenuous - you were there, you are aware of the sanctions you received, you know what they were about. Your playing coy and innocent isn't going to help you here. BMK (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    I never ever received a justified sanction here. My experience here is that we have a mob justice system here where people tend to gang up on each other. That's just a fact and I won't stay shy of saying that just because you issue threats against me. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Just to repeat, so it will not be missed, Count Iblis says that of the sanctions imposed on him by ArbCom, at AE, and elsewhere on Wikipedia: I never ever received a justified sanction here. Count Iblis never did anything wrong, ever, and did not deserve any of the 4 blocks imposed on him by four different admins. BMK (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    That's indeed my position, 3 of the 4 blocks were outright unjust. The first was imposed by an Admin who had the habit of frivolously blocking users, he was later sanctioned because of that and has long since left Wikipedia. The next incident was about Brews Ohare, who had problems editing some physics articles. It was blown out of proportions and the total physics ban led to more problems than it solved. When a few editors argued in favor of him, they were all restricted from doing so, despite the fact that only one or two of the four ever went over the top doing so. If you disagree with that assessment, go find some diffs that point to unacceptable postings by me at AE, suggesting alternative restrictions for Brews. Never ever did a clerk there refactor, or remove my comments, despite having zero tolerance for problematic comments there. Nevertheless, I stuck to the restriction of not being allowed to post at AE on behalf of Brews for a while. The next block was related to that, but reversed as the restriction had expired (see summary by blocking admin). The block after that was due to some comments on my userpage, that are still standing today. That block was reversed by Sandstein out of all Admins, so that tells you that I didn't do anything wrong. The latest block was about a misunderstanding about euthanasia, I mentioned that somewhere in the Ref Desk in the meaning it has in countries were it is legal, but some detractors misinterpreted by comments in the meaning of unlawful killing or murder. In that reading, I agree that my comments would be unacceptable. But they then hatted the comments with a reference suggesting that their interpretation was what I meant. Of course, making me say things I would never say, made me angry and I reverted a few times too much to my version. That led to the last block, and I don't think it was something worthy of a block if you just sit down and talk it over. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The vast number of Ref Desk contributions are missing from there, and these are exactly the point of contention. We do need to dig those up to see his allegedly disruptive actions. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    Despite however much medical experience he/you may have, it would still be best for the ref desk inquirer to see a doctor or pharmacologist in the flesh. There might be things he/you is not aware of about the user in question that would cause him to not prescribe certain medications. How many of the users have informed him/you about their weight, which I've heard can affect some things? Unless he is willing to call up the respondent's doctor and ask about what medications the person is taking, family history of disease, as well as inform the physician about what he recommends, so they know if it can conflict with something else, I'm going to say I question his behaviour a little. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Where did I say that the OP should not consult with his doctor? Anything I wrote on the Ref Desk is always in the context of the OP seeking medical attention in case of a medical problem. Usually questions where that would be an issue are removed or hatted. But sometimes you have borderline cases, if the question remains open then whatever we write is always in the context of any medical intervention being done by a health care professional. If there is any question about that, then someone will spell that out for the OP. Never ever have I disputed that in a Ref Desk posting. Count Iblis (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • While I like to see people working on the actual encyclopaedia, it is clear that the community as a whole, appreciates other tasks need to be done (as do I). Moreover the community supports Reference Desk, otherwise everyone would be MfD'ing that instead. Therefore we can't (much as we might like) make WP:NOTHERE arguments because users who spend most, or even all their time away from article-space.
  • Given that he is now talking about himself in the third person, perhaps Count Iblis might like to give himself a large trout, and take a suitable wikibreak? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  • What's the appropriate sanction for violating WP:NSA? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Being Likeboxed. Count Iblis (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

The whole point here is not disruptive editing of the actual pages, it's just that in the talk page I re-opened the old debate on medical advice. This has been discussed previously, and you have people who claim consensus for some restrictive policy, but it's not clear that anything else than clear cut medical advice (saying e.g. to someone to take 50 mg of X twice daily is obviously clear cut medical advice) is actually medical advice. If you e.g. say that you can treat cancer using chemotherapy, then would that be medical advice? I think not, but suppose that I write that on the science ref desk and someone makes problem about that. They are then free to remove or hat the particular question and my answer, I won't revert that (unlike quite a few other Ref Desk posters, I don't have a history of edit warring there). The dispute seems to center around my refusal to bow to the people on the talk page who insist that I was wrong to have written that and that I dared to re-open the debate on medical advice based on the example.

As far as I can see there is nothing more to the dispute than a single, by Ref Desk standards normal, debate on the talk page where I refused to acknowledge that the opposing view is correct. That's just ridiculous, you may have a consensus where 95% agrees and 5% disagrees, so the edit will be removed, but the 5% are never forced to change their view, they are never forced to swear allegiance to the majority party. They must, however, accept that they can't have it their way when in an actual edit made, their edits won't stick. Now, I always stick to 1RR or even 0RR, so there isn't much of a problem in this respect.

Now, you could still say that I'm intent to give medical advice here, but that's flat out wrong. I will never do anything on the ref desk that amounts to encouraging someone to self-doctor, or do something else outside of the usual medical channels. It's simply about where exactly you draw the line between clear cut unacceptable medical advice and writing that e.g. chemotherapy is commonly used to treat cancer. The line must be drawn somewhere and the usual way that's done is by hatting or removing the question so you don't get answers or the answers already given are then also hatted or removed. I've no problems with that, even if in any such case I believe I was still correct to give an answer.

Now, my slightly more liberal than average POV about where to draw the line is consistent with the policy of many other prominent websites such as stackexchange, where I also contribute. While one can argue that what StackExchange does is of no concern to us, you have to consider here that StackExchange is a prominent site with many promiment professors as its contributors. They maintain proper standards that work in practice, they have good rules against medical advice that are pretty much similar to our rules when you read what it actually says. In contrast, our Ref Desk is not prominent at all, it is plagued with a lot of infighting and I got caught up in one such fight on the talk page. Our rules for medical advice,while similar are often used as sticks to fight (edit) wars with and usually I'm not involved in those disputes. These disputes don't typically come to AN/I because the other regulars are more involved there and they have some mutual understandings of each other red lines. Basically it's how in a Wolf Pack you have alpha males and females that will settle their disputes they tend to pick on other wolves with lesser prominent status in the group.

Now, I made the decision that I'm not going to bow to any irrational rule here on Wikipedia, where we have a rule that says that you don't have to do that. So, I will just continue to make edits to e.g. the Math Ref Desk because by any stretch of the imagination I can't see how making an edit like like this here could be a problem. I don't see it, but if I get banned for doing that, then so be it, because that then implies that this place isn't worth contributing to. Count Iblis (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be surprised when it happens. Chillum 03:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An example to make my general point in the general dispute about medical advice clear[edit]

Suppose someone asks on the Ref Desk that he is constantly feeling hungry and asks for advice on diets that contain more calories but are still healthy. If that were to happen then any responses aimed at attending the OP that there are actually potential medical dimension to this that he might not be aware of that may need to be checked out (e.g. diabetes or thyroid problems) is not allowed. So, those responses would be removed or the question would be hatted. Now, I never edit warred in such cases and I never will. My point is simply that the current rules are not perfect, that they can prevent a person from going to the doctor when they should (because if you are only feeling hungry, you may not be aware that this may actually be potentially more serious medically than it seems). So, the rules do merit discussion on the talk page. Now, apart from the last few days' I'm not someone who frequently starts discussions on the talk page there. It's not that I have been at this constantly over and over again in a disruptive way.

So, if I now get topic banned simply for having this position, not the position that the people who disagree with me ascribe to me (Count Iblis wants to play doctor at the Ref Desk) then that would be unjust. Even if what they say were true, wanting to play the doctor isn't the same as actually playing the doctor. Count Iblis (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in arguing hypotheticals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue is your behavior -- the things you have done -- as opposed to what you might do in a certain situation. "See your doctor" is allowed. suggesting a specific drug is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not suggest a specific drug, merely pointing out that certain classes of drugs, that can only be prescribed by a doctor can work. Now if that's then still considered to be medical advice and the question hatted, then so be it. Did I revert that hatting to keep my comments in? No, that did not happen. What did happen were lengthy arguments (before the hatting) about why doctors should not prescribe the drug, which is also medical advice. Because if someone is prescribed that drug for this reason, then you are now giving the advice to stop taking them. It is simply incomprehensible how the same person who objects to my comments on the grounds of "medical advice" can write in the same thread why doctors should not prescribe that drug. It's this sort of inconsistent behavior that motivated me to discuss things on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning given[edit]

Based on our existing disruption guidelines, my discretion as an admin, and what I think is the clear intent of the community I have given Count Iblis an only warning about this behaviour: User_talk:Count_Iblis#Only_warning_regarding_medical_advice. This is not intended to effect the discussion of the topic ban from the ref desk but rather to make clear that even if there is a topic ban that this sort of thing is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. This was prompted by Count Iblis' continued insistence that their comments were not medical advice. As always I welcome community review of my decision. Chillum 15:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks like a perfectly valid and reasoned step to me. Dennis Brown - 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good call. Whenever possible, established users should be given a final warning and the chance to stop doing what they are doing I know I would not be happy if I was blocked with no warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good call as long as it doesn't suspend the discussion of a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis will stick to the Ref Desk consensus, so I have no problems with this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech[edit]

At the Reference Desk talk page, Count Iblis referred more than once to the Soviet Union and at least once to Nazi Germany. The point of those references was probably to say that the rule against medical comments was a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States, and Wikipedia's servers are located in the United States, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That is true but irrelevant. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't give an editor the right to free speech on Wikipedia. It only gives the Wikimedia Foundation the right to free speech on Wikipedia. Various principles of US constitutional law including the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution define the right of property in the United States, and an editor doesn't own the servers. The WMF does, and the WMF has the right to make its own rules about its own servers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You may not have a legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, but free speech is a really good idea for any society, real or virtual. I don't support free speech because of legal documents, but because I consider it an unalienable basic human right, and, despite occasional inconveniences cause, overall a large boon to us. A free knowledge project like Wikipedia should embrace it to the largest degree possible without disrupting its core purpose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The community has already put its opinion about free speech into policy: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. The talk page of WP:NOT would be the place to challenge that consensus. There is also a nice essay here: Wikipedia:Free_speech. Basically free speech means you can say what you want on your own website, not somebody else's website. Chillum 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. He's free to give out medical advice, at his own peril, elsewhere. Not here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
When you are working in an "official capacity", at the reference desk, where a new user might think you are a person of authority, then there is a vested interest in Wikipedia insuring you don't say anything that could harm someone. Allowing medical advice at the reference desk is akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Both have the potential to injure or cause death, no matter how much you cry "free speech!". Even the seemingly innocent advice to "take an aspirin" can cause death for asthmatics or anyone allergic to NSAIDs. Plus, we are not doctors, so we shouldn't practice medicine without a license, which is what it resembles when done from a quasi-official station like the reference desk. Unquestionably, it is against policy. Dennis Brown - 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's the complete opposite of the problem. It's never ever been about self medication. It's always been about cases where the OP should or could go to the doctor, when giving some additional information why the OP should take that serious is branded as medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Recommending drugs, as you did, is medical advice, and is forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand is that if we have to choose between 1. Providing too much info or 2. Providing too little info, we choose 2 when it comes to public safety and WMF liability. If you erred on the side of caution, or even acknowledged that we should err on the side of caution, this discussion would have had a very different tone. You screwed up, but that isn't the bad part. The bad part is that you can't acknowledge the mistake and pledge to be more careful. This is why I can't trust you in the future, and likely why others can't either. Dennis Brown - 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But my comments were removed and I never contested that by reverting. I don't understand how disagreeing with a position but not acting on it (i.e. restoring the comments) can be a problem . As I explain below, I'm totally against suggesting the OP to self-medicate, totally. The brouhaha on the talk page about the mention of drugs by me (which never happened before) was in the context of the old discussions where you can't mention anything at all, so e.g. pain in your arm when exercising can be a reason to seek medical advice because that pain may be due to heart problems. You can't mention that (as a consequence the OP may not seek medical advice as "it's just arm pain"), that's what the current rules are (it is considered to be a diagnosis and we're not allowed to do that) and that's always has been my long term disagreement with the others on the ref desk. And almost never does this actually lead to an editing dispute involving me, and never ever a suggestion of self-medication a suggestion, or that the OP doesn't need to seek medical advice. Never ever has that happened. My dispute centers precisely around the problem that cases where the OP ends up not seeking medical advice is far more likely to happen under the present system. Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


