Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920

Reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, probable conflict of interest, and for hoaxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, sabotage, and suspected hoaxes. Below some of the articles that he has created and/or expanded:

Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja makes no sense whatsoever. The titles held by members of this family are or could be included in the respective articles on the individuals and/or in the umbrella article, House of Borgia. What the user is trying to do is to invalidate the transmission of these titles or the fact that some are now extinct, to claim that these titles should have been passed on to a Juan de Borja Matheus and that now the rightful heir is Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón. Although I’m not reporting this because of socking concerns, it is quite revealing that the name of the supposed heir to these titles is quite similar (embellished with high-falutin surnames) to that of Ruiz-Mariño, a user who was blocked, for being a suspected puppet of Siredejoinville, the same user who has been creating or expanding articles created by the former.

The other articles which he has created or edited are: Francisco Mariño y Soler; Jerónimo Mariño de Lobeira y Sotomayor; Antonio Mariño de Lobeira y Andrade, Count of Mayalde (I’m currently fixing it); Principality of Tricarico; Marquisate of Lombay; Duke of Valentinois, and lastly, Prince of Squillace which I and another user have fixed but, as you can see in the history, just today he reverted and added info without references (or with primary sources), removing the rightful title holders, etc. He has also created County of San Juan, Marquisate of Santa Rosa, Vicecounty of Casa Romana all of which I suspect are hoaxes since I have been unable to find any supporting reference. Please check the history of these articles and the supposed title-holder and the remarks I left on the discussion page of a couple of these articles.

Titles in Spain are very regulated and transmission, new titles, rehabilitation, etc. must be approved by the Ministry of Justice and published in the BOE (the Official State Gazette) as shown here, where I added the new title-holder and a link to the publication. What this user is doing is very risky and probably illegal; some of these titles have current title-holders who would not be too pleased to see that en.wiki is giving false information. In addition, his competence in the English language is not sufficient as another user pointed out.

For more details, you can check the messages I left at the discussion page of BgWhite: here, here, and here. --Maragm (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac

I've tried to tell Legacypac that personal attacks are discouraged. It's been enough.

• Calling me a troll
• Calls my edits troll-like, tries to obfuscate it or something, not to mention, I've no idea what in the world temptating means
• Compares me to a pig, I well know it as an idiom as Shaw's quote but it's insult was not lost on me

I've warned him again and again.

• 1st warning
• 2nd warning

Then, he said that I must keep off his talk page, so I did. And one more:

• On my talk page

And I've warned him on the RfC page too. HighInBC told me that on my talk page that my conduct was sub-par and that I failed to assume AGF here. Well, the thing is after Legacypac says something like, "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." diff you simply can't assume good faith. (It - Drafts)
Legacypac has a good history of personal attacks too, he got warned for one here.

• comparing other editors to a troll (yes, again!)
• accusing someone of PA, the irony

Some more baseless accusations with no proof:

• Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other.
• this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with
• WV loves one way interaction bans.

WV - Winkelvi, Ches - Chesnaught555
Not to mention, Legacypac has a chronic problem with opposition, creating revenge threads on ANI for each of them, here, here and here. Also, to top it off, a beautiful piece of ad hominem attitude. Hope I've bored you enough. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ease up please QEDK. It has been great having you on my side in trying to get some points across, but we are now making progress. Legacypac has received an awful lot of criticism, sorry that you have received the reaction, but let's ease up and let the RfC have some air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Maybe if you were in my position, you'd say otherwise. We're making progress on the content side of it, yes but that is no reason to take me for granted, I am a human and I see no reason why I am repeatedly attacked even after I tried, again and again, to be the nice person in the whole incident. If he's received criticism, I trust it's for a reason. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment QEDK is spot on and I'm glad he provided examples that involve me because I would have done the same. I have been the subject of LP's attacks and sub-par behavior for quite some time. I've asked him to stop, I've warned him he needs to stop. There are others who have done the same and have also been the object of his uncivil behavior. He seems to think he's made of Teflon and continues without care. How long do we, as a community, have to take his abuse? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• QEDK: Your "troll" diff shows LP removing your comment from his talk page; your comment, in full, was "That's purposeful misinterpretation for ya.". Are you saying you were not trolling? The "wrestling a pig" diff shows LP removing his comment where he had written hyper-abbreviated nonsense to mimic your comment written in that style. Doing that is not ideal editor behavior but it's not that bad under the circumstances (why did you write that nonsense?). Johnuniq (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I prefer you stop your insinuation, I think everyone (except you i.e.) understood that I wasn't trolling and I've discussed it with specific detail (did you by any chance, miss the edit summaries?). I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment. You should know the actual substance of the whole situation before you take on your challenge. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation" - Huh? - ^theWOLFchild 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the conversation in question, and the de-voweling: [1] It does not reflect well on QEDK, and SmokeyJoe violated WP:TPO by altering it. (Hatting might have been in order, but not alteration.) Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disemvoweling is a moderation method consistent with TPO. With a bit of humour. The discussion had become unproductive and some moderation may have helped. Yes, hatting might be better, and it even allows the hatter to make a snide or witty comment in the hat header. It was pleasing to see a comment removed, but barbs in edit summaries were not. If either editor wants their vowels back, I stored them offline and can give them back on Tuesday. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotta move the vowels every morning to stay regular _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You most certainly did make that remark. As well as the other one where you templated him/her. You know very well what he/she meant by temptating. I don't 100% understand your reply - to be fair. SQL^{Query me!} 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think everyone understood that you weren't trolling. It looked to me like you were trying to illicit a negative reaction. What starts out as a friendly conversation quickly devolved into you making accusations of bad faith. Someone interpreting things differently as you is not the same as "purposeful misinterpretation". Once you went to the accusations of bad faith you were reverted, to which you responded to with a template, which was reverted, and you gave another template. Is this a productive means of communication?

Yes, Legacypac called you some names, but you are hardly without blame here. Attacking somebodies motives is at least as uncivil as name calling. My comment on your user page was meant to prepare you for the fact that both of your behaviour would be looked at if you felt the need to make a post about this here, I am glad you are comfortable with that. HighInBC 13:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: When did I say that I did not? And my vocabulary is not well enough, so I guess I haven't come across the word, "temptating", maybe you can shed light on the matter. Also, there's a reason I templated him/her, I meant to warn him of the impending result and not to make rash decisions without thought. He, however, did not care.

@HighInBC: I do not fear scrutiny. If the community thinks I assumed bad faith without reason or that I've been in the wrong multiple times, I shall pay the price. You don't need to keep reminding me of that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to very clearly understand the typo "temptating" to mean "templating". For two, in your rant, you made the statement "I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment.". It seems to be in reference to one of the diffs I linked - tho I am having a lot of trouble identifying what you are talking about. SQL^{Query me!} 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am just wondering what admin action you think should apply to legacy? You assumed bad faith, he called you a name, really it is not something I would block either of you for. It is certainly not something I would block one but not the other for. However I am involved enough in the underlying dispute that another admin can decide what to do, or what not to do. HighInBC 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just you - I don't see what action could be taken here that benefits the encyclopedia, and holds to our policies. I guess, really really technically they could both be warned to behave better in the future? SQL^{Query me!} 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it calls for just a warning, and since anyone can give a warning here it is. Legacypac, please don't engage in name calling as it is against our policy. QEDK, please don't assume bad faith as it is also against our policy. I really don't know what benefit further action will result in. HighInBC 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See this [2]. This is the nonsense I was talking about. Also, I thought temptating was tempting but I could make no connection, thanks for shedding the light.

Since both of you have been involved in previous disputes (typically on the other side), I prefer to not take my advice regarding this from you. The community can decide. Thanks, though. I believe a one-off wrong can be differentiated from repeated disgraceful behaviour, since 2 admins here clearly can't see the difference. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just wish all these cats would stop reporting each other. If they can confine their...what's the word...mutual bitching? sniping? at each other to their talk pages, we'd all be better off. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I've been banned from his talk page with a "Buzz off." *sigh* --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand Drmies, but we've tried to be nice, time and again. Yet, we are here again, despite all the effort, now all wasted on him. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"we've tried to be nice, time and again." Amen to that. It's as if no one cares about WP:CIVIL anymore, including admins who seem to be no longer taking it seriously (not pointing a finger at you, Drmies, I'm making a general observation). I understand telling editors they need to toughen up and/or just go about their business and not be so sensitive, but in the case of LP (and, frankly, another editor I can think of immediately) it's a continual thumb of the nose from him in the way of what's collegial and civil. He seems to simply no longer care that he's being unbelievably rude and attacking other editors and that behavior is impeding productive contributions, productive discussion, and productive solutions to problems. In other words: it's gone past being annoying, it's disruptive and destructive. My personal opinion about why he does it is because no one is doing anything about it and he's been allowed to continue in that vein repeatedly. Anyone even remotely familiar with behavior management could look at the unwanted, inappropriate behavior and attitude from LP in conjunction with the lack of reaction from admins and say: if there are no consequences, the message being sent is "please continue and escalate". And that's exactly what he's doing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to tell anyone to toughen up--but admins (if I can generalize) just get tired of this. The chain of diffs and insults is too complicated and tedious, and maybe iBans all around are the only solution, but then, who would want to enforce iBans, which are notoriously difficult to apply? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We're in the business of difficulty. After all, that's why we get all the power, glory, and riches that come with the bit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I strive for accuracy in communications and Internet troll fits QEDK's actions exactly. I have real life work to do today and wrestling with a pig is not on my priority list. I'm sorry if anything I said was misinterpreted as name calling. No one has ever been banned from my talk page, but I do remove personal attacks and nonsense from it as is my right. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• But your accuracy, then, leads to a personal attack. "Internet troll", when applied to a Wikipedia editor, means you don't believe the editor to be contributing to the project in good faith--but ANI is not a good forum if the case is not so easy to make, which I think is what's happening here as well. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Legacypac you are often rude and accusatory in your interactions. I can very well see why QEDK has lost patience with you. 217.38.191.252 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies you are welcome to your idea of what trolling is, but that is not exactly my idea. My meaning is best summed up in the lead of Internet troll "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." There are part time trolls and even single troll type edits so saying an edit is trolling or the editor is acting like a troll does not imply all their activity falls into trolling. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For a great laugh, check out WV last userpage edit summary [3] compared to his posts in this thread. Looks like he is calling someone a troll to me. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no plausible way that QEDK could be called a troll. He started out complaining about specific actions by Legacypac (which have been reverted, per consensus). Furthermore, I see no plausible reading of LP's comments which does not constitute a stealthy attempt to rewrite policies on drafts. Now that the draft policy discussion is out in the open, QEDK, LP, and others should stop commenting on the former actions, but only comment on current actions (of which QEDK's here and LP's on the guidelines and on user talk pages deserve censure.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Which of my comments need censure, mate? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Referring to someone as a troll on one occasion among a ton of edit summaries and talk page discussions where few to none such comments have taken place previously is not a good parallel for you to make, LP. Why? Because you personally attack other editors and call them names frequently. If your habit of doing so were not reality, Drmies wouldn't have pointed out to you what he did above. Indeed, I've never known him to just make such comments willy-nilly or without a good reason - he's very reluctant to make such accusations, in my experience. What's more, for you to say, in essence, "Look, they did it, so it's okay for me to do it, too!" is not a good defense. In fact, it's a very childish response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