No, the free speech issue, comparing things to the Soviet Union did not happen in that context. What I meant is that a discussion about the real issues is always derailed using the "rules = rules", "we say so therefore it is so" etc. arguments. This is similar to the Soviet Union where any argument in favor of capitalism would be shot down for all sorts of reasons, but it would never be evaluated on its merits. The same is true in this case.
Fundamentally, my core argument now and a few years back on the Ref Desk was always that in borderline cases the OP should always be pointed to the fact that we're not doctors, that only medical professionals can give medical advice. The way the rules are implemented are that we're not allowed to write anything about potential medical issues. But as I've pointed out in the infrequent discussions over the last few years, that can cause problems. E.g. if someone asks a question about pain in his arm when exercising, then we are not allowed to point to the fact that while this issue seems quite innocent, it may actually point top heart problems therefore the OP should reconsider his approach (not going to the doctor instead asking us for advice).
Then what also makes the argument about the Soviet Union apply here is that despite everyone on the Ref Desk knowing the details about my position, they come here and make propaganda about me wanting to give dangerous medical advice. They misrepresent my position, they pretend as if I'm in favor of telling people how to self medicate, when in fact I'm the one who is usually far more inclined to present arguments why it would be wise for the OP to go to the doctor. The problem is then that this does involve discussing some things with the OP, raising some options, but never ever in the context of self-medication. Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Telling a user, there could be deeper problems and he needs to see a doctor, is one thing. Recommending a particular drug is another. It's unethical and potentially dangerous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah this defence is bizzare. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to the view it may sometimes be helpful to suggest seeing a doctor as a matter of urgency when an OP thinks their problem is a minor thing that isn't urgent but there's reason to think it could be, without being too alarmist or attempting to diagnose the OPs problem. And I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. But I have no idea how you go from that, to suddenly suggesting random treatments particularly treatments with serious possible side effects, even more so when such a treatment wasn't even what was being sought. As for the holocaust, Soviet Union and communist China, issue, well those were just stupid examples to bring up a guaranteed way to ensure people would think you had no good argument. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
SSRIs are not OTC drugs, they can only be prescribed by medical professionals. In this case, the deeper problem could well be related to problems with the seratonin system which can cause all sorts of other symptoms for which doctors (so, not us, not Count Iblis, but only doctors) can prescribe such drugs. The only realistic effect of mentioning a serious drug like that which can only be prescribed by doctors, is not that somehow the OP would start to use those drugs without being prescribed such drugs. That defies logic, because how on earth could the OP self-medicate on drugs that are only available on prescription? The only realistic effect is that the OP would read a few of our wiki articles and perhaps go to a doctor if the OP thinks that's useful.
Given that the latter has been opposed tooth and nail in general (not in the context of mentioning any drug), for me this was simply a re-opening the old discussion on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Not OTC drugs, they can only be prescribed by medical professionals" is not an exception to our policy. First, many people have access to prescription drugs. They can buy them on the Internet, get them from a family member who has a prescription, etc. Second, absolute claims like "they can only be prescribed by medical professionals" don't hold water on Wikipedia. We have readers who live in places like Somalia where there are essentially no authorities willing to enforce drug laws. As Baseball Bugs correctly pointed out above, recommending a particular drug is unethical and potentially dangerous.
Your continued refusal to accept the decision of the community on this means that you need to be topic-banned from the help desks, with the standard offer of being allowed back when you convince an administrator that you understand what you did wrong and are unlikely to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a community ban, no admin may override it. He will need to go to WP:AN to get it removed, at the appropriate time. Dennis Brown - 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I already explained that it is extremely unlikely to happen every again, I'm not sure why you make the assumption that it is likely to happen. Me disagreeing with a policy doesn't mean that I edit against consensus. Your argument about the OP using someone else's prescription drugs is where the comparison to the CCCP came from. There you could not discuss capitalism because of "See all those poor homeless people freezing to death in Chicago" sort of arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Me disagreeing with a policy doesn't mean that I edit against consensus. -- directly contradicts your stated perspectives/attitudes/plans. e.g. saying you'll say whatever you want regardless of restrictions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The way I edit an article or the Ref Desk has almost always been consistent with the consensus view of the other editors, or else I would have been kicked out of Wikipedia a long time ago. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the consensus view. What I've now promised to do is to take the views of others on the medical advice issue into account a priori. It's exactly similar to how you could have disagreed with the ban on gay marriage but still stay within the law and not proceed with unlawful ceremonies for gay weddings. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Again one doesn't automatically follow the other. All that can be said if someone hasn't been community banned, is that no one has made a succesful proposal for such a ban. This could be because the community won't agree to such a ban because their behaviour is according consensus. It could be because there is insufficient consensus about their behaviour. It could also be because the editor has snuck under the radar. It could also be because people have noticed, but no one has cared enough to start a successful thread (which requires diffs, explainations etc). It could be because their behaviour is borderline against consensus but they've gotten lucky and/or have enough supporters. In fact, many of these are related. And often, but not always, people are less likely to bother if there has already been one or more unsuccessful attempts, even if those attempts likely failed due to the person starting them not spending enough time finding the evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The CCCP thing doesn't follow your argument. Saying people shouldn't offer random treatment advice, because their defence against the advice is that that the OP will have to see a doctor to follow that advice, when in reality it's quite common people will not see a doctor; is quite different from the CCCP refusing to discuss the benefits of capitalism because of people freezing to death in Chicago. For starters, that's not even closely the reason they don't discuss capitalism. Secondly, people die in China for many reasons too, and you can't discuss the relative merits of the different systems (and modern day China is actually quite capitalist anyway) without discussing the merits of the different systems. You can offer help to the OP, without giving completely random treatment advice based on extremely scant evidence. As I said below, even saying the OP has a seretonin imbalance and needs to see a doctor is frankly far better even if not acceptable than offering random treatment advice. And discussing the merits of the different systems isn't going to suddenly mean China changes overnight to the wrong system. In fact, if the discussion is held properly, it would ideally lead to a good decision being made which is mostly under the control of the people holding the discussion (who we presume are the ones who will make the decision). Meanwhile, there is a resonable risk that random treatment advice could easily lead to the OP going on medicine which could do them harm, and Count Iblis has absolutely no control over that, particularly given that they gave almost no explaination for their suggestion (and the only initial explainaion was in fact a simplistic suggestion that they would work well, despite there being so little evidence that even any doctor who said the same thing is the sort of doctor who shouldn't be working without supervision, if working at all). Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the fact that prescription drugs can and are obtained without a prescription has been mentioned before. It also seems blindingly obvious. And giving random drug treatment advice like that, without any explaination is exceptionally stupid. If the OP had genuine problems, there are far better ways to approach it then offering random advice to take SSRIs. Frankly even the OP diagnosed the OP as having a possible serotonin imbalance and suggested they see a doctor, that would be far, far better (even if still not acceptabled) than offering such random treatment advice. Frankly, if Count Iblis still doesn't understand any of this, it's even more reason they shouldn't touch anything remotely related to prescriptions with a 10 foot barge pole. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If the consensus is that it should not be done, then fine, I won't do it. But arguments assuming an irresponsible OP doing dangerous things and then arguing how that can have a bad outcome are problematic arguments as I explain in detail in the section below. So, while I do understand your argument, all I'm saying is that it belongs to the same class as e.g. the "let's do the abstinence only sex education program because you don't want teenagers to know too much" arguments. The only valid arguments are arguments that are backed up by the results of rigorous scientific studies. If you can find studies were people were exposed to various forms of medical advice and they support the conclusion that mentioning efficacy of drugs leads to inappropriate self medication in some significant fraction of the cases, then that would be a valid argument. Better still would be review articles that go into details of how best to deal with this problem based on such research results. Count Iblis (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But it's not the same. No one is saying the OP shouldn't learn about SSRIs. (It's true if someone comes to the RD and says they want to know whether they should take SSRIs/Cialis/whatever, many people would oppose even a link to the SSRI/Cialis/whatever article and MEDRS about these drugs. But that's a more subtle argument which isn't under discussion here. And also, even in those case, no one is saying they shouldn't learn about SSRIs/Cialis/whatever, but rather given their question, they should learn about it from a competent medical professional.) However they didn't ask about SSRIs, and there's no real reason to think SSRIs are at significantly relevant to their question. Further you didn't actually offer any info about SSRIs just said they would work well with no explaination. Sex education is often intended to be as complete as possible. While it's desirable if people would talk to someone about questions, it's recognised that many will not. For some things, such as birth control pills, they will hopeful receive medical advice before using these, although given the various risks involved, many discussions will give some medical information. For others th8ings, like condoms they may receive no further advice. And even with fairly liberal systems, it's unlikely if a girl says "a boy is cute" anyone is going to say, birth control pills will work well. Depending on the age and other factors, it's possible there will be a discussion about contraception and other things, but not such a simple suggestion with zero explaination as you offered. In fact, your evidence was really less than a girl saying a boy is cute. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I did give the wikilink, the OP could and did seem to have read the article based on his later comments. I agree that there would have been better ways to proceed, but then the more you talk about medical issues the more you stray away from the borderline to forbidden territory. As I explained here earlier, there is a good case to be made for giving more details in certain cases, but that then does fall foul of the policy in a rather unambiguous way (Kainaw's rule etc.). But if you keep things vague then that has traditionally always been acceptable. So, by just saying X could work for Y as a general statement, instead of divulging into why and how in the OP's case, I thought that the OP would both be helped to some degree without that falling foul of the policy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Count Iblis will stick to the Ref Desk consensus[edit]

Now that two regulars have changed their position on the main issue that was discussed years earlier (for me the particular issue discussed here is just the prolongation of the old argument), I'm ready to write down here that I will stick to the views of the other regulars regarding medical advice, specifically not mentioning medicines in replies to questions on the Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how this follows from any of the above. It contradicts everything you've said over the past few days -- and said with great conviction. Which issue are you talking about and why would it have the effect of completely changing your mind about many of the above statements? Are you saying you were being disruptive to make a point about some past disagreement about some aspect of the "no medical advice" rule? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't changed my mind on anything except one one thing, i.e. that I'm not going to edit the Ref Desk in any way that amounts to stepping on the toes of the other regulars there. I don't accept the argument that mentioning a class of drugs is a problem. However, I'm going to edit the Ref Desk according to how the others feel about that (and other) issues.
Having read the arguments presented here and elsewhere, I still don't agree with the argument against mentioning treatments in general. One obvious weakness here is the assumption of the irresponsible OP. So, to argue why the OP could end up in a bad situation (e.g. using someone else's medicines instead of going to the doctor who may or may not give him prescription), you need to assume that the OP is someone who is inclined to do bad things right from the start. Now, we've all heard those arguments before. E.g. conservatives have argued for a long time that sexual education for teenagers can only discuss abstinence. Telling them how to have safe sex is taboo, because that may lead to bad outcomes. In their argument it is crucial to consider the irresponsible teenagers and then frame the entire policy based on that. But, of course, what is missing is a rigorous scientific evaluation of the pros and cons of such an approach. The same is true for people who argue against the legalization of pot. They present some evidence that it may be bad for teenagers if they smoke pot very frequently. But that doesn't address the question if it is better to legalize it or to keep it illegal. Good arguments should be based on peer reviewed scientific results, it's no good to come up with scary arguments that make all sorts of hidden assumptions that play well for the public. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
People often look elsewhere besides a doctor, for fear of what they might find out. OP's who ask for medical advice are trying to get around going. It is not our place to encourage that mindset. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But why are you assuming it has to be a "bad thing"? If someone is in a country with a poorly regulated medical system and where a competent doctor in the matter of SSRIs is likely to be expensive and difficult for them to afford, it's quite rude to say it's a "bad thing" for them to take SSRIs without seeking competent medical advice if they're sure they will be of benefit. It may be a dumb thing, if the only evidence they have is someone randomly saying they would work well with no explaination but people have different levels of competence and trust. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
These people tend to be far more susceptible to local opinion. That's why it is so hard to stamp out the trade in rhino horns. Local alternative medicine practitioners in China keep on telling lies about the powders made from rhino horns, and the locals just keep on buying it. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the behavior we have seen here and the following comments supporting a topic ban...

  • "After reading the thread ... it seems we kind of have to do this to protect Wikipedia's interests."
  • "Iblis insists they should be allowed to give medical advice notwithstanding the guideline, which is clearly wrong. They should therefore absolutely be topic-banned."
  • "Count Iblis is bound by the same rules as the rest of us, whether he acknowledges it or not"
  • "Iblis kind of summarized the problem, irrespective of any of the particulars, with "So, it should be clear that I will continue to answer any questions anywhere in the way I see fit, regardless of any restrictions."
  • "Doesn't get it."
  • "Support per nom's evidence and CI's own deliberate disruption within this thread."
  • "The mental gymnastics that have been performed in order to accomplish the level of ultimatiums and back and forth wikilawyering only indicates that CI needs to be restricted until such time that they can demonstrate (or the community decides to give him a opportunity) that they will not be disruptive on the Reference desks any further."
  • "Given the continued lengthy disruption, misdirection, and game-playing on this interminable thread, support further, more stringent sanctions if the disruptive behavior merely moves to another venue."
  • "It took a long time to read and ponder this whole thread, but after doing so, I do not want to see any more medical advice, or bizarre self justifications, or rationalizations, or weird logical contortions from this editor. I consider the editor's assurances worthless, and expect formal sanctions to prevent the disruptive behavior documented here."

I am going to take a poll to gauge community support for the following propositions: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

Accept Count Iblis's assurance ("I'm going to edit the Ref Desk according to how the others feel about that (and other) issues.") and take no action other than issuing a warning.

  • Support - I've seen him make many good contributions to the Ref desk, and this is the first time in ~5 years I've seen him clearly step over a line. Give him a chance to make good on his word. (Also to any who don't regularly read the ref desks or our talk page, the issue is a giant mess, and Iblis is in no way responsible for that state of affairs.)SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An editor needn't agree with policy (or the consensus interpretation of a policy, where it exists), but need only abide by policy. An only warning is in place. That is sufficient. Regarding this editor's dramatic exit, it is not this board's job to enforce a self-imposed Wikibreak. -- ToE 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Community imposed topic-ban of Count Iblis from the Reference Desks, warning to not repeat behavior elsewhere. Wikipedia:Standard offer applies.

  • Support - After several days of insisting on his own rightness, his change of mind in stating that he will follow community consensus is not persuasive. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. If he had been willing to follow the Ref Desk consensus, he could have done so at the Ref Desk talk page instead of filibustering and forcing the issue to come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I was on the fence between this and the above option, but the offer below ("Count Iblis hereby announces that he will stay away from the Ref Desks permanently.") convinced me. If the offer is sincere, the topic ban changes nothing. If the offer is not sincere, a community-imposed topic ban makes it easier to impose future block-evasion sanctions. Plus, I completely reject the "permanently" part. Everyone should have the option of showing that they can edit productively in other areas for six months and then asking that a topic ban be lifted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Having read through the thread, my view is the same as Guy's and Robert's above. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Community imposed block of Count Iblis from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Standard offer applies, with the understanding that an unblock may be a full unblock or a conversion to the topic ban above.

  • Support. Example support !vote

Count Iblis is never going to post at the Ref Desk anymore[edit]

To cut all of this short, Count Iblis hereby announces that he will stay away from the Ref Desks permanently. If Count Iblis violates his voluntary restriction, an Admin should block his account. If in the future Count Iblis wants to return (unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but who knows what may happen in a decade from now), Count Iblis will first apply for his voluntary restriction to be lifted at WP:AN. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


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

User:Scientus[edit]

I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

  • Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[219][220] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
  • Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[221][222]
  • Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.
There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [223]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [224] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [225] --NeilN talk to me 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers[edit]

I have neither the head nor the heart to get into ARBPIA issues, but could someone please intervene at Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers because there's a stupid, slow-running revert war going on there. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • One block for IP hopper and semi-protected the talk page for a week, something I don't normally do but seemed the best solution here. Dennis Brown - 11:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I presume you're referring to the talk page itself rather then the article? It looks to me like the IP's removal of the comments is plain wrong. The editor who left them isn't blocked. And both comments seem on topic and constructive. If the IP disagrees with any of the comments, they're welcome to leave a response. Since the IP is hopping and possibly with a wide range, blocking looks like it will be difficult (one IP was already blocked before they started hopping). So semiprotecting the talk page is the only remaining option (or I guess an edit filter, but I don't think those are used for things like this), or alternatively just hoping the IP gives up. And I just noticed it looks like the talk page has been semiprotected so I guess there's nothing more to do Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment on my talk page[edit]

Can somebody ask User:Dubs boy to stop harassing me on my talk page? After what I considered unacceptable behaviour at Talk:Derry, I posted there saying I was not willing to continue the discussion, and saying, "Please respect that and don't continue to pester." Ten minutes later he was back, trying to bait me. Rather than rise to the bait on the article talk page, I posted to his user talk page, asking him to desist. I specifically said, "Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page." He responded by deleting my post and attacking me on my talk page. I answered his post, and said, "Please do not post on my talk page again. If you do I will have to take it further." Apparently, he took this as an invitation, because there was another attack this afternoon. The reason I asked him not to post to my talk page in the first place is that this had happened before (me opting out of discussion, him baiting me, me telling him I mean it when I say I'm not continuing, him deleting it, him baiting me on my talk page). In hindsight, perhaps I should not have rejoined the discussion at Talk:Derry. But I have a right to state my views without fear of being bullied, and I have a right to expect that I will not be harassed on my own talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, I made Scolaire come to my talk page. And when he was there he told me not to comment on his talk page. This was triggered by me NOT commenting on his talk page.
Here is the correct chain of events:
1. User:Scolaire commented at my page
2. At this point I cleaned my entire talk page of discussion, not just Scolaire's point.
3. I responded to his comment at his talk page only for him to blank it saying that he didn't want to discuss any further.
4. Then responds at my page. I responded to his comment then blanked my page as I no longer wanted to engage with a user with such erratic behavior.
5. Fast forward 2 weeks at he's back at my page again, telling to stop baiting him. Baiting him into coming to my page to shower me with abuse? He also told me not to comment at his page. I don't think he is in a position to come to my talk page unprovoked by anything at his own page, to tell me NOT to post at his page. I blanked my page.
6. He baited me into responding to his comment at his page. If he was so offended by my edit, why then did he respond?
7. Now I find myself at ANI because Scolaire can't keep off my page.
All the while a discussion has been going on at Talk:Derry. A discussion in which Scolaire has exhibited irrational behaviour, first by claiming the original RFC had failed, then claiming that the RFC wasn't a failure with a vote count, then goes on to say that an RFC is not a vote. Hard to follow.Dubs boy (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To add that Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.Dubs boy (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire has come across as a user going out of his way to be offended but was happy to laugh at a similar situation here.Dubs boy (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire had also made a blind revert of this edit with the reasoning "no, it's not". Valid point? My edit was restored and had support at a discussion I had started at the same article talk page. Note that Scolaire did not join the conversation.Dubs boy (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
He also felt the need to troll and follow me to another users page.Dubs boy (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would add that Scolaire is not the only one Dubs Boy has pestered when he doesn't like the answer he's given. I also told him clearly that my preference is to keep the name of the article as it is, and why, repeatedly, on the article talk page and on my talk page. He responded to my request not to keep asking me the same question after I had already answered it clearly was to refuse to accept my answer and keeping pushing. I removed that question from my talk page, with the edit summary "I have made my position on this issue clear more than once, please do not keep asking", and he restored and expanded his comment (which I removed again with the same edit summary). Based on his talk page (before he blanked it), I think Dubs Boy is long past due a topic ban. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nick, please read this Talk [page] again and show me exactly where you have stated a preference. All you have stated is that the decision was based on WP:CONSENSUS. Quoting policy is not quite the same as stating your own preference, nor a reason for keeping something the same. Scolaire has come to my page twice to pester and harass me, not the other way around.Dubs boy (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. You presented several options, one of which was "Title:Derry - nothing changes". I wrote, repeatedly, in favour of that option, and I explained my reasons - because it's a long-standing agreed compromise which satisfies most editors on a question that cannot be definitively resolved, and there is no consensus to change it. For some reason you refuse to accept that, and like a really annoying toddler you bleat "but why? but why? but why?" every time I tell you.
WP:CONSENSUS is "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". If you continue to behave the way you have behaved over this issue, refusing to WP:LISTEN to what others are saying and repeatedly pestering them to give different replies to your question because you don't like the one they've given, you will give yourself such a reputation for disruptiveness you'll struggle to get consensus that the sky is blue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Simply saying that consensus hasn't changed is not a reason. Tell me why you think the article is neutral in its current form? Tell me why we have ignored the results of an Equality Impact Assessment? This is going off topic. Scolaire trolled me to my page twice and is now trying to get me blocked for responding to his harassment. Ridiculouso.Dubs boy (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See what I mean? he just will not accept the answers he receives. He's either trolling or incompetent. Admin action, please. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? Ok. I honestly thought that there would be some onus on an editor to present an opposition argument. Someone explain to me how stating "consensus hasn't changed" is a reason for not making a change. Surely those opposed to a suggestion have to provide a tangible reason as to why they are opposed? This is still off topic but here we have 2 users ganging up on me yet I am the "bully". Scolaire has raised this issue, obviously skipping some of the key events. I have presented a timeline. Let the admins decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talkcontribs) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add - very odd how Dubs Boy complains above that Scolaire has been "dismissive of his input" at Talk:Derry, and doesn't see the irony making [comments regarding my Topic Ban] (which he knows is on a different topic relating to inseting/removing the term British Isles). His comment is clearly designed to shut down my participation and belittle/devalue any disenting voices. Looking at the history of Dubs Boy's editing, it certaing appears that he is disruptive and combative at all times and does not not the meaning of how to collegiately reach consensus and/or edit. I am not suggesting this course of action as some petty "revenge" (although no doubt it might be seen as such by some) but may I suggest (as I believe) a temporary Topic Ban on his participation at Derry related topics might be in order. Perhaps if he tries editing other topics where he is not so emotionally involved, not only will WP improve overall, but perhaps it would do him some good also. -- HighKing++ 19:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And where there is 1 there is always another. Birds of a feather. Very odd that you should show up here Popaice. Where have you been the last 3 months? Weird that you just happen to stroll by. In ref to topic ban, I honestly was just asking? I assumed that when you didn't respond that you were in fact topic banned. If you had responded with "No, I am not topic banned", then you would have nothing to worry about. In saying that, its very hard to keep up with your blocks and sockpuppettry.Dubs boy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage any further. I would like to point out that Dubs Boy was [previously warned by Cailil] that a repeat of any behaviour such as we are seeing now would result in a block under WP:TROUBLES. -- HighKing++ 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll not bring up your past any further. I'll just lift the rug. Though you haven't exactly engaged, Just laid the boot in. See you in 3 months again when another friend needs support.Dubs boy (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

CHAND ALIi[edit]

This looks to be all sorted after NeilN pointed this user in a helpful direction... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

CHAND ALIi appears to self-identify as a child and has posted personal information at the bottom of SAARC a regional Hope. Per WP:CHILD, an admin may want to remove it. The article also seems to contain much copy-pasta.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagged under CSD#A10 as a duplicate of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and NeilN deleted it. KrakatoaKatie 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Directed editor towards Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов[edit]

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk, contribs) has engaged in an array of disruptive editing over the past five days, edit warring and violating 3RR on numerous pages. He has also used roving unlogged-IP addresses to evade 3RR (mostly of the series 212.5.158.xxx). He violated 3RR at Tervel of Bulgaria (history) on 26-27 June. He was blocked from editing for a day on 27 June for edit warring and misuse of logged-out editing at Kardam of Bulgaria (history). On 1 July he engaged in further disruption at Kardam and at several other pages: for example, Krum (history), Malamir of Bulgaria (history), and Kotrag (history). The editor repeatedly adds POV content and non-RS sources. This has been explained to him on multiple talk pages: especially here, but also here, here, and on his user talk page. WP guidelines such as RS have been pointed out to the user, but he has ignored them. His edits have required users such as myself, User:Cplakidas, User:TodorBozhinov, and others to track and remove them and repeatedly explain WP policy to him, to no avail. The initial block on his editing privileges clearly has not stopped his disruptive behavior, and a further block should be instituted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User is currently evading their block by using IP's (212.5.158.188 and 212.5.158.218) to edit the articles and leave disruptive user talk page message. I've added one month page protection to the articles. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect the Jack Tretton article[edit]

NO ACTION:

Requests for page protection is thataway.  Philg88 talk 06:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello I propose that the Jack Tretton article be unprotected. It was protected in June 2013 due to multiple vandalism in a single day (related to a presentation he gave) but I feel there should not be any harm in unprotecting the article now due to the fact the subject has left Sony since 2014.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

To file a request to reduce a protection, please file at WP:RPP#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Callmemirela (Talk) 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard, talk to the protecting admin Jauerback first. They're not that active so if they don't respond within a couple days, file a request at RFPP or post to my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP[edit]

Here's the legal threat against Nigel Ish, which is enough to block the guy. However, what is needed here is a rangeblock to stop this persistent IP-hopper who has also used the account Philm540. Here are some examples of the IPs he has used in the last two months:

The username Philm540 has been used on various military-aircraft-topic online discussion boards, some with a full name appended to the post.

One of the problems we are having with Philm540 is that he refuses to cite his sources, since he is a self-reported world-wide expert recognized for decades as one of the very best in his field. He apparently believes he can make any statement against a published source and have his word trump the source.[226]

So for a rangeblock, it looks like it would have to be as broad as 2600:1002:Bxxx. Settling for 2600:1002:B0xx would get most of these IPs, as there are only a few 2600:1002:B1s. I have not seen any other activity at these IPs so I am not worried about collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All seem to be Verizon Wireless IPs. Would 2600:1002::/47 work, or is that too big? Still having the troubles with figuring the IPv6 rangeblocks. The IPv4 range is a /20 for the 70.192.x.x group, and that might be too broad. KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie:, that would be far too small. I think you would need to do 2600:1002:B000::/39 which would cover 2600:1002:B000::-2600:1002:B1FF:: if my understanding is correct. Your proposed block would block 2600:1002:0000::-2600:1002:0002:: *I think*. Monty845 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845: you're right - it's 2600:1002:B000::/39. Until/unless he gives us more data and we can narrow it down we should block the IPv4 addresses individually. KrakatoaKatie 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I should show my work in connecting Philm540 to the IPs. First, I cannot say what I know about the real life identity of Philm540, but I can say that the person lives in Pennsylvania, the same area to which the IPs geolocate. Second, Philm540 made this strange edit, which is a copy and paste of this edit by one of the IP6s. Third, Philm540 made this edit with Saipan spelled Siapan, and AAF written Aaf, and Group spelled Goup. All of the IPs listed here have spelling and typography which is equally bad, such as "engiine fire extingusher", and this tangle of typos. If I find the exact above-listed typos in the hundreds of posts by IPs I will be surprised. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This user has been blocked previously for personal attacks and disruptive edits, due to the nature of IP hopping I have had to block the pop-up IPs sometimes one or two times a day, I and others have tried to discuss his edits and blocks but it is has been clear that the user doesnt understand how wikipedia works and the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thanks to the work of Binksternet he has tied the IP use to User:Philm540, also note that at [227] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as an IP. Perhaps after the legal threat and previous personal attacks we should consider a site ban of user. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Todays IP is 2600:1002:B026:8900:FE84:8E03:F297:C1CF (talk · contribs · logs · block log) 2 July - still in the same 2600:1002:B block. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it does look as though we need a rangeblock. If there is collateral damage it is unfortunate, but necessary. The alternative is going to long-term semi protection of all affected articles. An action which would appear to involve more collateral damage than the proposed rangeblock. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
2600:1002:B000::/39 blocked one month for sockpuppetry. Holding on the Philm540 account because I think a site ban proposal is a good idea. KrakatoaKatie 13:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to KrakatoaKatie for the rangeblock! Note that another IPv4 has become involved: 70.192.143.183 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
I started a long-term abuse case page about Philm540 which can be seen here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540. That page has a few more IPs which are not listed here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can do 70.192.141.0/24, which is 256 addresses, then block the other IPv4 addresses individually for now. Opinions? KrakatoaKatie 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would help, I'm sure. That's the central area of IPv4 disruption. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done 70.192.141.0/24 and the other IPv4 addresses listed in the LTA case blocked one month. If the month is insufficient and someone wants to extend them, I have no objection. KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Philm540[edit]