He's been throwing dirt at the people who oppose him since 1997. I count exactly 0 admins who care about this issue when others have been blocked for less. Strange is this world and stranger is the Wikipedia community. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem accepting any conclusion other than the one you want. The more you do this, the more the problem looks like being you. No action is going to be taken against Legacypac, other than asking him to stop personalising the dispute and dial down the rhetoric, which has already happened. This much is pretty obvious. If you want to stay here and continue to call for the wrath of Jimbo to be brought down on his head, all that will happen is that you'll be filed in the box of "vindictive and disputatious" and treated accordingly. Both of you are doing what you think is in Wikipedia's best interest, right now you seem to be the vocal one who refuses to accept that the other party is acting in good faith. That's not a good place to be. Your best bet is actually to seek common ground, because right now you are both so fixated on the points of difference that you're never going to stop fighting. If you are genuinely acting in good faith then that should be a serious concern for you. Legacypac being wrong in making some of his statements does not mean you are right in making any or all of yours. You have both personalised the dispute, and admins tend not to draw much of a distinction in such cases - instead we focus on the ones who do not accept the problem and continue to try to fight the battle rather than putting their hands up and calming down. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what to expect now, honestly. I guess it was my mistake that I expected "something" out of this well-intentioned and factually correct thread. Maybe if I called you a troll or a pig thrice, you'd be in a different position. Again, I guess I have incredibly thin skin. *no sarcasm* --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

1997? Wikipedia was created in 2001. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, QEDK, you were trolling in all three instances where Legacypac rightly called you out on it (twice on his own talk page). Once again you are accusing Legacypac of what you yourself are actually guilty of [4]. Sooner or later this is going to backfire in a way that you do not like -- even SmokeyJoe agrees with that. Drop this and move on. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that trolling? You got it all wrong. I am guilty of a making a topic ban proposal against Legacypac? That certainly makes sense. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• A personal attack against me by Legacypac: "Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy." Edit summary: "ridiculous troll". Legacypac makes comments of this nature often, as is shown above, which is detrimental to civil discussion. They shouldn't be able to behave this way with impunity.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at what you said Godsy [[5] and yes, you continue to stalk my edits even today or is it just coincidence you are editing multiple new articles I just touched? Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is wikistalking me.

James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:WIKISTALKing me to articles simply to WP:WIKIHOUND my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for white pride against consensus [6]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [7], [8]

jps (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, Michelle Fields and Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in anything so far) would be the timing.

That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say block for 24 hours, with a warning that following users you disagree with is a form of WP:HARASSMENT and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You demand (you use the word "say" rather than "suggest") a block, and as reasoning link to an advice page, a page that actually gives you no support for this demanded block. The act of following users you disagree with is not a form of harassment as defined in the page you linked. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". In what way is work by jps being confronted or inhibited? In addition, in what way do any edits by James J. Lambden involve "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior"? These things are required to be present before a block can be imposed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And now this. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is an attempt to misrepresent a content dispute. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And how did you learn of this particular content dispute? jps (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• jps, I'd like to examine this report but it would be easier if it was clearer. Are you suggesting the IP in your last diff, 166.171.187.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is James Lambden logged out? How can you tell? I fully agree it's some established user evading scrutiny in order to stalk and harass you, but why JL in particular? Any special style or contextual similarities? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

I have reason to believe that there is a group of people monitoring my activities on Wikipedia and I think that the IP matches this kind of unasked-for monitoring. I have come to decide that it may be best to discuss this more off-wiki, so if you are interested in more ideas with regards to this matter, please send me an e-mail. Sorry about this. jps (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin It may be of relevance that Jps has very recently raised a similar accusation of wiki-stalking on this noticeboard[9] which has now been closed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2605:E000:8746:7B00:F5F7:482A:A1B8:8090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Раммон (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? One post from an IP editor. Just revert it. It looks like a test edit anyway. --Tarage (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highly abusive summary line

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting a highly abusive summary line by 182.183.183.191, requesting indef block for 182.183.183.191 and removal of the summary. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What was the summary? It was redacted from the diff, so there's little in the way to judge the block-worthiness of the offense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't indef block IPs because they change owners. I can see the diff and it was rude, just name calling. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for being abusive. HighInBC 14:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Wikipedia censored

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the last days, newspapers around the world have reported widely on Elton John and his husband David Furnish and how the latter has managed to get a British court to issue a superinjunction to stop British media from reporting about the latter's alleged extramarital affair. To my surprise, some users would appear to argue Wikipedia should be covered by this superinjunction. This is, as far as I can see, nonsense. The superinjunction only applies to England and Wales (Scottish papers are reporting about the matter) and definitely not to the US, where Wikipedia is hosted. If it would just be a rumour, WP:BLP would apply, but it's a matter of fact that this superinjunction has been taken out, and that it is highly controversial. This is something reported in Scottish press [10], in Canadian press [11], in Swedish press [12]... As all of these papers argue, the issue is not so much the extramarital affair, but the idea that celebrities can use media to promote themselves but stop media from negative reporting, which (the journalists argue) is a violation of freedom of speech. A key issue of Wikipedia has been that Wikipedia is not censored. I believe this to be an important principle that applies to this case as well. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely accurate. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason why the subject of super-injunctions often does not find its way onto Wikipedia, is that often there will be no reliable sources about the subject, which means we can't include them anyway, particularly on WP:BLP articles, where strict sourcing rules apply. Thus we don't explicitly censor, but there may be nothing usable to censor in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a complex issue involving BLP, perhaps the BLP noticeboard would be a better place to resolve this. HighInBC 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Whilst noting of course that it is the quality of the sources that are reporting this that is important. Don't know about those Canadian, Swedish papers, but the Daily Record (Scotland) is the worst type of scummy tabloid. So I'd have to say, so far, that if that is the strength of the source, then forget it. Your principle is, I reiterate, however sound. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, had it only been sleezy tabloids then I would not even have posted. But Aftonbladet, although also writing about celebrities, has a rather strong credibility in Sweden and is very different from Daily Record. I don't know the National Post and Toronto Star well, but the former in particular would seem to be completely WP:RS. Regarding BLP, which two users mention, it seems pretty obvious it does not apply. We cannot state anyone has had an extramarital affair, but we definitely can state that someone has taken out a superinjunction and that this has caused controversy. So I don't think BLP applies unless we interpret BLP as saying that nothing negative, no matter how well it's sourced, should be published. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The BLP matter is judging the quality of the sources to make this claim. This is why I suggest BLPN, that is where the sources for claims about living people are given greater attention if the matter can't be settled on the article talk page. I don't think this is something for an admin to settle by discretion though so I don't think this is a good place for the discussion. HighInBC 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Inflammatory and confrontational header aside, I don't see where this is an admin issue at all. This is the exact sort of thing that needs to be confined to the article talk page, and to request assistance if that isn't working, try WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. I don't see where anyone isn't acting in good faith, and where normal WP:CONSENSUS-building and dispute resolution would not solve this problem if given some time. --Jayron32 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Have you proposed an edit on Talk? I think this kind of tabloid tittle-tattle has no place on Wikipedia, but I am definitely in a minority in that respect. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have some pages turned into Wikimedia Commons?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am looking at Road signs in South Africa and the page is filled with pics of road signs. I don't know if it is appropriate for an EN.WIKI to host a gallery of pics. I believe they are better suited in Wikimedia Commons.

To tack onto that, Road signs in Canada, Road signs in Indonesia and Road signs in Botswana

Winterysteppe (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The pictures themselves are already on Commons, so this is just a content issue. Probably a better idea to raise this at talk pages/relevant wikiprojects/potentially AfD than here. Or just be bold and change it to something else if you have a different format in mind. (Non-administrator comment) —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asking for comment here since i thought it would get more comments instead of at the relevant talk pages. But i think it is not something for ANI to bring up. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest raising the question (which is a content issue) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Asking for comment here since I thought it would get more comments instead of at the relevant talk pages" could be considered disruptive behavior. Please don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper merge without consensus for Mohamed Abrini discussion found at Talk:2016 Brussels bombings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Parsley Man and Jolly Janner have been reverting against consensus to their preferred versions. I was not aware there is a 1RR for ISIL related pages but am now. The discussion which can be found here is still open with strong arguments for separation including WP:NEO. The vote count is also even split 4 to 4. Regardless of outcome, any neutral editor should know not to merge without consensus. I am looking for administrative revert to restore contents of Mohamed Abrini until consensus has been reached.

Also note Parsley Man has been reverting without explanation or discussion on talk page. This alarming edit here show bad faith and an attempt to use 1RR to enforce his views over consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I notified Parsley Man and Jolly Janner about this discussion. You should have put a discussion notice on their talk pages. The instructions, both on this page (at the top) and on the edit notice instruct you to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz missed that, I am not looking for any action against the editors simply for a neutral administrator to revert the article until consensus has been reached. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I welcome an administrator's involvement. Should help reduce edit warring. Jolly Ω Janner 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe this bullcrap. Early on in the discussion, it was suggested that the Abrini article and the Osama Krayem article be merged into a completely new article that would detail all of the Brussels attackers and accomplices, which would turn out to be the Brussels ISIL terror cell article. All of the other participants agreed, and I eventually agreed as well (and do note that I was the one who started the merge proposal in the first place). The article was created, and then that's when the problems started. I am pretty sure a compromise counts as consensus too. Parsley Man (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

.The problem is User:Valoem inability to assess a 100% agreement by all the involved editors whom, reaching agreement went forth and built the new page, merging some pages and splitting content from 2016 Brussels bombings. The discussion is on the core 2016 Brussels bombings talk page and was linked from Osama Krayem and Mohamed_Abrini pages. Additional pages were also merged in by various editors into Brussels ISIL terror cell a page that has been edited and linked to extensively by many editors in its short life. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand and share the frustration of seeing an apparent consensus emerge (and yes, compromise is an integral part of a good consensus) and then acting upon so with best intentions, only to see it repeatedly reverted. Just as we compromised in our first discussion, we should again compromise by being patient to Valoem and listening to their opinions. In the meantime, there is nothing stopping us from improving the article on the terror cell. Maybe Valoem is willing to make compromises too. Jolly Ω Janner 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm very happy to listen to ideas and suggestions. Being told black is white, not so much. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Withdraw No action or input need I assume all parties are fine with this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sportsfan 1234

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please have a quiet word with User:Sportsfan 1234 to explain that not only admins may remove speedy deletion templates from articles, and that the response to any disagreement should be to discuss the issue rather than edit-war over the tag? The article concerned is Crazy Eyes Crew (history). I have tried disussing this on the editor's talk page but the only response has been to blank my messages and to issue me with a level 4 vandalism warning, so it seems that this editor will only take notice of an admin. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, and I am an admin. The article was ineligible for A7 speedy deletion. Per policy "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." "Credible claim of significance or importance" is as liberally applied as possible; there are claims of particpation in championships. Please note that this removal of the A7 tag does not mean the article should not be deleted. Instead, deletion should be handled through WP:AFD or WP:PROD instead. It is merely not eligible for speedy deletion and should have such claims discussed first. --Jayron32 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wwallacee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Wwallacee took exception to an edit of mine, and has now posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". See Special:Contributions/Wwallacee. I need somebody to stop him and roll back his edits, please. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The diffs are easy enough to find, it says "Warning about user Scolaire" in every edit summary. 22 and counting... - ^theWOLFchild 09:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I object to the statement by user Scolaire - there is a history of edits by him, multiple edits to a number of different pages, all with the common denominator of removing material rather than improving it. Moreover, the choice of material selected for removal often seems to be politically motivated. I view this as private and politically-motivated censorship.Wwallacee (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content is no different from addition, as far as policy goes. Your "warning" posts are unambiguously unacceptable, per WP:NPA. Just so you know, virtually every editor who asserts "censorship" as part of a content dispute, turns out to be the one pushing an agenda. Best to WP:AGF and ask about the basis for the edits, rather than start flinging accusations around. The edit Scolaire notes above is entirely appropriate. There is a link in the body of the article, which is where this should go. Calling out a single incident related to the Troubles is POV in the context of someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. You can settle the content dispute on Talk, but if you continue in your current vein I think you will end up topic-banned or blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I repeat that this dispute is not about user Scolaire's edit to the Francis Vane page: my objection is to a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so. I first became aware of this due to Scolaire's edits to the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, which I had done a lot of work on and was monitoring. Scolaire cut a number of passages which I introduced in the course of a big overhaul of the page. During this overhaul I rechecked all the previously existent references, improved formatting, and added new content, also with references. Rather than improve upon these edits, Scolaire simply removed sections that displeased him. When I went to the Talk page, I discovered that Scolaire had even "casually suggested" cutting the entire section I had been working on. This section had to do with political material and I naturally suspected that the proposed cut might have a political motive. I decided to look up Scolaire's contributions history, and there I discovered that in the past month or so, he has made numerous edits to pages having to do with the Easter 1916 rising in Ireland. For instance, he altered the following Wikipedia pages: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The history pages for those pages will show the nature of his changes. In most cases his edits consisted of removing material contributed by other editors, often with technical and legalistic justifications. But when the pattern of such quibbling edits is examined, it becomes clear that there is more going on here than just a very rule-conscious editor. At minimum Scolaire's recent activity on Irish-related pages has not been contributing positively to Wikipedia.Wwallacee (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Unlike your absolutely inappropriate talk page spamming, which definitely did happen. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so" = he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes; "I had done a lot of work on and was monitorin" = careful- you wouldn't want to suggest WP:OWNership; and all things being equal, you will have to provide diffs to back up your complaint. Just vaguely pointing in the direction of an article and saying 'he changed it' = not sufficient. As frankly, that's what we're here for. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly not suggesting "ownership", I am just relating the story of how I came into awareness of Scolaire's pattern of activity. If you look at the History and Talk pages to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington it will be apparent that I have not attempted ownership of the page, in spite of what the language of my previous comment may have suggested to you. Furthermore, my intention in posting messages to the various talk pages was not to make a "personal attack" but to warn other users who were editing those pages to look out for this pattern of aggressive edits. If you remove the messages I put on the Talk pages (as user JzG has now done), and require me to provide "diffs" for the dozens of edits where Scolaire has exerted his pernicious influence, then you are in effect favoring a strategy of "ownership", namely where a user such as Scolaire assumes ownership by simply cutting other users' contributions in small but obsessive edits over a period of time. The work of individual users who do have good faith is left unprotected under that scenario, which favors only the aggressive persistence of a politically-motivated person.Wwallacee (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Do you have links? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to see some diffs.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Without links to specific examples of what you allege, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of your complaint. In the links you do provide, I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion. However, your placement of "warnings" is a bit problematic. Might I suggest, as long as their are no follow-up comments from other editors on those talk pages, that you self-revert those? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can look at the following links: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The History pages and Talk pages of those pages will show the pattern of activity I am talking about, namely dozens of small cuts without positive contributions. I understand now that this is referred to in Wikipedia's rules as disruptive editing.Wwallacee (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are asking for diffs, not 50 articles that we have to spend hours searching thru.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I said links, I should have been specific that I meant links to diffs. I already looked at several edits on several of those articles, and didn't see anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I see an issue. Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to a supportive comment from another Wikipedia editor concerning this dispute. User Edmund Patrick posted this comment in reply to one of my Talk pages messages. The whole discussion where this supportive comment was posted has since been deleted by user JzG / Guy. However it can still be retrieved in the history pages here. User Edmund Patrick's comment was that he found the warning about user Scolaire "very informative" and that it was "a valid point". He asked for specific examples, and I have to admit that I have not yet had time to collate these, as Scolaire's pattern of activity spanned many pages and consisted of many small edits, usually "undo", "revert" or removal of material. Like the rest of you I have limited time! However, please realize that this comment by user Edmund Patrick was only possible because he "found" my original warning after it had been deleted by user JzG / Guy.Wwallacee (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wwallacee has now renewed his attacks on me, again on a page where he was not previously involved, saying that Guy was "speaking for himself" when he said that the accusation was without merit. He has also (while not logged in) restored his attack at Talk:Francis Vane. Can somebody please explain to this person that what he is doing is not okay? Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I object to the above comment by user Scolaire, as mischaracterizing what I did. I merely restored a comment on a Talk page, which was not one of the comments under discussion here, and which specifically addressed issues with Scolaire's edits of that page. - Wwallacee (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It may be that I was not logged in when I made a certain edit - if so it was inadvertent, as I have certainly not tried to hide my user name in dealing with user Scolaire. I am a Wikipedia editor of ten years' experience and I object to Scolaire's insinuation that I am inexperienced. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is factually incorrect. Edmund Patrick undid my removal of your talk page personal attack [13] before replying [14]. I did not removve the text again, that was Scolaire [15]. You are long on assumptions of bad faith and rather short on accurate demonstrations of actual problems. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to draw the Administrators' attention to another edit controversy in which Scolaire was accused of abrupt removal of material rather than improvement of said material. On the Talk page for "The Troubles" (a topic related to the Irish war of independence), the discussion immediately prior to my controversial intervention (which has since been deleted by user JzG / Guy) involved another dispute with Scolaire over his abrupt and unfriendly removal of material in a controversial fashion. See the Talk page here. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict): seriously Wwallacee, I do agree with some of your statements concerning the editing pattern shown by some but you do need to provide diffs, replacing what has IMO been incorrectly removed is not assisting the sorting of this in any way. Diffs please. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am working on this - but please see the comment I just posted above, which links to another edit controversy where Scolaire displayed the behavior I am talking about. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully draw the Administrators' attention to another controversy involving user Scolaire, in which he made attacks against other editors in just the same tone as what he is now labeling (from me) "personal attacks". Moreover, the political nature of his editorial attempts at "ownership" is also apparent here. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is yet another Talk page exchange which reveals the behavior I am talking about. Here user Scolaire seems to be acting in an imperious fashion, preventing an editor who disagrees with him from having access to the page, and even demeaningly characterizing the said user's comments on the Talk page as "filibustering". In general, I would characterize all of this as disruptive editing. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You have asked for "diffs", and I have been slow to provide them because I have had a hard time zeroing in on particular edits that could illustrate my thesis out of context. However, if you look at this, and the previous few edits to the same page, where Scolaire unceremoniously reverted the work of an anonymous user, you can see at least an illustrative example of the high-handed attitude I am trying to point out. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I request permission to post new comments about user Scolaire to the Talk pages where my previous comments have been removed by user JzG / Guy. My purpose is to solicit opinions from other editors regarding user Scolaire's editorial practices. We have already seen that such a Talk page comment, where it was live for only an hour, did elicit comments supportive of my thesis (see above). I would be happy to make the language of my comment more conciliatory, so it could not be construed as a personal attack. -Wwallacee (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary: To summarize my previous few comments to this page: I have provided examples of user Scolaire's disruptive editorial practice here, here, and here. I have also provided a "diff" here. On this last, to fully understand the pattern you must examine the previous six to ten edits, and also look at these in context of the overall evolution of the page. I now ask for permission to solicit further examples of user Scolaire's disruptive editorial practices by posting new comments about user Scolaire to the Talk pages where my previous comments have been removed. -Wwallacee (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Requesting permission to repost the offensive messages! And now he's posting the same attacks to user talk pages. It can't go on. Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not, up to now, been involved in the controversies concerning Wwallacee, but I wish to state that I am offended by the abusive language used by this editor to an innocent comment I made on Talk:Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, Easter Rising section. [16] This editor needs to get his act together, get off his high horse, and apologise forthwith. Hohenloh ⁺ 13:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to "thanks a lot, a-holes". That was very nice, all right. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Calling people arseholes = boomerang bait. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phd8511 using edit summaries to carry a grudge a launch personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Phd8511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

HMS Ajax (S125), the page for a Royal Navy Astute-class submarine, was created in early 2011. In December 2015, Phd8511 began to contest the name of the article, claiming the boat had not yet been named and requested it be changed to "Boat 7". Sources have been provided that support both "Ajax" and "Boat 7". Attempts at discussion on the both the article talk page and the talk page at Talk:Astute-class submarine did not achieve any consensus. Phd8511's demeanor and posting style was somewhat hostile and aggressive. I brought the issue to the community at both WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST, but there was still no support to change the name. My view is that sources support the current name and should that name change, we can easily change the article to match.

Edit summaries

Phd8511 has a history of expressing himself colorfully though edit summaries, but has used them for personal attacks and to carry a grudge for weeks and weeks after the issue. This has continued with edits and articles that have nothing to do with the naming dispute or even the Ajax page. The following are the most recent of the edit summaries in question, (though there is more if you go farther back).

(Diff with summary - article - date);

• fix it HMS Ajax lovers - Zumwalt-class destroyer, April 11
• HMS Ajax pundits never change - Royal Navy, April 8
• can i not add this word? - HMS Ajax (S125), April 7
• HMS Ajax pundits should fix this - Chiefs of Staff Committee, April 6
• In case the HMS Ajax pundits argue - Military of the Falkland Islands, April 3
• fix it Wiki gods - Aircraft Ship Integrated Secure and Traverse, March 31
• just in case people like you know who reverts - Quartermaster-General to the Forces, March 24
• Why HMS Ajax lover TheWolfChild never edit? - List of submarine classes of the Royal Navy, March 24
• fix it HMS Ajax lovers - M6 mortar, March 21
• I will show you what it is named - HMS Ajax (S125), March 18
• The point is you dont get it you HMS Ajax fetish lover - User talk:Phd8511, March 18
• fix it wikigods instead of saying incorrect stuff about Boat 7 - Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, February 19
• no no no no no. See My evidence - Astute-class submarine, February 18
• stick to real facts not yourselves - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18
• simple bloody punctuation - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18
• stick to the facts and DO USE WEBARCHIVES - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18

This behaviour has continued, despite numerous warnings, seen here, here, here and here.

There has also been numerous attempts to discuss Phd8511's hostile behaviour with him, seen here (from myself), here (from User:CrackDragon) and here (from User:Antiochus the Great).