Because of his insulting personal communication style, his refusal to work with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and no original research policy, and especially because of the legal threat made against Nigel Ish, I propose that Philm540 be banned from English-language Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the user is clearly not here to work with others, refuses to listen and attacks other editors including legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clearly this editor's presence here is highly disruptive, refuses to follow policy and will not engage constructively with other editors. - Nick Thorne talk 22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Is there a "smoking gun" that links this account to the disruptive IPs? (Yes, I agree there's circumstantial evidence here, but I'm hoping for something more...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment at [228] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as a 2600:1002 IP. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regretfully Support. I think this editor is a very informed expert in a variety of fields and could become a very productive member of Wikipedia. I am willing to be a mentor if the editor chooses to come back under a "new" identity, and takes the time to learn the "ins-and-outs" of the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, he's a topic expert, but I think he's best suited to publishing his work external to Wikipedia, with an editorial team combing through his grammar and facts. I don't think he's cut out for collaborative teamwork. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Gabbar Is Back[edit]

(non-admin closure) The page was semi-protected by User: Diannaa. Callmemirela (Talk) 15:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Gabbar Is Back. In this page, one after one IP users are coming and inflating the box office gross. Someone do something to stop them.--Silver Samurai 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. If the problem recurs, you can also post at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Akshay Kumar movie Baby (2015 film) is having same problems due to an old user interested in Akshay Kumar movies. The edit is like those IP users. They come and increase the box office figures of Akshay Kumar's latest movies.--Silver Samurai 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Diannaa (talk) He is back again.--Silver Samurai 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Lachlan Foley, genre warring again[edit]

Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([229]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.
Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Joshua Jonathan[edit]

NO ACTION:

This is a content/style dispute that does not require admin intervention at this stage. As Abecedare suggests, these matters can be discussed on the appropriate article talk page.  Philg88 talk

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

Joshua Jonathan is indulging in disruptive editing at the following talk page: [Page]. The modus operandi is to move comments he had already made in one section of the talk page (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism--Joshua has now deleted this section header) to another section of the talk page (Shankara and Buddhism). His own comments and also my own comments are also freely placed in a new section('Headers') in the talk page that he has created. A previous section header (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism) with his comments and also my comments has been removed by Joshua as i mentioned. All this is resulting in confusion. I have tried to impress upon him the need to retain content that has already been written in one section of the talk page and not create confusion by moving content in the talk page from one section to another section, removing section headers, placing old content (of his posts and also my posts) in newly created section headers, etc. but he is not prepared to listen to me. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The only way i could impress upon Joshua not to play around on the talk page moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers, placing edits from a section to a newly created section was to revert his edits where he was doing this. This seems to have made him very angry going by his comments in the edit summary of the talk page where he reverts me, and also his comments in the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Adi_Shankara#Headers, User_talk:Soham321#July_2015 and User_talk:Soham321#Talk_page_conduct. Soham321 is highly disruptive, removing my talkpage comments twice. Abecedare already intervened, obviously without result. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary of events:
  • Soham made some recent edits to Adi Shankara.
  • User:Joshua Jonathan and I both had some concerns about the edits, and we almost simultaneously started talk page discussion on the topic.
  • After a short while, Jonathan (using common-sense IMO) merged the two talkpage sections on the exact same topic, w/o deleting any content.
  • Soham responded by not only undoing Joshua's merger but also deleting Joshua's subsequent replies, not once but twice!
Frankly this is all very silly, and I hope that this ANI is closed with editors told to simply get back to discussing the article content, and not get lost in discussing how the discussion sections are organized on the article talkpage. No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to participate in the talk page if edits are moved around freely from one section to another, section headers are removed, and edits in an older section (in this case, my edits and also Jonathan's edits) are placed in a newly created section header. I appreciate the fact that Abecedare--who has also been commenting on the talk page--has participated in this discussion. My understanding though is that majority does not constitute consensus in some cases. And this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the height of WP:IRONY. Soham321 doesn't even know how to indent. I don't know how many times @Ogress: and I had to correct his indentation. He would combine his post with other editors, despite explanations not to do so.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)What Victoria is accusing me of doing is making a post in the way i am making right now. It is true that i have done this occasionally (not always). But there is a big difference between this, and moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers and placing edits (in this case, my edits and also Joshua's edits) written in a particular section into a newly created section. As i mentioned earlier, majority does not constitute consensus in some cases, and it is my belief that this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow Soham321, just did it on this ANI page! He just jammed his comment into mine. Soham321 engages in the most disruptive editing of any editor I have encountered on Wikipedia.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that when I was on Talk:Caste system in India, Soham321 made many comments that were just jammed up against the previous comment and had to be manually separated by someone else, such as here I request he stop jamming his replies, earlier I ask he indent, earlier than that I ask he stop with text shenanigans. Ogress smash! 06:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Earl King Jr.[edit]

Earl King Jr. is a single purpose account dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc.]] to a single article, and reducing the text in that article. In that effort, King has successfully removed the Zeitgeist Movement page and crammed all mention into a small paragraph on the Zeitgeist (film series) page. King is tendentious and bullying in discussion. See:

King frequently attributes improper motives to other editors, accusing them of being "Zeitgiest supporters," "sock puppets," and "meat puppets." See:

King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [230] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources. My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [231] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban[edit]

The last AN discussion was [232] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have:

Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year.

  • Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Dennis Brown. Thomas.W talk 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have been editing on the Zeitgeist page for about two weeks (drawn by RFC), during that period I have agreed with EKJr on almost nothing. However my experience of his behaviour has been that he 'backs off' when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. In contrast, other editors on talk don't simply 'lose their cool' occasionally, but appear to prefer a 'gladitorial' approach, of which this ANI and the recent BLP are manifestations. I invite others to examine the recent talk page and come to their own judgements as to whether banning EKJr, would achieve anything.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm The original complaint here is that EKJ is "dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc. to a single article. Well, as for the Zeitgeist Movement, looking at the last version, pretty much 90% of the content and sources were actually about the movies. So in that case, EKJ appears to be correct. And that article, since its redirection, has seen nothing but sockpuppets trying to restore it. Meanwhile, looking at Peter Joseph, he looks a bit marginal in notability terms as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (response to Pincrete's oppose) Two weeks isn't nearly enough, I think. I've been watching this topic for years and EKJ really stands out with his relentless efforts to make these articles as negative and crappy as possible, and argues over damn near everything he possibly can. Look at his edit analysis and top edited pages to see the extent of this. From what I've seen, he interprets policy to fit his own agenda (i.e. he's not being truly neutral), and his own improvements to the articles have often been sloppy/poorly written. The Zeitgeist talk pages are full of angry arguments every single day and this has been going on for ages now, literally years. I think the rest of us really deserve a vacation from him. There have been plenty of other editors active on these pages who are neutral (I mean, not-pro-Zeitgeist) who are perfectly capable of keeping these articles in line with policy and dealing with the occasional pro-Zeitgeist SPAs that show up every now and then. EKJs participation isn't necessary and frankly I think he's the one who has wasted the most of our collective time (and nerves). The topic itself isn't worth it. These movies are relatively old by now. Why is it such a big deal? I don't know. A forced topic ban seems like the best way to deal with this. Pincrete, I completely understand why you see that "the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated" -- it's happening now because we've finally had enough of him and we feel the need to make it very obvious. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, I forgot about King inventing WP rules to support his edits, e.g., alleging that WP does not mention paid events,[233]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing King's serial copyright violations on other pages, I think a General Ban is in order. Such editors are a liability to the Wikipedia project, and not just a topic. (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC))
  • Support I think EKJ deserves credit for combating zealous pro-Zeitgeist SPAs screwing with the page, especially when it was at the height of its popularity, but his contributions outside of that have been mired in consistently pushing sloppy anti-Zeitgeist content to such extreme lengths. It is a polarizing article/topic and emotions run high, but when it gets to where you'd use capitalization as a weapon, it's time to find another article to work on. He has demonstrated he is capable of spotting poor/weak content when it fits his agenda, so I believe he'd be an asset to any collaboration on a mainstream article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. EKJ has a long history of using Zietgeist-related talk pages as a soapbox for venting his own personal opinions, routinely characterises contributors who disagree with him as 'SPAs' or claims thet they have been canvassed to edit, and as a matter of habit assesses sources not on their reliability and significance, but instead on whether they conform with his personal perspective - see for example his recent attempt to use a conspiracy-theorists forum in support of arguments, [234] (see the first link - to here [235]), and his attempt (in the same post) to cite a source [236] as evidence that TZM is 'right wing', when the source actually writes "in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to ArbCom - The community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing by multiple editors on this subject in the recent past. It is true that EKJ has engaged in tendentious editing on Zeitgeist. At the same time, User:AndyTheGrump has engaged in over-the-top personal attacks on EKJ. A previous WP:AN thread was archived without action. Singling out any one editor for sanctions would oversimplify the scope of the problem. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify multiple problematic editing patterns. While some of the topics of Zeitgeist are already within the scope of discretionary sanctions under either September 11 conspiracy theories, American politics since 1933, or biographies of living persons, imposing discretionary sanctions on all aspects of Zeitgeist would be helpful also. A full evidentiary hearing should be requested to identify multiple patterns of disruptive editing. (My own involvement is that I attempted to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mediation resulted in three RFCs and was unpleasant due to battleground editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I will readily admit that my behaviour over this issue hasn't always been ideal - I would however prefer it if Robert McClenon didn't single me out , and then go on to imply that I was engaging in 'battleground editing' in a DRN discussion I took no part in whatsoever - it should be noted that I wasn't involved at all in the 'unpleasant' DRN discussion. As for taking this to ArbCom, I personally don't think it would be necessary if EKJ is topic banned, and will reiterate what I said in the last ANI discussion - that if EKJ is topic banned, I am happy to stay away from the topic myself. I had voluntarily stayed away from the topic for a long period, and only returned to it as a result of seeing the way EKJ's behaviour was affecting encyclopaedic coverage in a clearly unacceptable manner - the fact that few people apparently like the movies, the movement, or Peter Joseph isn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to cherry-pick sources in an entirely partisan manner. Either the subject is notable, in which case it deserves balanced treatment, or it isn't, in which case it doesn't merit coverage at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support - Earl King Jr has in the past made groundless accusations towards other editors, made up policy as he goes along (for example 'Wikipedia doesn't mention paid events'), been unable to recognise his own bias, treated articles as if owned them and used policy as a threat. He seems to play a tactic of mirroring arguments made by other editors, for example, if accused of a personal attack, he will say he is being attacked; or if BLP violation is raised then he find his own BLP issue.
All that said I believe his behaviour towards other editors has improved. Also, he has and can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would recommend a temporary topic ban of six months. This would make him consider his behaviour without being too punitive. It could also lead to a broadening of his Wikipedia edits.
Additionally, AndyTheGrump should also be topic banned for six months for making personal attacks against Earl King Jr. This made it harder to keep on track discussing the controversial issue of Zeitgeist, as an experienced editor he should have known this isn't helpful. As AndyTheGrump has volunteered to stay away from the topic if Earl King Jr is banned this could be a mute point.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand how an editor can be topic-banned from personal attacks. Personal attacks have been forbidden since 2002. AndyTheGrump has been banned from personal attacks since August 2010, when he began editing. He can be warned about personal attacks, but a ban on them that expires would exempt him from a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant AndyTheGrump should be topic banned for six months, because his edits there have included personal attacks that have not helped the situation. Not that he should be topic-banned from personal attacks banned for six months.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to ArbCom. The Zeitgeist area has, from the beginning, attracted problematic pov-pushing which has defied attempts at resolution through the usual wikipedia mechanisms. When I last worked on that area, EKJ was mostly a force for good, although I was worn down by the constant battles (and extensive sockpuppetry and quotemining by people trying to make Zeitgeist articles look really positive) so I haven't looked closely for some time. If the battles continue, then I think Arbcom is the best option. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Earl King Jr. knows how to be covert and subtle and for over 3 years, with great success, he had been able to dominate and overrun well meaning people looking to simply put truthful, neutral and honest data on Zeitgeist related pages. Many talk about how there are "fluff" forces from the Zeitgeist Club. This is what he started as a theme if you look at his history. Anyone who is not negative must be a "pro zeitgeist cult member" in his own words. He started in 2012 and since then has been a single purpose editor focused entirely on making sure nothing balanced is ever put on Z pages. I am amazed at how biased and intolerant Earl King Jr is and how obsessive his interest to flame and pollute has been. He should be removed from ever editing anything Zeitgeist related if there is any expectation to see neutrality.JWilson0923 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Obviously Earl King has no intention of being neutral about anything Zeitgeist Film or Movement related. He/she is exactly what makes people not trust Wikipedia Sanjit45 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The ArbCom filing finally convinced me to look at this thread and into his edits. An edit-warring, disruptive SPA bent solely on non-neutrally and unilaterally wiping out content from Wikipedia? Has my vote for a complete topic ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If Earl can benefit the encyclopedia, it isn't on this or related topics. He is far too biased and disruptive to be of any use here. OnlyInYourMindT 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer. BMK (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose...topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft. I've mentioned before that this "movement" doesn't even exist...almost zero references indicate that it does. The documentary producer is also not notable...that is why these articles were all rolled into one. The movies are notable but not remarkably. There must be a better solution than a topic ban. Why not simply put the article on 1RR and monitor the talk page for policy violations. Earl King surely knows what his boundaries are by now.--MONGO 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
MONGO: The first problem with your argument is that it assumes the "movement" or the "director" are relevant to the discussion. This is about EKJ's conduct. But, since you are playing games (and are likely a sock-puppet of EKJ) - the "movement", as per any simple search via Google shows endless notability and secondary press, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Marker, the Guardian, the Examiner, Hollywood Today, Russian Today, Ora.tv and beyond. As far as the "director", he not only made globally known, award winning films, (all of which meet Wikipedia standards and have been translated in a dozen languages and beyond), he is professional music video director with credits like Black Sabbath and Lili Haydn. He has also deviated and given talks at the Global Summit, Leaders Causing Leaders, Occupy Wall St. and two TED talks. He also had a recent Huffington Post profile article for his new film InterReflections. Also, all of these articles have been with Wikipedia for 4-6 years. It has only been people like Earl King Jr. that, in the deep minority, have forced their will to create these false claims of a lack of notability. So please...JWilson0923 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft" -- that's a completely invalid (and inaccurate) argument, and sounds manipulative as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me show you manipulative...that's when you remove cited information that is in quotes and is accurate and claim its some BLP violation...as you did [here. Why would you do that? Because you didn't like the information? How is it a BLP violation? Like I said, if Earl is eliminated it allows fancruft to take over.--MONGO 09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MONGO. EKJ doesn't seem to be the worst offender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't believe SPA is a good reason to ban someone, I imagine many experts wish to edit few articles. That said, EKJ has shown extreme bias, over an extended period, on this article and has lost the ability to be trusted.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I think you have to go back more than two weeks to get the full picture. He's been under the eye of the last report for the last 4 weeks. Dennis Brown - 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown I have only skimmed past discussions and so will not comment, beyond saying that if the purpose of a ban is not to punish, but to effect change, even less is it as an excuse to punish for 'stale' crimes. Could we have the diffs to make our own assesments? My own judgement over the last few weeks is that the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The diffs are in the discussion, the archives and the previous ANI that was linked. And the purpose of a topic ban, like a block, isn't to effect change. It is to prevent disruption. Unlike a block, a topic ban lets them contribute elsewhere, and in time, show they can eventually edit in that area again. Dennis Brown - 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, clarification, I didn't mean to affect change to the individual, rather to the 'climate' on the article, so in that sense we agree.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense, it just wasn't in the typical "wikispeak" I'm used to. That said, I know very little about the editor except he is a regular source of controversy. Either the community will support or oppose, but hopefully we will be done bickering either way. Sometimes you have to just put it on the line. Dennis Brown - 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm an IP, so I don't expect my opinion matters much, but in the short time I've been active I've noticed lots of sloppy edits in the article, that, if not originate from EKJ, are/were defended doggedly by him. Like including cherry picked from unrelated sources, blanking synopsis and recommending negative film review take it's place, weird edits that push POV OR that article should stress over the top that films/organization/name are owned by the director 1, 2, edit warring on capitalizing proper noun, and inserting flamebait which probably makes article the source of so much vandalism. That said, I think his greatest contributions have been keeping out FRINGE Zeitgeist supporting primary source content. I don't know if that excuses the sloppy anti-Zeitgeist POV pushing that ends up creating just as much work to wade through and clean up though. I'm pretty sure any of the neutral editors that hang around article would be capable of improving quality of article without fueling as much drama. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You are an IP, you have as much right to !vote above as anyone else, so feel free to. Dennis Brown - 17:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned in the opening statement regarding the Zeitgeist articles and Earl's desire to see them merged together (as such I feel this is a valid exemption as outlined in my conduct noticeboard ban). To respond to what Black Kite is saying, a big part of the reason the article on The Zeitgeist Movement was mostly about the movies is because of Earl's editing. See these two discussions I previously had over his edits to minimize material about the movement in favor of material about the movies in the article on the movement. When these articles were merged it was actually because an RfC I initiated over whether the reception section should be about the movement or the movies got hijacked into a merge discussion. My involvement in this has included past discussions of Earl's behavior in this topic area. You can see some evidence I presented in that thread from a few months ago regarding his edits, a link to a past discussion about his conduct where I was involved, and evidence of him engaging in copy-right infringing edits on multiple articles related to Cambodia, which still remains a problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump cites King's copyright violations in an earlier ANI: [239][240][241][242] on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs) 18:47, 2 July 2015
It was The Devil's Advocate who earlier raise this, not me. I've not been involved with the articles in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to point out that quite a number of the diffs being offered date back to Dec. 2014, or are not on 'Zeitgeist' pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the diffs in the original list dates from Dec. 2014. The rest are this year. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
All of the diffs offered immediately above date from Dec. 2014, and/or not from 'Zeitgeist' pages. I apologise for not making clear WHICH diffs.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the diffs presented in that previous discussion were all from 2014, but a month later Earl did it again in this edit and in this comment to him I noted several instances in the past month where he has again copied from sources. Mind you, this is just the most recent stuff. I can find several more instances of this happening pretty much since he started editing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
IF the old diffs support a long-term and ONGOING pattern of behaviour, they are of course valid. If they don't then this ANI is simply 'settling old scores', a number of supporters of ban above are quite happy to admit that they are 'fed-up' because of past behaviour and aren't too concerned about recent history, An honest position, if not one in WP's finest tradition.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
There is another questionable use of diffs above. In his Support, Sfarney/Grammar cites this as instance of EKJ 'making up' a rule that 'WP does not mention paid events', HOWEVER the text EKJ removed 'Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival' is not supported by EITHER of the sources cited. One source (in 2010), speaks of it holding its 'second annual event' the second quotes the first. EKJ was right to remove or amend the text, even if his edit reason is a bit silly.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is the discussion on King's excision and why I recall it.[243] Notice that though the discussion continued for more than 36 hours, King did not participate. We had only his cut-and-run explanation. King may have been correct to "remove or amend" the text, but only on the "amend" alternative, and that was not his choice. King cites a non-existent rule, his edit reason was erroneous, and the edit was wrong. We don't remove a finger because it has a wart, and we don't remove a long-standing statement from an article because part of it is not correctly sourced. If another editor restores the information so that it is correct, he invites edit warring. A newby might make King's mistake, but an experienced editor should work with others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody in those 36hrs appeared to pick up on the fact that the last RS info about 'Annual events' (and to the best of my knowledge, the last RS info about Zday), is dated circa 2010/11. Shouldn't somebody have actually checked the source before even thinking of restoring it … or making an issue out of it?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
King's edit comment was a misdirector. He wrote he was cutting the material because Wikipedia cannot mention paid events. That did not suggest wrong dates or any other reason. And so far we do not know that he had any other reason or that he was looking at the problems you are now indicating. Let's at least credit him with stating his own reason correctly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I was citing King's plagiary your post: No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright. [244][245][246][247] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- True, Devil's Advocate provided a longer list of King's Plagiary: See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, these two edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- Copyright violations are an absolutely basic issue about which no editor could be naive, and this is a serial offense. On further reflection of King's overall performance as a WP editor, I seriously question that King is an asset to Wikipedia, and I must vote for general ban. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe procedure is that you propose a general ban in its own section, in order to keep discussion readable.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, it may be true that EKJ's editing has contributed historically to unreasonably negative content about the films and 'movement'. However the main reason response to the films is negative is because there are almost NO positive reviews. The main reason description of the movement is 'patchy' (at best) is because there are almost no RS articles to say what this 'movement' is. After 2-3 weeks involvement, I am still no clearer in my mind whether the 'movement' actually exists in any more tangible sense than 'the hippy movement' or 'the punk movement' existed. The sources just aren't out there.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason for a topic ban is, that over what appears years of, uncivil behaviour, ownership and game playing/incompetence. He exacerbates discussions by bringing up irrelevant or illogical points making it impossible to discuss points properly. A recent example is premature phony closing of RfC diff.
He is not the sole defender of the article against the 'waves' of pro Zeitgeist editors - as the varied response to the recent RfCs show. He could be good for this if his behaviour did change, and it has improved - but not convinced this isn't part of the game. That is why I recommend a short ban.
The Zeitgeist movement is not a movement - as in a social or cultural movement. It is a political advocacy group. It certainly exists, even if not notable. Not sure I follow your argument on 'the hippy movement' and 'the punk movement', see Counterculture of the 1960s and Punk subculture. Anyway, arguments about the movement are off topic. Earl King Jr isn't the only sceptical editor, and isn't the only one working to remove bias from the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Jonpatterns. Without going too much off-topic, the 'movement' doesn't appear to be an advocacy group in the general sense (Registered members, structure etc … which also implies opening itself to outside scrutiny). I'm old enough to have used the term 'the hippy movement' approvingly, my meaning today was an amorphous set of loosely shared values, with little definable structure, strategy or purpose. My reason for making the analogy was to say that RSs don't really tell us WHAT it is that makes it more than that, I am unclear therefore whether it actually IS, though I would not oject to its claims being described in 'its' voice.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: If Earl's problems are in the past (per Dennis Brown "You have to go back more than two weeks" and diffs that go back to 2014) then what is the benefit of imposing a sanction? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
See my reply to Pincrete above.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Grammar'sLittleHelper, it is not appropriate to selectively contact individual editors to invite them to contribute here, even when the message left is neutral, especially since several have long since 'disengaged' from the article. This is called WP:Canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I completely agree, but your implication that I have "selectively" notified others is incorrect. Those who are on the current talk page (like you) that I knew were watching the page, I did not bother to notify personally: I put a notice on the recent BLP section[248] (non-selective). I have just put a notice on the topic:talk page now.[249] I notified King personally and everyone who had been involved to any extent in recent months (non-selective). If you know of others that I missed, by all means invite them (non-selective). The history of controversy with King is huge and involves many people who have many facts and much evidence to bring to the table. I could not cover it all myself. King has so far said little in his own defense. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, many of those you contacted privately ARE regular editors, who would have seen a neutral talkpage notice, whilst Arthur Rubin and myself were not contacted (who just happen to be the only refular editors to oppose). As soon as you contact individuals, it's called canvassing and DON"T DO IT.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps I had already put a notice on the talk page AS SOON as I (accidentally) became aware of this noticeboard. Your defence compounds the impression of canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, and your characterization does you no credit. Here is the complete list of those I contacted directly, and even the total is not "many."
  • 18:24, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Bobrayner ‎
  • 18:18, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎
  • 18:02, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:AndyTheGrump ‎
  • 17:50, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:NeilN ‎
  • 17:48, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+538)‎ . . User talk:Betty Logan ‎
  • 17:46, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Willondon ‎
  • 17:45, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+546)‎ . . User talk:Jonpatterns ‎ (→‎sibel edmonds)
  • 17:44, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+548)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎Earl King Jr.: new section)
  • 17:36, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . User talk:OnlyInYourMind ‎ (current)
As can be seen by that list, none of those above except AndyTheGrump had posted to talk:Zeitgeist pages in the last couple of weeks, and might never have received notifications of this discussion. And AndyTheGrump was inconsistent in his contributions to these talk pages and might never return -- his range of topics is wide. There are two issues here: (1) The people who have been offended by King far outnumber the people who support him -- even if I had notified every single person who encountered King in the last 6 months, the numbers could be portrayed as "canvassing" because of the overwhelming imbalance. (2) Your logic presumes a partisan alignment on these topics, but the reality is more in line with WP:Good faith. The editors are not lined up in voting blocks. They are accomplished and experienced editors who have valuable opinions. The situation is really not as King repeatedly portrays it, that a "FLOOD OF SOCKPUPPETS" would take over the topic pages if King were not standing guard. I haven't see any sockpuppets in my two months in these topics. Incidentally, if you know of any other topic pages associated with Zeitgeist, please add notices of this discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you're doing fine spamming talkpages on your own...even article talkpages in fact...why are you posting notices about this discussion on the article talkpages for 9/11 conspiracy theories and elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of spamming.--MONGO 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, piece of friendly advice, contacting ONE editor is canvassing. (The fact that all the current editors contacted just happen to have made it abundantly clear that they have issues with EKJ, the fact that all the RFC editors just happen to have voted one way on a 'split', and that nobody was contacted who didn't fit into those categories, is I'm sure an unfortunate coincidence that only a devious mind like mine would even notice). Your actions will probably have no appreciable effect on outcome but you were caught doing something inappropriate FULL STOP.
You compound it however by continuing [250], the advise you gave was wrong, JWilson0923 should strike through the remarks, if he wishes, not 'doctor them' as you advise him, otherwise my and Mongo's comments are left in limbo.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions[edit]

I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ref: Wikipedia:General sanctions (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

  • Support. Seems reasonable enough at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question what does 'community general sanctions' involve, link to documentation? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to Wikipedia:General sanctions documentation. It seems 'general sanctions' can mean a number of different measures that effect all editors of an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm surprised something like this wasn't enacted back when the article & its prior incarnation were seeing wilder activity. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in lieu of the proposed topic ban(s). I'm tired of seeing these pages over and over at RFPP. KrakatoaKatie 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As with many essentially religious topics, this is a battleground of belief against ugly fact. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the project requires that we start the process of separating warring parties from each other and the locus of dispute. Note that the Zeitgeist movies and movement are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is too vague as to be meaningful, thus is not able to be closed or enforced. GS, or community sanctions proposals have to be painstakingly precise and narrowly defined. Dennis Brown - 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, if this means real action, but I have been disappointed by recent arbitrations -- all came to nothing, without yes, no, or even a maybe. Just silence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, [user:Dennis Brown]'s argument, as short as it is, convinced me to change my vote. I believe all editors, with the exception of Earl King Jr., have worked toward collaboration and cooperation. If I am wrong, there will be time enough to impose stricter measures. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose BMK (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support No value in singling out one editor when others add fuel to problems and neutral presentation is the actual burning presentation, in my view. Let the article go under an extreme microscope and lets get people accountable for future references, ongoing. This is an example of one of my recent edits [251] It seems pretty tame and if anything a little positive toward the subject, but no it is just sourced from a decent content source Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions II[edit]

To address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft:

All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, are subject to community-imposed Wikipedia: General Sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics. A copy of this sanction shall be posted to the header of all article talk pages that it applies to.

Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Properly drafted, but I oppose because the topic ban above is the better way to deal with it. There isn't a showing of MANY people causing problems, and that is what you need to justify general sanctions. If you just get the topic ban, the problems as presented are over. That fits the admin goal of using the least amount of force to get the job done, and it's a lot less ongoing paperwork and drama. If it is an ongoing problem with many users, then mixing it in with a report on an individual is muddying the waters, and it should have been done as a separate proposal at WP:AN. The thread (plus arb) is already too much to read. Dennis Brown - 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe what you're trying to propose is a community discretionary sanctions regime. "General sanctions" refers to various different things, including page revert restrictions, article probation, and discretionary sanctions. See WP:General sanctions for more information. If you want community discretionary sanctions, I suggest you use the likes of WP:GS/GG or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL as templates. RGloucester 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested[edit]

I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29. It is possible that if general sanctions are enacted here, the arbitrators may decide not to accept the case, but to let community sanctions run. I would prefer a full evidentiary hearing to determine whose conduct has been problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That'll be rejected as we have not yet exhausted other options (e.g. community sanctions). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe tangential, but isn't User:The Devil's Advocate, who commented above, banned from noticeboards by an arb remedy? Tom Harrison Talk 11:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom Harrison, This is an excellent question. Under WP:ARBGG, The Devil's Advocate is indeed indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard; this is however, with a caveat, "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started". Given that the editor's first sentence of their submission here is "I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned ...", this caveat appears to be in effect; and the edits, therefore, in order.
Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the history of engagement that got him banned from noticeboards, he's been "directly involved in many of the discussions" of just about any topic, and with just about every contributor. If that were what arbcom intended by banning him from noticeboards, it wouldn't have been much of a ban. Surely they didn't craft the remedy so he could continue the behavior that lead to it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom Harrison, Unfortunately, we're not able to be sure of what ArbCom intended to do, only of what they did do.
What they did do, per WP:ARBGG, is prevent the editor from involving themselves in discussions on matters with which they had not been involved prior to the matter being raised on noticeboards. This is a significant limitation on the editor's involvement in disputes and discussions across the project.
In this instance, the editor asserts that they were involved prior to the matter being raised, and, therefore, the exemption in the caveat to the prohibition applies.
Should editors believe that the prohibition as imposed by WP:ARBGG is not the intended sanction, the appropriate venue to raise the question would be WP:ARCA.
Should editors believe that this editor was not, in fact, involved prior to this matter being raised on this noticeboard, the appropriate venue would be the editor's Talk page, and then WP:AE.
While I appreciate the concerns raised, and understand some of the history, we must accept ArbCom's decision as it is, and work within it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd AfD[edit]

Can a few admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd? There seem to be an awful lot of strong opinions on the debate, which in itself is not necessarily an issue, but the proliferation of redlinked users and IPs leads me to wonder if there's a sock farm at work here. (I haven't pinged anyone aside from the two obvious main protagonists, Stuart lyster (talk · contribs) and 142.59.217.7 (talk · contribs) because I'm not complaining about any specific editor, rather just the general progression of the debate, but please advise if I should). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've tagged it with {{notavote}} although that is of questionable value. Socking is a real possibility, but hard to tell without CU with so few edits. Dennis Brown - 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I have seen AFDs get semi-protected, but not under this situation. Has to be pretty extreme. Like serious vandalism, or when 4chan comes to town, trolling. Dennis Brown - 13:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it could be meatpuppetry. The IPs look to be from Vancouver Telus and Verizon in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Unless he's crossing over the US/Canada border with the international data plan to beat all data plans, it's probably not the same guy. But the closing admin can take all that into account. KrakatoaKatie 14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, these are static broadband IPs. You'd need CU to see which one could be the Stuart Iyster account. That last SPA !vote looks suspicious too. KrakatoaKatie 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly get the impression that people were off-wiki canvassed there, I just don't know where from. The personal attacks don't help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Having spent a little time sussing things out, it looks like this is a messy canvas involving mostly Canadian single-purpose editors, most for keep, a couple against. There is probably a discussion about this debate somewhere on the internets. Aside from the non-standard "Do Not Delete" language, it seems at a glance that most of these are different accounts opining about a widely-read religious columnist in a large Canadian newspaper. I'd advise Ritchie333 to step back and let nature take its course, as I don't see sources that will get this article over the GNG bar. I do question the need to delete such an article, but then again I do have a soft spot for journalist biographies, which are notoriously hard to source out. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Messy redirect/BLP issue[edit]

RESOLVED:

Article (later, redirect) in question deleted under WP:R3 by NeilN. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

This version of Daniel iwuji was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. However, there is an indication from the web that this is basically an attack page on a real person (a non-notable secondary school student), no doubt created by a "friend". A new editor, trying to be helpful, removed the speedy deletion and actually redirected it to Michael Essien [252] (the entirely spurious redirect added by the article's creator). Given the content in the history and BLP implications, this page should be completely deleted. Does it really have to go to RFD or can an administrator simply delete it now? Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It was the "friend" who added the redirect. Deleted as a WP:R3. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, NeilN. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Handpolk[edit]

Hi,

I want to report User:Handpolk. He keeps harassing me, reverting all of my recent edits, calling all my edits vandalism/spam/etc. He also stalks my every move on Wikipedia, makes personal attacks on my talk page and other talk pages where I try to discuss with other people.

I tried to dicuss disputes with this person, but I couldn't as he keeps writing the same thing all over again and you can't make a proper dicussion with him on anything. He also keeps deleting my every message from his talk page and spams my talk page.

Here are a few examples from BC Pieno žvaigždės article:

Here are a few examples from San Antonio Spurs article:

Here is the example from Marlon Hairston article:

There are more examples of his similar behaviour related to me, but 3 examples should be enough for now. I call this stalking, harassment, vandalism. This user is doing all that on purpose and is trying to engage me in an edit war which I won't take. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a break down of these users' interactions: Interaction checker. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you really want to be accusing Handpolk of needlessly calling your edits vandalism? Anyway, near as I can tell, these two are disagreeing over a pair of NBA-related disputes. First, How to describe the current champions in their article, and second, mentioning certain players who have been elected to the NBA Hall of Fame but not yet inducted on team articles. And if this thread is any indication, neither is the other's actions in good faith. However, there does appear to be merit to Sabbatino's arguments. I came somewhat involved in this when noting Sabbatino's removal of an uncited piece of trivia on a hockey article with the summary of "No source + not relevant". Handpolk reverted that 23 minutes later, then immediately reverted another one of Sabbatino's edits with the same "No source + not relevant" summary, despite the fact that the only thing Sabbatino did was convert a plain date into a template format in an infobox. IMO, that was a bad faith revert by Handpolk designed to anger Sabbatino. And I don't get the impression the latter needs much help in that regard. Both are acting in bad faith, but Handpolk does seem to be stalking here. Resolute 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've watched this for a bit, and I agree that both editors are not behaving well. Neither Handpolk, nor Sabbatino have engaged in any article talk page discussion regarding their edits. Handpolk has followed to Sabbatino to other articles, however they all appear to be sports related. He has not changed any edit that Sabbatino has done to non-sports related articles. Also note that Sabbatino has filed at WP: AIV against Handpolk, and a long term harrassment complaint against Handpolk. Neither editor has acted very well, and both editors should be reminded to use the talk page to resolve their dispute instead of constant reverts, and accusations of vandalism. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't disagree with anything. He just started editing everything I edit. That's all. He also started harassing me when he became a stalker. Then he called me a troll and said I personally attacked him. And he didn't even asked to go to talk page as he just started his "fun". Normal users always ask me why I did this or why I did that, but not this person as he just started all those wars for no reason (maybe to make me angry, but I was/am/will be calm, because some people just don't know what discussion means). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you had the ability to remained calm previously and engaged in normal, collaborative discussion -- we would not be here right now. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oi, discuss the edits not the editor. Your comment here does nothing but convince admins that maybe there is something to Sabbatino's concerns. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty difficult not to discuss the editor in ANI but ok, I have modified my prior comment slightly. On talk pages etc, I agree 100%. Many of the comments Sabbatino has made focus on me rather than content, which is a very large part of the problem here. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I warned Sabbatino three times about WP:BOOMERANG but he ignored me...

Overall the pattern is clear. This editor is disruptive, makes frequent personal attacks, often engages in edit wars, is very difficult to work and collaborate with and relies frequently on original research to arrive at dubious claims of relevance, rather than deferring to RS's. Since he seems to put in a lot of work on sports related articles, it would be a shame to see him indef blocked or topic banned -- however I think a temporary block based on his recent conduct would be in order -- or at the very least an admonishment to remain civil and focus on content and not people. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, what was the deal with this diff? You seem to revert Sabbatino with the edit summary "No source + not relevant", but all you did was remove a template and re-insert the same information. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The first one I saw was removing the first Chinese player drafted into the NHL from the Islanders as 'not relevant' -- which was almost as absurd as when he argued it isn't relevant the Warriors are NBA Champions. It was hard to assume good faith after seeing that and I appear to have made some bad assessments as a result -- that being one of them. Thankfully we have other editors watching these articles who've stepped in to decide which of my reverts were correct and which were not. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Stop imagining facts. I didn't say that it's not relevant that GSW won NBA title. I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it (4, 5, etc.). And I can discuss, but YOU make personal attacks and then say that I started that. So stop reverting my reverts without no reason and before doing such thing – make sure that you're not reverting a reverted vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it" that was the final iteration of your argument. The first was to remove the entire sentence with the edit summary 'vandalism'. When I reverted you, you started an edit war and made your first talk page comment to me about it: "I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit." diff. (I'd be curious to know what research you did that informed you the Warriors winning the NBA Finals was 'garbage' and 'irrelevant.') Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' After we got a 3rd opinion, you decided the problem was the number of games. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Too bad there was no control over that sentence during NBA Finals as it appeared there before game 6 and kept changing from Cleveland Cavaliers are currently beating GSW in 2015 NBA Finals. to GSW are currently beating... and all that was happening before and during game 6! Of course I wasn't watching game 6, but it's obvious from the logs that during the game there was constant vandalism happening. 2. That sentence was in the middle of the paragraph when it shouldn't been there. 3. I didn't say it's irrelevant that GSW won NBA title. 4. However, it has no relevance in how many games they won or who they defeated. 5. Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' – Sorry, but I changed the wording after 3rd opinion was given and you still reverted my edit and started your edit war and you didn't even try to find how that paragraph would appease both of us. You just went your way. When I saw that you didn't listen, I just left that thing alone so you can have it your way... 6. I'm always willing to find a solution to one thing or another, but when a person doesn't try to listen to what I'm trying to say then I just turn around and leave it be. Yes, I could have wrote that edited part in talk page so that we can discuss and correct it, but I didn't as you just kept writing your stuff. 7. I'm done with with hopeless discussion over nothing. But if you start to stalk my every move and harass me like yesterday, I will again report you. Next time go to talk page and try to be civil and LISTEN, and don't bring old stuff for reason, because you are the one who's hot headed, not me and that edit war yesterday was you idea not mine. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you attempting to respond in a civil manner, with only a few personal attacks and threats. Sadly, you continue to make personal attacks in other venues.Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack. That no pun intended is there for a reason. If it wasn't there then I would consider it as personal attack. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So you can just say anything and then add (no pun intended) and it's not a personal attack? Well I guess you have an ID if you feel that way (no pun intended). Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE NOTE He has started to stalk and revert my edits again. He reverted my edit which removed content which was deleted from Wikipedia. Here:

Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted. My mistake, I did not realize the article had been deleted in the last few hours. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Handpolk is a sockpuppet of nine-time and now permanently banned User:DegenFarang. He should again be banned and his IP blocked. 2005 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations like that are not allowed. Provide proof of that in the proper venue or retract this attack immediately. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've filed a report. You couldn't be more obvious. You can't even edit for a month under a new account without bursting into flames. And don't revert my messages on other user's talk pages or AFD pages. You may want to use the time making yet another identity. 2005 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for a year and I have no idea what you are talking about. Cease making these baseless allegations immediately...SPI is the venue that allows that. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Need1521 is on all cases of life (in some meaning)[edit]

Sorted. Sam Walton (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I ask you stop Valenciano who acts against users, which have no any blame (91.190.115.250). Valenciano says that this user is Need1521. He violates reputation of people. Thank you! - KNIGHT5252 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

I find it rather ironic that the filer's only contributions are here to report Valenciano and Valenciano's talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Quack quack.
For the record, this refers to this open sockpuppetry case, though the sockpuppetry seems to go back to at least October 2011 with the very strong likelihood that this user is banned per this previous ANI thread. This will hopefully soon be dealt with at SPI. Valenciano (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing the OP's first language isn't English, but...wow, a duck, a sock and a boomerang all in one? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Gross incivility in edit summaries[edit]

USER WARNED:

Bethayres warned for personal attacks. No action required beyond that.  Philg88 talk 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Survivor (Railroad Car) on June 20. I'd previously proposed the article for deletion, though the tag was later removed. Although fairly inclusionist on railroad topics I didn't seen an obvious case for one of many private cars. The AfD was relisted on June 28. Bethayres (talk · contribs) began participating on July 1 and things went downhill immediately. The first edit implied (in the edit summary) that I was off my medication and unserious. After I affirmed that I was in fact serious and followed up on the question of notability, I received even more abuse. I had dropped what I thought was a friendly note on Bethayres' talk page, wondering what was up and suggesting moderation. The response called me "deranged" or "mentally ill".