Perhaps it's time for some administrative attention. - ^theWOLFchild 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. I left a "final warning". If that doesn't work, report again; I agree that this behavior is very blockable. I have not looked at possible edit warring, but that may be a problem too. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: But the 4 other warnings had zero effect, as well as the multiple attempts to discuss this user's behaviour with him, some of which were also dismissed with hostile edit summaries. I think something more definitive is called for here, to send a clear message and protect the project from further disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 20:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, but this is what I think is best for now. If it doesn't help we can still block, but if the person is smart they'll stop. You are welcome to let this run for a while and see if other admins are willing to push the button right now. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked after all--for socking. So it goes. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the prior warning by Drmies and agreed it would have been prudent to wait a bit on a block, but now with socking also agree with block by Drmies. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops! Socking? Who is the other account? (nevermind, I know now) - ^theWOLFchild 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for at least issuing a warning and getting something from an admin on the record. Before the socking, that still would've been better than nothing. But now, a block is a block, so this can be considered dealt with, if anyone wants to close it. - ^theWOLFchild 02:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antonio J. De Rosenzweig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm requesting assistance for a promotional vehicle in a biography's clothing. This has twice been nominated for speedy deletion, and I prodded it as well, and all templates have been removed. Ostensibly a bio, it's really an unreferenced press release on behalf of the subject's Rosenzweig Disaster Magnitude Scale, created by a WP:SPA. The article's author has admitted at the article talk page and at their own talk page that there are no reliable sources to support the content--this is the very definition of a spamicle, and I've been frustrated in attempts to have this considered for deletion. Since I can't start an AfD, I'm asking someone else to have a look. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I nominated the article at AfD per Atlantic306's suggestion in the edit history, though I notice it was nominated for speedy again by EvergreenFir while I was preparing my nomination. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll comment at the AfD. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow up The article was speedy deleted at the request of its creator. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged COI on the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bilby, an editor, has completedly removed factual information regarding this topic (a book series called the Dresden Files) because of alleged violations of the biographies of living persons policies.

It is obvious that a fictional book series is not a biography of a living person. Thus, it would be a false reason for removing factual content and then protecting the page from editing.

Moreover, it has been reported on the reddit channel that Bilby is working at the behest of public relations/press agents of the book series, the Dresden Files. [17] According to multiple reddit users, Bilby was promised an autographed advanced copy of the upcoming book, Peace Talks, as well as inclusion in the book series beta reader program.

Here is the relevant page re: the Dresden Files: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC))))

Nor was this the only protection/reversion made by Bilby as part of his financial incentive promised by the public relations/press agents for the book.

Bilby made numerous attempts to do the same as to the page of Jim Butcher. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)))) (cur | prev) 07:15, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,576 bytes) (-2,821)‎ . . (rv - BLP concerns.)

There is simply no reason to blanket remove factual information. For example, the page acknowledges that Jim Butcher has one son but does not mention a wife.

It is therefore factual to post a fact regarding the son's mother, whether she is still married or divorced. There is no reason for Bilby to delete references to Butcher's divorce. Considering that Butcher's press agent, Priscilla Spencer, has publically posted Butcher's proposal to a new girlfriend [18], there is no reason to delete this fact.

Bilby needs a reminder that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to participate in censorship (similar to the actions of the moderators at sub-reddit /r/dresdenfiles) and even more inappropriate to obtain financial gain for editing on Wikipedia.

Moreover, as to both pages involving the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher, the edits that were removed contained factual references, links to sources, and other supporting facts, including non-copyrighted content from the books themselves. A blanked reversion followed by a protection is not warranted. It constitutes a scrubbing of "bad PR" and that is not the purpose of an public encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.25.33 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Reddit users say it, it must be true. They're never wrong. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, though, here are the BLP violations removed. The content is related to the author (who is a real, living person, therefore WP:BLP applies) and sourced solely to Reddit, Twitter, personal blogs, and forums, falling afoul of WP:USERGENERATED. This isn't censorship, this is pruning completely unreliable sources on a biography. clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, IP, you need to realize Wikipedia does not report the Facts™. We report what reliable sources say, especially when it comes to BLP articles, not what some random on the Internet says, regardless of who they claim to be. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. clpo13_(talk) 20:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:BLP, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. The article may be about the book series, but it includes information about the author. Therefore, BLP applies. Also, there's another relevant quote from that policy page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. clpo13_(talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You realize that it's a hopeless case, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh. clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing "inappropriate" about redacting and removing unsourced and poorly sourced claims about a living person, particularly those with derogatory intent or imputations. Given that literally every link there was to Reddit or another user forum, I think Bilby's actions were entirely appropriate. It is not "censorship" to make sure our articles are properly sourced. On the other hand, you have made entirely unsupported claims about an editor's motivations when their actions demonstrate nothing more than a determination to enforce our policy on content about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) ;-)

I looked through the changes and can confirm that Bilby correctly removed things that was in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS and also WP:UNDUE and simply not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is anything like this edit, then Bilby was very much justified in removing it. Not only was it negative information directed at a BLP, it was not backed by a single reliable source, instead it revolved entirely around a series of Reddit posts and blog posts. Our WP:BLP is very strict here that any information relating to a BLP must be cited to reliable sources, especially if it is negative. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Reddit issue is irrelevant unless reliable sources report on it. Also, as Clpo13 stated above Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons applies across the entire Wikipedia space, including talk pages, not just to article about the particular individual. If you keep trying to spread these claims without the proper reliable sourcing, you will eventually find your editing privileges revoked. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think our I.P friend may have tried to | out Bilby in this message - check the edit summary. Not a real bright idea. KoshVorlon 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP tried to readd the info on this page again, which I removed and may require oversight if it is an attempt at outing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My New Question That Was Deleted, removing the alleged self-published name anyway

RM This information was rev-del'd on article pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Time to block this IP? (S)he clearly isn't listening to anything anyone is saying. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP hopping troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.187.170.157 is the latest IP of the user described here Eik Corell (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted and watching. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

These also appear to show a related behaviour pattern: 86.187.170.135 (talk · contribs), 86.187.162.9 (talk · contribs) and 86.187.166.58 (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC). Also 86.187.154.21 (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Request a rangeblock or similar sanction: This user is now edit warring as 86.187.169.157 (talk · contribs) on multiple articles; here, here and here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is their latest IP. Also, this is a long-term vandal, they have been discussed many times previously. We're currently waiting for an edit filter to be implemented. Eik Corell (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple Personal Attacks by User:Garuk Gar, one of the many many many socks of User:Cow Cleaner 5000.

Is there anything more that can be done about the many offensive edits by this user and her virtually unlimited supply of socks? See these (ahem) "contributions" which are all personal attacks against myself and multiple editors and admin. She has created more than 100 socks[19][20] to pursue her conspiracy agenda. She also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Justin Anthony Knapp, bordering on stalking. Could someone at WP contact her ISP maybe? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I assume CC5K is a "her" due to the user's self-declaration of that gender[21] and her rant about embracing feminism as the "one way forward".Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely since that same diff says My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article yet CC5K constantly attacks Knapp as a terrorist... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Knapp says otherwise on his talk page... "CowCleaner comes back intermittently to say something about how great I am and how a manga magazine is a terrorist organization." Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Short of revert, block, catalog, and then ignore, there isn't much else that can be done. A range block is impossible as the editor uses multiple open proxies to wage their little campaign of disruption, misinformation, and harassment. The only outstanding problem is when an administration is too lazy read the preexisting case file on this individual and only gives a short term block, even after being directed to the case file. —Farix (t | c) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Farix. Appreciate the response. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reporting User HunteWinchester123 due to multiple vandalism editions

This user HunteWinchester123 has been reverting editions without any explanation just because he believes I have edited too much other pages he is probably taking this too serious but he must be jealously just because of the editions I have warn him for 5 times and he persists with his irrelevant editions that are being: deleting information without any explanation from Wikipedia page Maryse Ouellet, adding unnecessary images as the article has too many, re-adding irrelevant sources and unreliable ones, and changing dates. This has became so annoying due to the fact I need to re-edit them to be correctly fit, so I ask for this reporting due that this is becoming so annoy. Thanks.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 6:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

• What I see is two editors bickering, neither one of them explaining very well or in coherent English what they're doing. I also see 57k on a glamour model/rassler, though I'm happy to see great concern over which original researcher gets the moves right. I'm glad wrestling is real. You two, try to talk it out on the talk page, and stop referring to edits you disagree with as "vandalism". Drmies (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • However, I'm trying to make a call for an stop for this HunteWinchester123 user, he had reverted editions without explanations, all he wants is to re-edit the page until he gets what he wants, as I have told you this is becoming so annoying it is incredible how he just reverted the editions because he believes I'm taking advantage in every female wrestler of WWE company, I just want some kind of lesson for him or just a little block because this really needs to stop right know, and also I don't see what wrestling moves need to be in this case If we are talking of a current vandalism case this is why I'm coming to you. Thanks and I wait for an answer and stop for this case.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 7:10, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
    • Additionally the edits I have done are already revised even because he re-adds unreliable and death sources, I don't disagree with editions I don't like are because they are bad as they have been revised and deletes information without any explanation.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 7:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • I really don't understand what you are saying or why anything here is a. a matter that a. requires administrator intervention because b. it's about content. That's the answer, and it is also, as far as I'm concerned, a "stop for this case". But I invite other editors and admins to have a quick look here to see what I missed. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Hopefully there is no confusion over my edit's and the edit's of the reported user. Quickly off-topic, my edits were not original research and were simply removal of false info misrepresented from a source that had no mention of the given info. The dispute over moves were discussed on my talk page and are now resolved. - Now, as for HunteWinchester123, the edits really aren't vandalism. It simply looks like both users have to look at WP:OWN and WP:REVTALK, as well as what is NOT vandalism, because all I see from the edit summaries are rarely explanations for their edits and are simply reverting edits that they disagree with/are different from their own. Sekyaw (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
          • First, I want to thank Sekyaw and Drmies for being impartial. Second, I edit Maryse's page for years, longer than TheBellaTwins1445 have an account here, she just started editing because Maryse returned to WWE. TheBellaTwins1445 is monopolizing all wrestling pages, she reverses all the edits, she has some mental problem thinking that is the owner of the page (she needs medical consultation). I didn't remove anything from the pages, you can see in history of the pages that I just add new content. She remove information, images and never explains her edits. I already sent messages for her asking why she does it, but she never answered me. I don't want a war, I'm a peaceful person, I would like her to stop it. She has warnings about his behavior on wikipedia, I don't. So you know who is wrong (Sorry by my english, but I guess you know what I'm saying). -- HunteWinchester123 (Discussion)
            • Ok firstly I'm not in any kind of mental problem OK?, second I'm not trying to edit pages and say I'm the owner of them and you know what, I don't seriously think that the fact you have being editing the page before me needs to matter here because Wikipedia is free and you can edit what ever you want at the time you want, I have being reverting your editions due to the fact they are being unuseful at reverting the edition I have did all you do is re-add images that are not useful for the article it has too many of them and also you put unreliable sources that are being death and ones that are not even useful for the information as matter of fact being Twitter ones some sources have being taken down and some of them are just death and each time I take off them all you do is revert and revert and revert them all I want is a stop on your irrelevant editions as it is so annoying re-change the page each day this is becoming an editing war and I seriously want this to stop !!! So what you think?TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 3:37, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
              • In order for me to support this NOT CLOSED ! discussion, here are some of the edits that support me on this case
                • [22]
                • [23]
                • [24]
                • [25]
                • [26]

• He began deleting, adding unnecessary images, death and unreliable sources and changing some information without any further explanation of why he did it. Hoping this helps.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 6:26, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • What I'm changing? You're changing Maryse's nickname "The Canadian Phenom" for "The French Phenom" and saying that she was Cameron's manager, when in fact they never ever appeared together. You need to educate yourself and stop with the lies. -- HunteWinchester123 (Discussion)
    • Prior, you have been changing information without any explanation this it isn't a lie since I have proofs given on this discussion, I already re-edit the article and you are persistently re-editing it adding too many unnecessary images, changing information and adding unnecessary ones since here are some recent proofs
      • [27]
      • [28]

• Now are this lies ? And answering on changes of her nicknames, you should see first the reference you provide before editing Thank you, I hope this comes to an end.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 5:52, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • To whoever seeing this just take a look of her/his edition from April 13, 2016, In this one he or she don't even explain their/her changes, she or he has delete relievable information, add sources that I already mention are unreliable, birth name wasn't necessary as it was already mention on the page to her/him and persistently wants to add unnecessary images on the article, here is the edit so you see I'm not lying. And this is why on the main reasons I'm trying to make a call to all of you to stop this.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 8:52, April 13, 2016 (UTC)

• [29]

Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [30] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [31]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [32]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [33] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [34], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [35], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.

All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you will agree that it is appropriate also to remind editors that volunteer Marek, was banned for his pov-editing on Russia-related topics and is one its the most notorious POV-pushing disruptive editors on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([36]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [37] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [38] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [39] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [40] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [41] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ Rob^Talk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:

1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here

2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [42] [43]

4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here

5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.

We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [44]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[45] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[46] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [47], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [48] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [49] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [50]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

• User:Volunteer Marek : ... and who uses misleading edit summaries" — Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [51], [52], [53] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [54] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [55] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [56] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [57] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [58], [59], [60]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at the policy page WP:CIVIL, Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have not yet started being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [61], the other by Iryna Harpy. [62] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to consider a WP:BOOMERANG against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.

— User:Alex Bakharev — diff, User:Dstary — diff, User:Anonimski — diff, User:MyMoloboaccount — diff, User:Seryo93 — diff, User:LeoKiev01 — diff, User:Kudzu1 — diff, User:Buzz105 — diff, User:Tobby72 — diff, User:Haberstr — diff. As far as Bloomberg News goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article Human rights in Russia. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to bite the newbies, Marek. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for WP:BLOCK EVASION, I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page here. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating WP:BLOCK EVASION, but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed WP:PPOV. So, when are you going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the WP:LASTWORD and WP:WIN the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running WP:GAMEing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries: [63] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [64] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [65] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [66] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative per WP:POV pushing, take it to the talk page instead of sneaking in changes under misleading WP:ES.” [67] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [68] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [69] "blatant POV refactoring.” [70] ”no discussion over WP:POV use of 'incorporation'Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because you are acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much every single description is accurate. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of WP:GAMEing behavior is warranted too)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.

2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad motive) is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.

3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.

4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the motives of others.

5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [71]: Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. 02:27, 26 March 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs)

Thanks to Drmies for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know why Kalidasa 777 felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts  :) whatever. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to you, Kalidasa, and to everyone for forgetting to sign the above, and thereby confusing folks.Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. RGloucester? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [72], while being perfectly aware that they are already included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. That is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're getting the point, Kalidasa 777: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr here is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [73] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, My very best wishes? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. Can we get back on topic now? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the REAL problem

A couple users with a history of disruptive editing - Haberst, Tobby72, and Kalidasa 777 - are upset that they're not allowed to push their POV in peace. So Kalidasa 777 starts an ANI threat making nonsense accusations against a well respected and long standing contributor, Iryna, and engages in bad faith'ed canvassing to make sure his buddies show up. They do. And they join in the screaming and crying and hysterics. Haberst, who almost got indefinitely banned for going around accusing other editors of bigotry, and who as a result lay low for awhile, but now decided to come back and restart edit wars from long time ago. And Tobby72 who has been trying to stuff the same text over and over and over and over and over again against consensus for more than a year now and who uses purposefully misleading edit summary to try and mask what he's doing. That's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, you've accused me, by name, of "a history of disruptive editing". You have diffs to demonstrate where and how I went wrong? Please present them here, with comments, so I can learn from my mistakes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We want to include the GfK poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.Haberstr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info was included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The GfK survey was removed — diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about how the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [74], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — of course people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this being used as a surrogate for the article's talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Quite a lot has been said here, but by a limited number of people. Almost all of them directly involved with the Crimea Annexation page. Input from uninvolved Wikipedians might help to resolve this rather complex and conflicted situation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Which particular issue is it that you're asking other editors and admins to 'resolve'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the basic issue here is whether all Wikipedia users have the right to be treated civilly, especially on article talk pages? Or whether (as some seem to think) that right disappears if they've been involved in a content dispute with Iryna Harpy, Volunteer Marek, and RGloucester? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a really ... inaccurate way of portraying the issue, especially given the well documented disruptive editing by Tobby72 and other users above. However, seeing as how nobody uninvolved has bothered to get in on this, it's probably a good idea for you to drop this, rather than keep on beating this dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe someone possesses an everlasting "get out of jail free" card and is understandably just taking advantage of it. This has been going on for years, and will continue for years more. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Stop using the ANI and article talk pages for grinding your WP:AXE against admins and other editors you hold a WP:GRUDGE against. From what I've seen, your list of grudges is very, very long, and is a greater indictment of your own editing practices than that of those of the people you choose to cast WP:ASPERSIONS about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that this will never end. So, deal with it ...

Volunteer Marek — 00:00, 15 March 2016 — "Your opinion is noted. And also irrelevant. ... Can you please self-revert your disruptive edit .."

Volunteer Marek — 23:24, 26 March 2016 — ".. and then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time."

Volunteer Marek — 05:15, 27 March 2016 — ".. demand that others "assume good faith" even as you blatantly try to WP:GAME'em.."

Volunteer Marek — 22:33, 8 April 2016 — "after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience ... So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive." -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A comment from somebody not involved with this particular incident. It looks like the main qualms are personal and evidence are character references and, having dealt with all the involved parties (bar Kalidasa), I may as well throw my own 2 cents in. I do not believe Tobby and Haberstr are engaging in bad faith insomuch as I do not believe there is malicious intent. However, their disruptive pattern of editing does suggest to me that they do not have the wp:competence for some of the more controversial topics (e.g., Russia, Ukraine). Given their incompetence and persistence, I can see how others have come to the conclusion that Tobby and Haberstr are acting in bad faith and lost patience. Calling these two 'disruptive' and "POV-pushing' is accurate (calling them 'bad-faith editors' is debatable to me). Hollth (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and disruptive behavior by Lugnuts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was checking new pages using AWB and I made a minor change in one of the articles. To my surprise, the reported user reverted my minor edit without saying why. It was a simple issue but I had the question why my revert were reverted. So I started a talk page discussion and asked him explain the reasoning behind his revert. He referred to the rules regarding "how to use AWB". However, it was surprising for me to see a minor change (that makes zero change to the appearance of the article and only removes some excess spacing) reverted. Anyway, in response he made ad hominem comments and spoke in a rough manner by saying "you think every one else is wrong", " you're having trouble understanding" and "Pathetic".

I also removed an external link of the article per WP:ELNO but he again reverted me. When I explained the points on the talk page, he again kept on accusing me and making uncivil comments. I kindly asked him to be polite on his talk page. But he removed my comment (no problem, that was his own talk page) and also removed all of the exchanged comments from the article talk page and reverted me again when I restored the material and called me a troll in his edit summaries.

His block log shows that, among other issues, he had been blocked twice for "Personal attacks or harassment" by FreeRangeFrog and Stephan Schulz and was unblocked by Floquenbeam after his apology provided that he "tone it down" (which he fails to do now!). I think he has competence issues. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure sounds like Lugnuts. Don't expect anyone to do anything about it. He's learned to game ANI too well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