I want to be clear that I have never, to my knowledge, interacted with this user before July 1 and to my knowledge I've done nothing to provoke or justify these responses (if such are ever justifiable). I've tried discussing with the user on the user's talk page and have left another note but I would appreciate someone uninvolved looking at the situation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Urgent whitelist request[edit]

Unblocked and reblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I'm about to run a 2.5 hour training session at the University of Swansea. The IP address, 137.44.1.153 is blacklisted, at least for account creation. Please can someone whitelist it for the duration of the session? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Yes check.svg Done, unblocked. Please drop me a note when I can reinstate it or if you're having any issues. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor on Pinniped[edit]

Sorted. Attacks on today's Featured Article prevented by Guy. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Could an admin please look at the behaviour of a disruptive editor at the Pinniped article. they have broken 3RR there. The user also has a name which might be considered offensive.DrChrissy (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, username hidden in edit history. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose[edit]

Something is not right, administrators must investigate. Once it was alleged Congress supporters edited Subhas Chandra Bose.--Silver Samurai 13:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A look at the page history at Nehru shows sysops at work, no need to worry. What is the issue with Bose? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Something similar. Don't have any confirmation from reliable source. Don't know much details.--Silver Samurai 14:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Fklatt adding promotional material[edit]

User:Fklatt is persistent in adding promotional material, going back t0 2006.[253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262] User has not responded on his talk page.

Related: https://www.google.com/?q=%22Frederick+William+Klatt%22+%22Best+Electric+Machine%22

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) In case anyone misses the editor's post to the Help desk, in which he admits "I do not have the experience (or even know how) to express my views to the reviewers". To WP:AGF he might just not know that Talk pages are a thing? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
He seemed to understand them in 2006[263][264] and again in 2014.[265][266][267][268] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talkcontribs) 16:22, July 3, 2015‎ (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and those of us who work on the engineering articles shouldn't have to spend any more time cleaning up after Fklatt's ongoing advertising campaign. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Jørgen88 from Adam Kotsko[edit]

Jørgen88 has demonstrated that he cannot edit the page Adam Kotsko - a BLP - from a neutral point of view. He began editing there with this addition [284] headed "Racist remarks" which took Kotsko's remarks out of context, sourced from a right-leaning blog, and also identified Kotsko as Jewish (another mistake copied from the source; Kotsko was in fact raised as an evangelical Christian and is now a Catholic). Despite consensus going against him, Jørgen88 proceeded to edit war to add the content (see User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )). To evade sanctions, there is a very strong possibility that Jørgen88 edit warred at the page while logged out using 176.11.33.252. An SPI is open. That another Norwegian editor happened upon the page and began making identical reverts to continue the edit war is, of course, a possibility - but a very slim one. On the article's talk page, Jørgen88 has continued to demonstrate his true colours ("But I guess since he's a liberal, leftist Jew this incident can just be swept under the rug as if it never happened") and suggested that those opposed to his favoured content are students of Kotsko [285] and engaged in some conspiracy to whitewash the article [286]. Today he continued to violate BLP, calling Kotsko "racist scum" whose reputation is "very dirty ndeed" [sic]. This is entirely the wrong attitude to approach any BLP with and so I propose that Jørgen88 be banned from editing at Adam Kotsko and Talk:Adam Kotsko. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Jørgen88 seems to want to use the article as a soapbox, dismissing other editors' points about BLP and sources. [287], [288] Articles aren't written to criticize subjects. [289] --NeilN talk to me 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think censoring people from adding sourced content makes any sense. Not adding criticism where it is due, is biased in itself. Mr Kotsko made very racist tweets such as one where he suggested all white people should commit mass suicide. If that doesn't warrant criticism, then nothing will. I don't really care if you ban me from this article or Wikipedia all together, it will only strengthen my view of how biased Wikipedia is, and how a few cliques of users and admins block editing when they don't agree with it, often because of political or religious reasons. That's not how Wikipedia should work, but it looks like that's the way it is heading. The user above, Keri, has been very little diplomatic and obstructive in his/her way of dealing with my edits and my suggestion on the talk page, even deleting my inputs. I don't know why these users are so intent to keep the article clean from criticism, but either agenda, it doesn't matter what sources I bring regarding the racist and radical tweets, as the above user/s seem to insist to keep it away.Jørgen88 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling Kotsko racist for his comments about white privilege, incorrectly calling him a "left-leaning liberal Jew" and calling him "racist scum" demonstrate (i) your bias (ii) your ignorance about the subject of the BLP (iii) the ignorance of your sources about Kotsko and (iv) your unsuitability to be editing a BLP. As for deleting your inputs, I reverted one of your edits per WP:BLPTALK. Keri (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
lol! What? A comment that a whole people should commit mass suicide is "a comment about white privilege"?! You can't be serious. This guy and me and others all edited the article with sources and yet you persist make drama out of something as simple as a criticism section. And you even try to get us blocked from editing. That's very desperate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 3 July 2015‎
"This guy and me and others..." Specifically, just you and Jørgen88. Both from Norway. And you made your first and only edits (prior to the one above) to support Jørgen88's edit warring... Keri (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm from Norway and so are five million other people. Unless you've got direct IP proof connecting me to any user (which there aren't) your accusations are groundless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015
  • All BLPs are covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I just gave him official notice, so any action after now that warrants action can be done unilaterally by an uninvolved admin. Dennis Brown - 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for all BLPs - I don't think this particularly BLP is the issue so much as the behavior. Jørgen88's interest in Adam Kotsko is simply because he popped up on right-wing blogs for his facetious Twitter comments. Jørgen88 continually re-inserted false information into the BLP while arguing it is "well-sourced" and "sourced and verified content" (false) and then used an IP to re-insert the information to get his way. Then he went on rants about being censored on the talk page and the SPI. There has been no indication he understands the requirements of WP:BLP and not inserting WP:UNDUE information. He feels any blog that writes anything about anyone is a reliable source. Since his main contributions lie elsewhere [290], a topic ban would not prevent him from contributing to WP in other areas. МандичкаYO 😜 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Washington Post or the Daily Caller which was posted as sources on the talk page blogs. Also its not false information. Kotsko posted racist comments about how all white people should kill themselves and there's direct proof of his statements even though he tried to delete them after knowing he said something stupid. There are sources that can add this to Kotskos Wikipedia page. It looks like some users here have a political agenda and wants to keep the truth from being posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015‎ 176.11.33.252
We're not here to talk about the content: that has been done at the article talk page. This is about behaviour at a BLP. And obvious sock is obvious. Keri (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Only thing obvious here is your disruptive attitude towards other editors and lack of social norms. Learn some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither the Washington Post nor the Daily Caller (both of which are right-wing anyway) were used as sources, were they? Do you understand what things taken out of context are? Because Peter Schiff said the "mentally retarded" might be perfectly happy to work for $2 an hour because "you're worth what you're worth." It's a fact he said that and that he made certain gold predictions and then bawwwed to his followers[291] that they should go "fix" his WP article to make it more flattering, which you did,[292] though you complain the article labels him unfairly.[293] Funny how the same standards don't apply to everyone - you want to include a joking tweet in Adam Kotsko's bio like he really meant it, but not include his very through explanation of why it was taken out of context and the idea is absurd. Yes, obvious sock is obvious. МандичкаYO 😜 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
How do you figure the Post to be "right wing"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I figure he meant to say right leaning; and the Post leans perceptibly to the right. Before the ip can derail the conversation back to content, can we now address how Jorgen88 figures Kotsko is a racist, racist scum, and a left-wing liberal Jew? Keri (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. That's why they endorsed Obama in both 2008 and 2012. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@mandia I don't even know who this Schiff guy is. And yeah "all white people should kill themselves" and "Charlie Hedbo is hate speech" sure sound like really funny jokes to me. Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Kraków[edit]

Content dispute. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. KrakatoaKatie 23:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I have corrected some links were Kraków has been spelled Krakow, but I have been reverted by User:Jetstreamer, because of WP:NOTBROKEN, where it reads "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page." However, there also reads "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect.", which I have mentioned to Jetstreamer. Another user has expressed similar thoughts as I on my user talk, where this discussion can be found. I would like to ask some admin about this, since I really don't see the reason for writing Kraków as Krakow, when the page of Kraków uses diacritics. K9re11 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

K9re11, the issue here is that in "standard English", "Kraków" is generally just spelled "Krakow" – so any instances of "Krakow" are not technically "wrong". --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not a matter for ANI.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Per WP:EN, "Krakow" should be more correct. The talk page for the article discussed it several times. It appears the only reason it was not changed is the people who wanted to actually follow our rules on using English were split between Krakow and Cracow, so by default it stayed where it was already. Since the whole thing is under dispute it would be premature for you to go around changing it on the rest of the encyclopedia when arguably it's the article that probably has it wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Content dispute, please close. Nom is either ignorant or disingenuous in portraying this as a "spelling error". In English, it is commonly spelled without the diacritical--in fact, an argument could be made that the article in _English_ WP ought to be renamed to better reflect the common spelling, in English. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Revenge nomination[edit]

I tagged some articles that User:CrazyAces489 recreated for CSD and have !voted to deleted several others of his articles. Out of the blue, he decided to nominate an article I wrote last month, Amin Khoury, for deletion. I don't find it coincidental. The nom reasoning isn't even valid and has all the appearance of being just a WP:POINTy nomination. This isn't an AGF issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. You are the only one who even wrote on the article. I thought it was a vanity page and notability is not inherited. I didn't think the article seemed anything more than a vanity page. Now you saying that I came from the crap factory [294] or I am "butt hurt" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. [295] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wrote it. It's not even a month old, so no, others haven't yet. Your "notability is not inherited" reasoning is nonsense, since that's not asserted. Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory. I shouldn't have and have struck those comments. That has nothing to do with this issue, but does tend to reinforce my position that you nominated this article out of spite. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That is a very long record of deleted articles, including a high proportion of biographies. It seems as if we ought to be introducing a restriction on creating articles other than by WP:AFC for a while, at least until CrazyAces learns to write a properly sourced first draft. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Bishonen had suggested more care in the creation process before. [296] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting User:Tokyogirl79 also told CA to take more care in process, even to go through the drafting process and have it reviewed before creating any article. This is a pattern and someone needs to break it because CA clearly can't do it themselves. Along with several other issues CA chooses to not fix...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how you would think that I have done a lot of articles as of late. [297] I am on my own self restriction. One of them just passed an AFD and the other is a martial artist who is a black belt magazine hall of famer. I actually nominated my last article to AFD so that others could bring forth opinions on its notability. [298] I am ok with not writing any articles outside of the ones I am trying to push out of userspace. So it is not like I wasn't trying. In terms of that article Mr Amin? It had 2 weak keeps and one keep from him. He was also the ONLY editor. I didn't see any notability under WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Note -You actually created 17 as User:NegroLeagueHistorian, just saying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course I was the only editor (I didn't need all caps to say it either). I created the article about 3 weeks ago. He is a low profile, non-controversial figure, so there's not likely to be a big rush to edit it. You act like every article must have a team working it the minute it hits live space. It's never going to be a GA unless he suddenly starts getting more coverage, but there's enough to reach GNG. I almost forgot that you were the one who nominated Crispus Attucks[299], a guy who has over a hundred books written about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Amin simply didn't appear noteworthy to me. [300] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [301] , [302] and more [303]. Niteshift seemed to have found the time to edit and gut many articles that I started. Yes I nominated Attucks because I thought based on wiki policy there was no history that was documented on him. I was incorrect! It happens! Saying I am butt hurt [304]isn't Niteshifts first negative comment he has made about me. He has insulted me many times even on AN/I [305] and other places. This isn't the first time Niteshift has had trouble with insults. [306] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • CrazyAces489, please don't make a virtue out of not creating articles recently, when you've in fact been creating articles with your other account, NegroLeagueHistorian. I hope that doesn't mean you're trying to evade scrutiny of what you did with that account, and I most certainly hope that you will stick to one account in future. (In your unblock request in April you stated "I won't create another account"[307], and yet you did.) Several admins have had a lot of patience in overlooking the fact that you were using (at least) two accounts concurrently, so please keep your nose clean it that regard. Compare User talk:Tokyogirl79. If you don't, and it comes to my attention, I will actually block you, despite the fact that I take systemic bias issues very seriously. It's because of those issues that I and others have been giving you second, third and fourth chances, but they'll run out eventually. Note: I see you've posted a {{retired}} template on your talkpage. You'll be most welcome to change your mind and return, as you've done before, but not, and I'll stress this, to simply jump to another account. Enough with the evasion of scrutiny, please.
As for your pretty obviously retaliatory AfD of Niteshift's article, you may remember I told you in April that I hoped you wouldn't have to be formally limited in your use of AfD because of your combativeness and poor track record there. But when I see this, I wonder. It may come to that. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Vandalism at Zack Hample page[edit]

RESOLVED:

Article Zack Hample semi-protected for 1 week by Guy. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple vandalism of "Zack Hample" entry by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.2.20.47... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Prisoner TX (talkcontribs) 22:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:RoverTheBendInSussex[edit]

I've protected the article for a week. The alternative was to block User:RoverTheBendInSussex for edit-warring (at least four reverts in the last 24 hours). Now, all of you get to the talk page and discuss the issues. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

This user repeatedly manipulates the UKIP page to conform to his own pro-UKIP biased views, each time I have added reliably sourced information to this page he has removed it mostly without reading though on my first edit he appeared to skim-read the source thus missing or ignoring the relevant information even when I had pointed out in the reference which part of the Guardian article it came from. The reason given for the edit reversals is that it does not conform to his own view. I also noticed on the talk page that I am not the only user to have noticed his unhelpful editing; user:Midnightblueowl, who also mentions on the talk page that the user I am reporting is an open 'kipper, found the user in question to have removed the term "radical right populist" in description of the party despite sources demarcating a clear consensus among political scientists that the term was an appropriate descriptor. The same happen to me when I attempted to add such things as "social conservatism" and "anti-immigrationism" to the ideology section with reliable sources categorically stating that this was UKIP ideology even despite party denial of the term "social conservatism", I also attempted to amend the party's political position to "right-wing to far-right" with I reliable source stating clearly that UKIP's policies were far-right.