About once per year he gets really crazy and then he is blocked, but this year he is probably not yet at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears he/she is aware of this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Please do not use automated tools in a manner that irritates other editors. By all means fiddle around with whitespace if you like, but if you are just doing drive-by edits like that and are reverted, it is best to ignore the article. There are plenty of other pages where you can adjust whitespace, and there is no need to argue about it. At any rate, going to ANI over such an argument is not productive. You may be irritated that your concerns were not addressed in a manner that satisfies you, but it seems fair to assume that the other party feels the same way. Just walk away, find another article, and don't seize on other trivia like removing an external link. How do you think that comes across? Remember that this is a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq: I think I were not able to focus on the main issue regarding the reported user. His competence issues are much more irritating. As I said he made attack and uncivil comments. He also removed the contents of the article talk page and reverted me when I restored them. He should not have done that, should he? The one who can't handle such a simple issue and makes such comments, can't contribute in more challenging discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I did not "seize on other trivia like removing an external link". I did not remove the link furthermore. Mhhossein (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, aside from I agree the Iran comment [was] way out of line, Lugnuts has acted within policy in all of this, so you'd best move on and drop it. Even however you admitted that the removal of the EL was not necessary, and please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that removal wasn't seizing on other trivia. Move on; lay off the article and hopefully off of AWB; withdraw this ANI filing before it boomerangs on you. This is an extremely silly content dispute with a couple of inopportune words added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC): edited 12:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a content dispute. Based on what you said, Lugnuts has acted within policy by 1) insisting on blanking the talk page of the article, 2) saying "Carry on with whatever the f**k it is you do." 3) making ad hominem comments. 4) making similar uncivil comments. Are you serious? What you simply called a silly content dispute accompanied by "couple of inopportune words" is similar to what made him blocked twice before. He is not able to just tone it down! Forget about the content, the behavioral issues are being discussed here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I missed the fact that he blanked the article talk page. (I've re-reverted it now.) Yes, this does not look good. It looks like Lugnuts is having a meltdown and is gunning for a block. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Having read the argument on the article talk page, the content does appear more appropriate for a user talk page. There's no real discussion about improving the specific article in question, it's more two editors finding fault in each other's actions and Mhhossein's use of AWB.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's an ongoing discussion on my talkpage regarding this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment this is all part of his never ending angry crusade to engage in coitus with the AWB tool. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts may have a point when it comes to AWB edits that don't change the rendering of a page. However, he should be able to defend his reverts and respond to criticism without flying off the handle. The fact that he apparently hasn't learned his lesson from past blocks is concerning. clpo13_(talk) 17:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there logic in reverting an edit you think is pointless? Is that not even more pointless and hypocritical? Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems Lugnuts is reverting to prove some point about AWB, which is why it's even more important for him to be civil when someone asks him about those reverts. The original edits may be unnecessary, but I agree that reverting is likewise unnecessary. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13 and Legacypac: I was astonished to see such a minor change reverted! Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The initial edit by Mhhossein sure was mostly useless and it better be avoided, more so if done in some automated way. But generalising about "AWB users" and "Iranian people" and then using that to attack another user should not be taken lightly. We all do and say silly things once in a while (I do...) and that should not be cause for much trouble, but if it is frequent, it needs more than a warning. Apparently it is the case with Lugnuts, according to some of the previous comments and to the fact that the name sounded familiar from this venues. - Nabla (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• I blanked that talk page before I saw that there was discussion over it; Ponyo, as usual, is right--in my opinion. It's not related to article improvement--it couldn't be, since the edit was inconsequential, and the revert therefore warranted. Mhhossein, sorry, but that's the fact. I don't think Lugnuts is cruisin' for anything though, and Lugnuts you know I love you like my new favorite non-stick skillet, but that Iran remark was just totally asinine and you really should apologize for it. As for the rest: my dear Mhhossein, I think Lugnuts's explanation should have sufficed the first time around. Also, it's rough to be reverted, believe me, I know. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: But as the others said and as I tried to tell him while discussing the points, his revert was something surprising and unnecessary. Anyway, @Ponyo: how do you think discussing the "keeping" or "removing" of an external link was not improving and/or at least related to the article? All in all, his incivilities, which has to be stopped, was much more irritating! Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that all this fuss arose because your original edit was reverted? And your original edit was to fiddle with whitespace in a new article (24 minutes after it had been created)? Are your views and feelings so important that all this time can be wasted because you don't like having your edits reverted, even when they are trivial? Please learn from what independent editors have said here—drop the matter and find another article to work on. This is a collaborative community and we each need to make an effort to get on with others, even if they are prickly. You may believe that the external link is a separate issue, but no one else does—it was obvious retaliation to leave your mark on the short stub and to let the other editor know that you won't take being reverted without a fight. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you clearly don't understand something about AWB: Never, ever make a whitespace-only edit with it. People hate that; it is extremely rude behavior. Go to the Skip tab and check General skip option "Only whitespace" so it will automatically skip saving those kind of pointless edits. Now you know, right? Prhartcom (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: No, I don't, because never filled this report for being reverted! As already said above, He's done some attacks. He's apparently done this before. I did not need to retaliate, since I never removed the link after the revert. Please assume good faith (I think you know where the AGF page is so I don't embed the wikilink) and don't make such clear judgement in future. So you endorse his attacks and generic remarks? And on "Are your views and feelings so important that all this time can be wasted because you don't like having your edits reverted, even when they are trivial", can you hear me? this is not a matter of being reverted. Other editors pointed the attacks and incivilities. Can you understand that? You are free to not waste your time here. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thanks for tip but did you not miss some other issues? Mhhossein (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I thought this was archived; you're telling me you reverted an archive just so that you could continue to argue? Fine, I'll engage with you one more time. You're referring to Lugnut's behavior, including the racist statement he made to you. Yes, that was clearly wrong, it's a blockable offense, I don't appreciate it, and you are right to be offended by it. You were very polite when opening this complaint and you assumed good faith. On all those things I agree with you. However, that doesn't change the fact that you were foolishly using a powerful tool in a naive way, bumbled into a no-win situation, and made a dumb mistake. I wish you would own up to that fact and drop this righteous indignation. You provoked this fight with your naivete, my friend. Please don't reject the wise advice of Johnuniq above. That's not a good sign. That advice was very well stated; please re-read it. If you reject it again, it indicates you have a problem admitting your own mistakes. Please don't point the finger at everyone while lacking the courage to point it at yourself when necessary. If it were up to me, I would block you for that. Instead, why don't you, right now, apologize for your naivete and just back away from this issue you caused, like everyone has been urging you to do? I promise you'll be happier for it. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom totally off topic and way out of line of course, but I have been giggling at your username for a while now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's not too inspired a username, is it? Ah well! I could just tell everyone it's a codename I used back when I went undercover. Prhartcom (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: I never objected the revert of my AWB edit. I just tried to indicate it his revert was insignificant, too. I'd like the admins to address 'his attacks and generic remarks'. Tnx Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein the best way out of this sticky situation for you is to just "leave it alone". Its like a wound, you just wont let it scab over dude. I tried to help you out by closing it, but you reverted me. Now it was ready to be archived by Bot and you have edited it. The best advice anyone can give has already been given bro. As per Prhartcom you were naive with your use of AWB and provoked this fight. But no one is perfect, so its no big deal. There is literally ZERO reason for you to "try to prove that you were right" and "lugnuts was wrong". Just leave the thread alone and it will be archived, no one blames you much and we go on with our lives. To be frank I fail to see what you intend the remedy to be. Do you want lugnuts banned? blocked? T-ban? So in a nutshell get this page off of your watchlist and in 4 days the wound will be healed completely. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments aimed at discrediting the reporter rather than discussing the complaint, such as what you, Prhartcom and Johnuniq did, are really discouraged and I suggest you take a look at the comments by Drmies and others did here and on my talk page to see how neutral comments focusing on the complaint are written. Mhhossein (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein: They aren't discrediting you, and what I am about to say also does not. Let me try to simplify, clarify, and reduce what they have said in response to your complaint. 1) Your complaint is valid in the sense that the incivility should not happen. That is agreed on by everyone. Lugnuts should not have said what he said, and no one should talk like that to any other user, ever. 2) Nothing is going to happen, however, so it's best at this time to drop it. It has nothing to do with the substance of your complaint. What we're all trying to tell you is how Wikipedia actually works (as opposed to what should happen). Generally, incivility, even gross incivility, is excused for certain users merely because they have friends or because they have people willing to defend them on grounds that have nothing to do with the substance of the complaints against them. Please note, neither I nor Phartcom or Johnuniq are actually doing that. We're not defending the actions of Lugnuts. Neither are we attacking you; you did nothing wrong and your complaint is substantive and deserves respect. Instead, what we're doing is letting you know that it's not wise to pursue it further because nothing is going to happen. --Jayron32 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Dead horse. We've all said too much. Nothing to see here; move along. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked for using a web host - but it was not a web host

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I recently found myself blocked on two IP addresses, where the blocking administrator claimed that the block was because they were web hosts and thus open proxies. This claim was false, but despite repeated requests, the administrator refused to explain why they had made the claim, and refused to lift the block. My subsequent complaints only led to childish insults from other administrators, who eventually blocked even my talk page access.

What should one do if an administrator invents a reason for a block? The supposed appeal process does not work. 87.112.235.240 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You could start by telling us what the original IP address that was blocked is. It is hard to investigate anything without that. -- GB fan 15:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tell me first, what should one do when an administrator lies about the nature of an IP, and other administrators support and endorse that lie. 87.112.235.240 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) We dismiss your claims that an administrator lied out of hand, based upon your refusal to provide us with the information we need to determine whether or not your claims are true. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Did you mean to say "I"?217.163.51.139 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It all depends on the exact situation, so I can't answer it without all the details. -- GB fan 15:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. It depends entirely on the details. If an admin is lying about something, we need to know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• IP blocked for continued time wasting and IP hopping block evasion. See User talk:176.35.22.196 for a recent example.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this, but in reading 176.35.22.196's talk page it appears that giving this individual the simple answer they are looking for would do more to end this than continually giving them the run around. Deli nk (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

They continue to be blocked for IP hopping block evasion (using various IP services and webhosts to do so). There's nothing else to say when they flatly deny block evasion while actively engaging in it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider how you would respond if the first block you ever received was for "block evasion". That's what this individual appears to be claiming. If you could simply answer the question about the first block, wouldn't this be resolved easily? (I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honestly puzzled about how this is going.) Deli nk (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be difficult to pinpoint a "first block" from all of these. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. (At the risk of further annoying you, a simple link to the LTA page in the block log or at any earlier point than just now would have been really helpful.) Deli nk (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this is the IP that was blocked first most recently that has caused this, is it a webhost? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole web-host bit is a red herring. The user was blocked for block evasion. That "webhost" was mentioned in the block rationale is immaterial, but is being used by Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP as a wiki-lawyering distraction. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So worst case we're looking at harmless error: The mentioning of the webhost bit doesn't matter because there were independently sufficient grounds for blocking—block evasion—which were also mentioned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it's an error. Daisy Communications does indeed offer a suite of webhosting services, though it's just one of many such webhosts used by this LTA to continue evading their block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

now why would you not, when blocking, simply say "I believe you are person X because XYZ, and I believe this is a web host because blah blah blah? Instead of childishly ignoring the questions and leaving your pals to leave snidely abusive comments instead? I've finally found out what you actually believe, but I'm still none the wiser as to why. Neither IP was a web host; both were cafes. As to this user that you think I am - evidence? And please indicate what I might do to demonstrate that you are wrong. If the answer is nothing, then it would seem that these is no possibility for mistaken and needless blocks to be undone.217.163.51.139 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by an uninterested user: while I have no comment on whether or not these IPs are the LTA IP, I think they may have a point with their edits to the Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro article. Both IPs initially blocked here removed the History section of the article. That section, along with most of the current article, was added by this edit in 2009 by an IP address which geolocates to Rio de Janeiro. The edit reads like a poor translation from Portuguese to English (and may be a translation from the equivalent Portuguese Wikipedia article). Whether or not that IP is a long-term abuser, this article is in definite need of help from someone who has a good working knowledge of the area and/or Portuguese.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Vulcan's Forge (talk · contribs) You are free to restore the edit, or any portion of it, as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the content change.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

the content I removed was shockingly bad; some of it was in Portuguese, and most of it was absolute gibberish. The person who restored it surely knew that; they should be ashamed of themselves for their vandalism. And the best anyone else can say is that I "may have a point"? Just what is going on when removing absolute nonsense from an article gets you blocked?217.163.51.139 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Best known for', etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was wondering where (if not here) to address the use of the terms 'best known for' or 'most famous for' should be discussed. I've addressed this in the Ledes of a lot of different articles, and it seems to me to be unencyclopedic and Original Research (ie. evaluative). I know there is room for us to paraphrase a group of information, but I think the above terms venture a little too far. If this is the right area to ask about this, I'd love feedback. If not, I'd appreciate finding out where to ask this of experienced editors and administrators. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Historically at each individual article talk page as you are highly unlikely to form a general consensus to not use them. Alternatively Manual of Style - Words to watch is probably the best place to address article content issues regarding wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian Only in Death's suggestion is a good one. The WP:PEACOCK section of that page is particularly relevant. Another place that this is addressed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. MarnetteD|Talk 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD and Only in death, this is what I thought as well. Because terms like 'best known for', 'most famous' seem like speculation and puffery to me. For instance, George Washington was a pretty nifty US President, but saying he was the best (w/out referencing a RS source that says so) is original research.

The key to the problem, I think is sourcing, right? If a reliable source(s) note that the person is 'most famous/best known for such-and-such', and that statement is referenced within the body of the article, it should be fine, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We have an IP that does nothing but go around and remove these. In many cases they are right, however in other cases the term is used by numerous sources and it is accurate. See Talk:I_know_it_when_I_see_it#famously for a less than obvious case. This is something to be resolved per article. I don't think ANI is the place for it though. HighInBC 15:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with "best known for" wording that highlights the main reason the person is notable. Claiming someone is the "best know X" is very different. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My feeling is that 'best known for' and any equivalent is subjective and POV. For example, with arts and media, an individual or group might be known for a particular television show or song or album or film in one country but not known for the same in another country. We have readers of the en.Wikipedia from all over the world, not just the U.S. Opinions and charts for such mediums differ the world over. To say 'best known' is exclusive to who and where? Better to use neutral prose. 'Known for' suffices and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I rather feel that way, as well. I recently came across the usage of an actor who was being cast "in a major role" without cited reference noting that the role was in fact major'; it was the contributor's belief that the role was a major one, not a source. As well, the addition of when the actor "achieved mainstream success" was without reference noting that accomplishment. I think things like that, while seemingly innocuous, are detrimental to creating/fostering neutral content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Describing someone as "best known" for something is:

1. completely unverifiable. You might well be able to find the phrase used in a source, but mere appearance of text in a source is not a license to include it in the encyclopaedia. How would anyone ever actually know what someone or something was best known for?
2. subjective - for any given article subject, what they might be known for is obviously dependent on who is doing the knowing. I just chanced across an article about an actor who starred in Breaking Bad, which said he was "best known" for something else. I've never seen the other show. He is only known to me for starring in Breaking Bad, so the claim jars. Plenty more times I read articles about people I've never heard of, claiming that they are "best known" for some obscure thing that I've also never heard of - or worse, "famous" for something obscure that most people will never have heard of.
3. biased - most of these claims seem to apply to English-speaking nations and make a guess as to what English-speaking readers might think about an article's subject. This is the English language Wikipedia but it's not supposed to be an encyclopaedia for people from English-speaking nations.
4. verbose - an example I just chanced across is Gottfried Reiche. It is claimed that "Reiche is best known for having been Johann Sebastian Bach's chief trumpeter at Leipzig". Apart from that being unverifiable, subjective and biased, it's also amazingly verbose. One can simply say "Reiche was Johann Sebastian Bach's chief trumpeter at Leipzig". That's one word instead of seven, that contains exactly as much information.

"Known for" has several of the same problems, being subjective and verbose. While we can of course report subjective claims, we do so by saying "is described as being" or words to that effect. So, for example, this article, describes Henry Moore as Britain's most important sculptor. We would never say in the voice of the encyclopaedia that "Henry Moore is Britain's most important sculptor" - I am sure everyone can see that that would be a major violation of NPOV. We could say Henry Moore has been described as Britain's most important sculptor - that is objective and verifiable. Similarly, we should never say, in the voice of the encyclopaedia "Person A is best known for thing B that they did" - it's an opinion that cannot be verified. We could say "Person A has been described as being best known for thing B that they did", but why would you want to do that? It is verifiable, objective and not biased, but it's horrifically verbose. "Person A did thing B" is objective, verifiable, concise and unbiased, and I cannot see any convincing argument for using unverifiable language in its place. I think it should be clearly stated somewhere that "best known" is a form of words that should not be used. 46.233.116.87 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

fwiw, most of the time I see "best known for" phrase I remove the "best", or make a similar alteration. I've always regarded doing this as completely uncontroversial and unambiguously beneficial. There is no need to use superlatives in an opening paragraph--the article should be written to show & reference the degree of importance. But I usually accept a� phrase like "best known book" , etc. because there can be easy specific documentation--though I usually change it to most widely held book or the like. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong venue

Many pages of discussion have been taken up with this discussion in various places in the past. This is purely a content matter and I see no benefit in rehashing this at ANI. Can someone uninvolved close this please? The talk page of WP:PEACOCK or the talk page of a specific article would be more appropriate places to talk about this. HighInBC 17:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Before closure, could you cite these other pages where this has been discussed? They might offer insights that I am unaware of. Thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Springee campaigning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

1. 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing by Scoobydunk
2. 11 March 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

Respectfully request:

1. administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction; and
2. warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both Ricky81682 and myself over the past six months or so. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no requirement that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between HughD and Springee.

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([75], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([76]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Traveling: I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. Springee (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Thank you, EvergreenFir for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. Both users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [77], Callanecc [78], EdJohnson [79] and Ricky81682 [80]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[81]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here (NickCT and Greglocock on the Pinto talk page, CZmarlin and Historianbuff on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [82] I will happily, voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. Springee (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from Ford Pinto where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Callanecc, who on 18 October 2015 asked Springee:

  There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.

Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here at ANI at for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am, I think rightly, proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage (70%), but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.

EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.

Springee has reported HughD 7 8 times:

1. AE 27 December 2015
2. AE 11 April 2016
3. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
4. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
5. 3RN 22 August 2015
6. 3RN 26 October 2015
7. 3RN 7 March 2016
8. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban

Springee has previously proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN; four times including this current ANI report. I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.

  As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. My enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded re HD. I oppose any action on S but would ask him to back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, Ford Pinto and Chrysler. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being topic banned from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he bizarrely plagiarized my statement of editorial interests from my user page. I don't think Hugh is interested in US Weekly or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that at 3RR and at AE months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD specifically asked him not to post there (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a long time now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:

• 19 October 2015 First notice HughD WP:NOBAN request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at User talk:Springee
• 19 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 22 October 2015, 25 October 2015, 26 October 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 26 October 2015 Second notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Third notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 23 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 27 January 2016, 2 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 2 March 2016 Fourth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Fifth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 March 2016, 18 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 18 March 2016 Sixth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 April 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD

Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[83]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[84], added back[85]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[86] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [87]. My reply is here[88]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[89] and one in frustration (but not attack)[90]. These are not attempts to provoke.

HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [91]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[92] [93]. My efforts were appriciated[94].

I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like Arthur Rubin I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. Springee (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that.

and

The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics...I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):

• 14 September 2015 Springee reported at WP:ANI for for Hounding and Tendentious editing, report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Beacon Center of Tennessee was to undo HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
• 18 October 2015 Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
• 12 November 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 21 December 2015 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil was to revert HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 22 January 2016 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy was an undo of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
• 4 March 2016 Springee's 1st edit at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. was to revert HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)

Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee wrote on 28 March 2016: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, Springee's interpretation is the same as mine. As I was still assuming good faith on your part, I would have said that his block was the result of making an unbelievable assertion in regard his own actions, without saying it was dishonest. With your followups, it was either dishonest or indication of such inability to understand facts as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee followed HughD to a GA review. The above list highlights article space following behavior after Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including Scoobydunk at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing and Fyddlestix at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD, have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.

But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the Good Article Review of Bernard Stone, a recently passed Chicago alderman, olav ha-sholom, of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional evidence of Springee following HughD In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):

• 18 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was to revert HughD after 2 hours
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was to undo HughD after 1 day
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to The Heartland Institute was to revert HughD after 1 day
• 26 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to FreedomWorks was to revert HughD after 3 days
• 27 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Chicago-style politics was to revert HughD after 20 hours

The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional recent evidence of Springee following HughD

• 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to WP:Third opinion to disrupt dispute resolution at Talk:Ford Pinto.
• 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to History of Ford Motor Company to post an evaluation of an editor at article talk.
• 11 March 2016, 11 March 2016, 11 March 2016 Springee disruption of WP:Request for comment dispute resolution at Talk:Ford Pinto.

Please note Springee's focus on the editor rather than the edits and Springee's relentless efforts to disrupt legitimate dispute resolution steps.

Respectfully request 2-way interaction ban as proposed by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Addiitional recent campaigning by Springee

Sadly disruptive editing continues, undetered by an open ANI filing, and only emboldened by the lack of action on reported actionable behavior.

• 10 April 2016 Springee campaigning.
• 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning, as IP, while logged out, to evade detection WP:STEALTH.
• 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning via mail; 11 April 2016 mail notice deleted after 3 minutes WP:STEALTH.

Please counsel Springee away from their HughD project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [95] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.

General replies to HughD's accusations

HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors. HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[96] and RSN[97] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic. HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [98]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[99] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[100] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page. Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[101].

Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. Springee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request the community please proceed with a close with the imposition of the above proposed two-way interaction ban, as the expressed consensus of uninvolved colleagues. Two-way interaction bans are simple to monitor and effective in preventing disruption. Enough is enough. It is long overdue. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Respectfully request imposition of the two-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

Moved from another ANI thread.

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

User:HughD has been disruptively editing our Ford Pinto article. Could an admin review this discussion and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The still-active discussion above (titled "Springee Campaigning") also concerns HughD and the pinto dispute. Just sayin' Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - Thanks. Yeah. I noticed. I think that discussion is discussing an interaction ban, right? I just think HughD should get topic banned from Ford Pinto. I and others think that HughD has to get topic banned from Ford Pinto. That justifies a second discussion, no? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your evidence for disruptive editing at Ford Pinto? Hugh (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support banning User:HughD: It's not worth trying to edit the Ford Pinto article with HughD participating. He's basically destroyed any pretense of unbiased editing, and he continues to seriously distort the article.842U (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a Tban, as the problem extends far beyond just one article or one topic. Conflict between HughD and Springee has made a mess on a much broader range of articles and talk pages, ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Chicago-style politics to Ford Pinto. Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - re "Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here." - Maybe not. But it would be a start.... NickCT (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support with condition As noted above I don't agree with Fyddlestix in this case. HughD's 50 edits per day before the article was locked, refusal to accept opinions from 3rd party editors and the clear consensus among the other editors that HughD is a problem mean that at least this part of the discussion is not about me. That said, I proposed a two way voluntary interaction ban between HughD and myself that would also include voluntarily leaving the automotive pages in question. Thus it would result in HughD leaving the page but no sanctions would be levied against his account. Please note, tomorrow is a travel day for me and I will have limited web access Springee (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to Talk:Ford Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - I agree it isn't the main issue, but it's certainly part of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is Ford Pinto still to suffer? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. Springee (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see our project's policy WP:IBAN. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.

I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.

Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [102]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.

List of TEND examples

HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages: One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[103] after seeking and getting group consensus [104]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me. Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [105] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [106]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV. violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[107], [108]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [109] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[110]). Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [111]. Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[112], [113]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [114],[115]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [116]. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[117]. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[118], 2.[119], 3.[120]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[121] I asked a specific question [122]. Other editors noted it was not answered [123],[124]. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [125] , [126]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [127]. One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [128] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [129], HughD badgers EllenCT [130], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[131]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[132]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [133]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[134]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.

I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you have never commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.

You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:

• 28 August 2015 Springee undo of HughD at Chicago-style politics after 16 minutes with edit summary "...not developed with consensus. Please get consensus for this change"
• 8 September 2015 Springee revert of HughD at Halftime in America after 2 minutes with edit summary "Undue tag was removed without discussion or consent."

Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see WP:TEND: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague Scoobydunk brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing. Your least favorite essay is WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".

Then, when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report that at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD WP:NOTHERE.

Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.

Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of disruptive editing. Civil disagreement regarding article content, supported with citation to policy, guidelines, and multiple noteworthy reliable sources, is not disruptive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Viewing Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F as battleground behavior and an attempt to campaigning seeking presupport for a topic ban, I can't support this with out a similar topic ban for the op.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project

Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "traveling."

Springee's project is HughD. User:Springee is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and Southern Strategy for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, until ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article, and Chicago-style politics his fifth top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. Please support an interaction ban. We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.