I urge you to consider action against this user for his repeated disruptive and biased, non-objective editing and edit-warring. I have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter through opening a dialogue on the user's talk page, however he chose to ignore my message despite have come online since (reverting unjustly even more edits to the UKIP page).

In case you note that I was previously blocked after I mistakenly reported a user, I recognise that that was the result of a callous and unthinking vendetta on my part and have since apologised to the user whom I had reported that time. I hope it does not affect my reporting of this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talkcontribs) 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Without direct evidence (in other words, diffs to support your accusations), you are quite possibly looking at another block. To accuse an editor of misdeeds without evidence is a form of personal attack. This is stated without any research into the merits of the complaint, just as a procedural note. John from Idegon (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:What are diffs? I do not understand the jargon of wikipedians. Sorry. There might have an explanation of sorts on the complaint edit page but it is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, for we speak not the sacred tongue of the wikipedians. To non-wikipedians the lengthy paragraph above in which I describe the problems from the user faced by me and another user would be seen as an explanation. Do not discredit it simply because I have used real words and not obfuscated abbreviation and symbols which require ridiculous lengths if time to be spent reading soporific articles to penetrate in even a facile manner. Wikipedians, eh? Sorry, bit of a rant there. No offence intended, just got a bit annoyed due to my non-comprehension of what to wiki users is an explanation. In good faith, I thank you for taking the time to reply. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Refer to Help:Diff. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Here are the requested "diffs", hope they are what you were looking for-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669854368, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669845847, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669769045, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669852754. Now user:bondegezou and user:snowed have also come up against this bloke.
Kind regards, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh
1- One of the users attempting to edit UKIP's twitter page to list them falsely as "Far-Right" using a random 2 line comment in a tabloid newspaper (the Guardian) is a self admitted "Communist", "Pro-EU", Pro-UK joining the Euro" and pro-Welsh Independence. It is obvious from the vandalism on the page that this user has posted that they are anti-UKIP and allowing their bias to effect what they edit the page to. These actions have been takinjg place over multiple page with biased sources and can be viewed on the History page of the UKIP page. This user has also declined to properly discuss such edits, and no mutual conclusion to edit the page to include said information has been drawn. The user has however continued to repeatidly edit and remove "undo's" to his/her vandalism and continues to vandalise the page with inaccurate and poorly sourced information.
The attempts to categorise UKIP as Far-Right should be deemed vandalism and removed when edited. This by User: Snowded who has jointly persued with damage of the page.
2- User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh has also attempted to add references from the Guardian as valid proof of UKIP's standing politically, and has expressed clear bias in communication with me on my User page which can be viewed to the admins satisfaction. This user has threatened me with reporting should I attempt to edit inaccurate claims that he/she has posted, as party ideologies and also backing up the claim UKIP are Far-Right, which is factually inaccurate and a politically motivated and biased claim.
Comments such as "It's anti-immigrationist policies" - Of which UKIP have none in reality. "strong sense of nationalism" - UKIP don't believe or have ever expressed an opinion of superiority over other countries. But most startlingly obvious is "opposition to co-operation other countries (E.U. (which myself would like Britain to leave) and intervention in struggling foreign countries are both opposed staunchly by the party)." - UKIP oppose the transfer of legislation and further expansionism by the EU. That is in no way Nationalistic, but does express a pretty obvious exposed bias against UKIP seeing as they don't oppose European cooperation or assisting countries.
This user has also let other bias slip with further comments desperately trying to link UKIP to the Far Right French National Front, and Britain First also (viewable on my talk page). Both parties have been barred from partnering or having former members join UKIP as a Party. In reality they are proscribed. It is pretty obvious their is an agenda at play here. Especially when you take note of the random dropping in of the "Nazi party" in mention and referring to UKIP supporters as "Kippers". An attempt at false labeling randomly dropped into discussion that I find personally offensive.
I also further to this believe this user should be reported for making false allegations and threatening Wikipedia users on their talk pages (again can be viewed on my talk page).
When this user posts comments on talk pages such as "Edit the UKIP page in a biased way again and I shall have to report you, leading probably to a block or ban." after editing unreliable info that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, action should really be taken.
As I said to this user on his/her talk page. If I was a biased UKIP supporter, I would have edited the Wikipedia page to read that UKIP are a center-right party. Something I really believe. But the most reliable source that has been added to the page made reference that UKIP were a "Right Wing Party". This source being removed without reason. That source being a Norwegian Political book discussing politics in the Nordic Countries of Europe.
I respect this reference and left it as it is. Main consensus is that UKIP are a Right Wing party, and so editing UKIP as Far Right is wrong. As is labeling "Nationalistic" and or "anti-Immigration", which they are not.
I understand evidence needs to be given. As someone who isn't hugely technologically savvy on Wikipedia all I can do is direct admin to my talk page where I have been threatened for trying to remove false information and also suggest admin look at the edit history of the UKIP pages for the mislabeling and false information posted on said article. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:42, 5 July 2015 (GMT)
I can see you are stubborn RoverTheBendInSussex! Good on you for sticking to your views so firmly! However, UKIP support massive and in my view completely unjustified reduction of immigration, this is anti-immigrationist, for the term is not limited to those who oppose all immigration, though I think Farage would happily ban it outright. UKIP opposed gay marriage - socially conservative, prioritising British workers over foreign ones - British Nationalism. Just because you dislike those terms does not mean they shouldn't be used, possibly you are a disillusioned labour voter? In this case, terms such as socially conservative would probably not be descriptive of your personal political views but they are descriptive of Farage's (a former Tory) and thus the party he dominates. More over, many, many non-UKIP supporters (you were offended by 'kipper so I shall not use it, sorry) would agree they are far-right and some UKIP supporters have gone on to join far-right groups (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33149621), Farage and UKIP itself supported an E.U. bill to fund some of the far-right political parties (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/27/ukip-far-right) and open far-rightists have advocated them (Nick Griffin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/former-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-says-hell-vote-ukip-9893376.html) and Britain First (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-ukip-say-farright-group-britain-first-10126389.html) have both advocated voting UKIP, though Griffin could be ignored as I reckon this was just to spite the BNP after his recent sacking). Use of nazi was to show that I was not unjustly comparing UKIP to them, not all on the far-right are nazis (though I am certainly not an apologist for any far-right political views), though you seem to have construed it as meaning the opposite, in which case I am deeply sorry for the confusion. It is not a non-objective vandalism. Though I would never do it again, I have vandalised a wiki page before and let me assure you I go ridiculously over the top. Had this been a vandalism you would have at the very least found the terms Neo-nazi and fascist in the ideology section, which were not there and I would not have both to source them or revert the edits after they had been deleted, rightly in the case of actual vandalism. I used far-right not randomly and I assure you it was not political bias and that the edit was merely representative of my findings after an internet search. I assure you no vandalism was intended or offence on your part. I apologise, I didn't mean to threaten you I merely felt I ought to warn you of what I or another of the four users, mention in previous comments, you have disrupted might do if you continued in this vein.
If the guardian is not a valid source, I don't know what is, for the guardian is the source give in the example on the help page! Is there any point in editing Wikipedia if, even with appropriate sources from the site suggested by wiki itself, edit will invariably be deleted.
This is not a personal vendetta against the user I have accused and I apologise if it came across as such. I merely think that his removing of sourced info suggests bias. For diffs see my previous comments
You criticise user:snowded, however it should be noted that they have a barn star for maintaining a "neutral and balanced" viewpoint in their edits. Ignore me if you want to, be list to user:snowded for he seems a laudable wiki-user and is in the same predicament as me. Please do not besmirch their name as he has done nothing wrong.
Thanks for your time, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User with the username of a living celebrity[edit]

RESOLVED:

Dangelorussell softblocked.  Philg88 talk 05:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

The user Dangelorussell's username is the same as that of D'Angelo Russell, a recent NBA draft pick. Per the username policy, I believe that this user should be username-blocked unless they really are D'Angelo Russell and they have proof for it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Soft-blocked. A guy saved by Jesus, probably a better place for this type of report is WP:UAA. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Thank you, I will remember that for future reference. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

TheGracefulSlick[edit]

Closing. CrazyAces489 has purportedly retired. Compare the thread "Revenge nomination" below. This report, too, looks rather like retaliation. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

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

Requesting an WP:IBAN on this individual. He had promised another Admin he would stop interacting with me, but still shows up in multiple places that I go to. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And you promised to adhere to policy, which you continue to fail at doing, even though you know it was a part of the agreement. I was merely noting that you were, again, failing to uphold policy which is why there is an AN/I about you above. Our "agreement" was I would not edit your articles and you wouldn't edit mine, which I have upheld. I only edited an AN/I about you because I had valuable info to the discussion and I mentioned it to Tokyogirl79 because she was the admin who set up the "agreement". This should be closed immediately and someone needs to finally take care of CA's purposeful failure to comply with others users and policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. One place is not "multiple".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I am back here on this account is that TheGracefulslick harrassed me on my new user account. [308] I even left a letter on wikipedia notifying people on it. I simply don't want any interaction with him as I stated here. [309] If I wasn't outted by Phrese and TheGracefulSlick I wouldn't have all these issues. I simply want to try and create articles to expand wikipedia. I don't think its going to happen . There is a strong lack of black editors on wikipedia and I believe for very good reason. Certain behavior is tolerated and the buddy system is in strong effect and some articles are tolerated while others are heavily scrutinized. I took a break and went somewhere else and was outed and stalked. I came back and it was worse. If I do come back, I would like this IBAN to be in place. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your articles are the issue! They are poorly written, poorly sourced, and unnotable. People keep telling you this! Since, CA announced another "retirement" to avoid impending punishment I suggest this AN/I be closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from RGloucester[edit]

Nothing actionable here just as there was nothing actionable in the thread that was archived. You can ask Arb but it will be declined.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

RGloucester (talk · contribs) told me to go to hell ("twice") and accused me of stalking him [310]. I already reported RGloucester for their ongoing incivility and disruptive behavior last week and nothing was done about it - the case was moved to archive. (I added the attack at the archive as it was not closed, but was informed everything moved to archive are abandoned, so I started a new report here). RGloucester's bullying and WP:BATTLEGROUND over everything is harmful to Wikipedia. Should this be brought to arbitration or can this be properly handled at ANI? Thank you. МандичкаYO 😜 04:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, how fun. It was a joke, and a reference. If you'd prefer if I were to go to Hades, I shall be happy to. Damn me to Hades, twice. Now that I've been damned to Hades twice, would you please stop spreading falsities at every turn? It must be fun, I imagine, but I haven't the patience or time to continue dealing with fellow Hadesians. RGloucester 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks claimed to be jokes are still personal attacks. I also take offense at your statement accusing me of "spreading falsities at every turn" since I certainly do not. МандичкаYO 😜 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Spare me, please. I wonder what money is in muckraking, pray tell? Oh! How foolish of me! Money, muckraking?! The money of ego, stuff of argent wrought! A common stuff, the stuff of kings! In this age, one of leering, there isn't much, but constant peering...a mucking...a raking...a sacking of the muck, a packing of the muck! Muck, muck! To market with muck, for sale and for let, sold for tuppence, not much left of 'commin'sense', that's the world you've brought. RGloucester 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey nonny, nonny and such. This is not the first time RGloucester has been excessively abrasive in an AfD. Jokes are all well and good but these types of outbursts tend to happen more when you are disagreed with which makes them less "jokey" in my eyes. Chillum 04:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I beg of you, great Chillum, delete both me and that essay, for the sake of the encylopaedia. The administrative scythe must reap the weeds of my produce. Will you join me in Hades? RGloucester 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, just close this and move along. Before Monty shows up bitching about shaving his beard. Or before we have to deal with da xiang bao za shi de la du zi. GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, one consolation is that if you do go to hell, and he's stalking you, then he'll be there too. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


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