The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the question Hugh, why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone? Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and let it go, before you exhaust the community's patience. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request close, with community-initiated 1-year, two-way interaction ban, as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy WP:Interaction ban. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. Springee (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee, please support the proposed 2-way interaction ban, without conditions, as requested above by our uninvolved colleagues. It is a reasonable, measured proposal. It is the simplest thing that might work. It is clearly what's best for you, for me, and for our project. It is a established remedy with a record of effectiveness in curbing disruption. You are in little position to dictate sidecar terms given your well-documented year-long history of following and harassment. We know you feel you deserve a topic ban on HughD after your efforts on your above walls of text, and we know you feel anyone about whom such walls of text can be written must be deserving of a topic ban. However, your recalcitrance on this proposal and your insistence on a topic ban are only serving to further demonstrate to our community your ownership issues and your obsession with your project of banning HughD. No one is trying to prevent you from contributing constructively to any articles. On behalf of our community, may I respectfully ask that you please accept the proposed 2-way interaction ban; you will be happier. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think only a modified IBAN would make sense. Modifications:

1. Each is banned from articles where the other is a major contributor. If both are major contributors, they are both banned, but A may appeal if A claims that B is only a major contributor in distorting or deleting A's contributions.
2. Each is permitted to make a brief statement about violations of the other one in appropriate forums. (This may have no effect, as I haven't seen a brief statement by either.) He may not make a followup statement unless asked. (Advice to all; don't ask.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I think that's an excellent recommendation. + 1 on that. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll support with the addition of my previous mentioned March 1 cut off. The cut of means if only one editor was involved with the article prior to March 1 they are allowed to remain involved. I'm 100% OK with HughD and I both agreeing to step away from previous mutual topics. Springee (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Two-way interaction bans, as proposed above by uninvolved colleagues, are simple and well-understood by our community and have an established history of curbing the disruptive following and harassment behavior you have demonstrated over the last year. Your attempt to negotiate terms in contrast is a bizarre custom page ban with an unprecedented boundary definition which in effect codifies your problematic article ownership issues in the form of a community sanction, and is nothing more than an attempt to distract our community from your edit history. "I was there first" does not matter on Wikipedia and our community is not going to start with you. Our community has substantial experience in sorting out interaction ban violation incidents and has absolutely no desire to get involved in helping you enforce your baroque conditions. Please see the above diffs: you have earned an interaction ban many times over, accept it with grace. Hugh (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will remind HughD that he has also "earned an interaction ban many times over." You both have. So stop. Just stop. The ever expanding wall of text here when the community long ago reached consensus on an IBAN only serves to further prove why an IBAN was needed. Wait for this discussion to be closed by an admin, then go your merry ways with your IBAN, and let the rest of us live in peace without having to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same thing over and over again. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Close requested

Been 4 days since last comment. Getting quite stale. Since there was !voting and I proposed an iban, I cannot close or archive this myself. Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For transparency, HughD challenged the closure by Atsme here. Anmccaff reverted that here, which I then reverted here as I don't see anything wrong with HughD's challenge to the closure by a non-admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a problem with simply hiding the request. It should be either noted, as you have done, or struck through, or replied to. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

When admins repeatedly give advice but don't take action in these lengthy debates (more time was even allowed in hopes the involved parties could work it out among themselves) and there's still no resolution, the discussion tends to lay idle which is why closing it seemed the best course of action. If the involved parties are still not satisfied, they can always take it to ArbCom but chances are, neither will like the outcome. Perhaps now an admin will do what needs to be done to put this puppy to bed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the non-admin closure with the closer may be found at User talk:Atsme#Non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Springee campaigning. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be closed as no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties. Hugh has stated he would not accept Springee's reasonable modification of the standard IBAN, and Springee would not accept the standard IBAN due to (Springee's perception) of the fact that Hugh edits articles edited by Springee in order to discredit Springee's edits, but not in the same section Springee is editing. There seems to be no traction in the general community for any specific IBAN, although there seems to be general agreement that an IBAN might be helpful.

I suspect the non-admin closure was not a good idea, but nothing is going to happen here. I'm clearly involved, so I cannot close this, even if there were consensus for some action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"...no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties." I again clarify: I accept the above reasonable, measured, simple proposal of uninvolved colleagues: a two-way interaction ban, and I respectfully again beg community support for this straight-forward, proven effective proposal. Not sure how "acceptable to Springee" became a criteria, or how Springee is in any position to dictate terms, given the relentless record of following and harassment amply documented in copious diffs above. A close with no action is counter-indicated by the record. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say, no proposed solution acceptable to both parties, the community, or to admins in general. A specific admin might impose a standard IBAN or Springee's retroactive IBAN, or my modified IBAN. I don't think any one of them is likely to be agreed to by more than one uninvolved admin. I could be wrong, but an article ban on each party to each article where the other is a major contributor seems necessary, but I don't know whether a conventional IBAN would be helpful if neither or both parties are major contributors. I'm not sure about Springee, but Hugh is still testing the edges of his topic ban(s); I see no reason to believe he would not test the edges of an IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've only just been made aware of the drama here... I am the subject of an IBAN, which is a mutual IBAN, and considering the reasons behind it, it seems fair. This situation is however very different. Editor 1. No block history, no topic bans, no drama apart from on issues related to editor 2. Editor 2. Multiple editing blocks within a short period of time. 6 blocks in 6 months. Topic bans. I'm sure he has the best of intentions, however it just isn't working. For his own good, a one way interaction ban would be fair and probably the only thing likely to prevent an indef block from editing. It's unfair for all other editors involved to lose valuable editing time dealing with someone who has already proven how disruptive they can be, and show zero signs of changing in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I view your comment but it seems you only became aware of it due to a discussion that was inappropriately opened at Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F. Battleground behavior on the part of involved parties.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I need an "inappropriately opened" discussion to become aware of this issue, when I'm involved in another discussion currently on ANI? I saw this discussion on ANI, and went to the article in question to get some more background and see if I could help out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You've improperly used scare quotes. It was inappropriately opened. As in it should never been opened in the first place at Talk:Ford_Pinto. And that's how it seems you came to the discussion, key word being seems, as you posted there before you posted here. However, that glaring point shining above is, there's highly inappropriate behavior on part of participants here in an attempt to influence the outcome here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And I posted on another discussion, a few threads down on ANI, before I posted on Talk:Ford_Pinto. Infact, if you want to look at my edit history on ANI, you will notice me posting on a discussion that directly affects me, and then noticing an unrelated discussion in which I give an opinion, a few minutes later on numerous occasions. It doesn't seem like anything, you are making incorrect assumptions, when you could have easily asked "hey, how did you come to notice this discussion?" and got a definitive answer, rather than assuming the worst. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To again digress with you, looking at your edit history hours before you were at ANI. 5 or so hours. And then course 1 hour before you posted here on this subject you had posted at the article in question. Now you've said that isn't what brought you here and while I believe you I don't actually care. To get back on subject, to the salient point, and the relevant discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_user_User:HughD_from_Ford_Pinto was opened before they opened Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F. They opened this, misusing the talk page a forum and while in battleground mode, to Campaign those who dislike HughD to the ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - I'm confused how opening a discussion on the article talkpage was inappropriate. HughD had created contention on that talkpage. My intent was to ask editors on that talkpage whether they felt his behavior warranted an ANI discussion. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would go further: I don't see how anyone familiar with Wikipedia could think it "inappropriately opened". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How is it appropriate to use the articles talk page to convene a meeting of the "I hate X-Editor Club" in hopes of forming a faction to take along with you to the ANI you are planning? They went to Talk:Ford Pinto and polled to see whom else would join them in taking HughD here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, an article talk page is clearly not the place to propose (and gather support for) a topic ban for someone that you're in a dispute with. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. An article talk page campaign against an editor on a article talk page with an open, formal request for comment, the disruption of legitimate dispute resolution attempt, is a particularly onerous form of disruptive editing. Respectfully again request support for the 2-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - You're saying I should have gone straight to ANI? I don't know. I always feel like launching ANI threads at the drop of a hat is a form of WP:WIKILAWYERING. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how many weeks has this been open for now? Two? Three? Do you people want to get yourselves an arbcom case or something? MPS1992 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that's where this will end up - Springee's just filed a new (largely baseless) AE report against HughD though, here's hoping admits there can sort this out. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have requested closer for the WP:ARE and publicly apologized to HughD. It was a mistaken understanding of the limits of HughD's topic ban. Springee (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So it seems resolved completely. Let an admin close or everyone simply stop posting here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Accept the 2-way interaction ban proposed by our uninvolved colleagues above in this thread and I will joyously accept your apology. Your desperate WP:AER filing of yesterday only served to further document your obsession with your HughD project and the timing was clearly a cry for help. Our uninvolved colleagues are trying to help. They have seen this before and they know what to do. Put your project behind you and join ours. No one is trying to tell you you cannot contribute constructively to your favorite articles, a 2-way interaction ban is the simplest thing that might work. Accept it. You will be happier. We are all anxious to see the great things you are capable of in article space. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-non-admin close discussion

Respectfully request re-open of this second non-admin close. We need to discuss this claim in the stated reason for close: "...without the voluntary cosent of both parties to an unconditional interaction ban, any IBAN is meaningless due to the large glaring loopholes." Our project's policy WP:IBAN does not require interaction bans to voluntary. What loopholes? If there are loopholes, let's fix them. Has no involuntary interaction ban ever been imposed? When were interaction bans reduced to a voluntary program? If interaction bans require consent, let's say so at WP:IBAN. There is simply way too much actionable behavior, over a year, documented with diffs above to close this with no action. The consensus of uninvolved editors (EvergreenFir, The Voidwalker) is clear: a two-way interaction ban. If the above diffs to not merit an interaction ban, let's section delete WP:IBAN. My block record for one would be a lot cleaner would someone have explained to me all I needed to do was reserve consent. Forgive me, I beg for relief. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Specific requests for admin close ignored by non-admin close:

1. 5 April 2016, at WP:AN HughD: "Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal..."
2. 6 April 2016, above EvergreenFir: "Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it."

Respectfully again request admin close. Ample actionable behavior reported. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You really need to take a hint Hugh. There is no consensus to impose an interaction ban given the discussion above. Admins do not have magical consensus judging powers. And even if someone wanted to close it with your preferred result, an admin still wouldnt be needed or required to say 'Let there be an interaction ban!' as it requires no admin tools to enact. Springee wont agree to a mutual interaction ban without conditions that would make it toothless to *your* detriment. If you abide by the principals at interaction ban (do not comment on their talkpage, do not revert their edits, stay away from them) and Springee does not, it will be quickly apparant who the instigator is. Then it is more likely the next time an outcome might be in your favour. If you both abide by those principals, problem solved. In short - stop asking for an interaction ban and just stop interacting with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent two-way interaction ban imposed without consent and with far less documented disruptive behavior: 1 February 2016 WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Hard_to_believe_they_all_think_we_should_waste_time_on_them._AKA_a_pox_on_all_of_their_houses

I hope that my support for the reasonable, measured, simple proposal of uninvolved colleagues does not take away from the proposal. Hugh (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous opportunities for voluntary compliance with an interaction ban which proved ineffective:

1. 14 September 2015 Prior ANI report for harassment and following
2. 18 October 2015 Administrator and arbitration committee clerk Callenecc requests interaction ban

Voluntary compliance is demonstrably ineffective. Nothing would please me more than an end to this. Please help end the drama. Hugh (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• After all this time, it's pretty clear that none of the admins here are comfortable imposing an Iban or taking other decisive action. I suggest letting this thread die, but - as the most recent nac suggests - doing so with the clear understanding that you are both very strongly encouraged to stay far away from each other. By now it should be crystal clear to both HughD and Springee that everyone else is out of patience here - i will have no qualms about opening a new ANI if there is any further disruption or harassment from either of you. I'm guessing that if that happens, and this is raised here again, that we will easily get consensus for a stronger remedy. But there's no reason it has to come to that. Both of you just have to accept that the dispute ends here, and walk away. You don't need a formal IBAN to do that, although I would certainly suggest acting as of one had been applied going forward. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• There's not really a reason to open this. An admin can apply a topicban to HughD or NickCT or both without opening this. They can also apply the iBan. There was plenty of time for you to make a justification to the community HughD and you did not. It's time to move on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix wrote above: "i will have no qualms about opening a new ANI if there is any further disruption or harassment...Both of you just have to accept that the dispute ends here, and walk away. You don't need a formal IBAN to do that, although I would certainly suggest acting as of one had been applied going forward." Thank you for your epic patience and your heartening ongoing multi-year commitment to addressing this vexing editor behavior issue. May I respectfully offer the following behavior, from just hours after your post, for your consideration, under clause "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" of our project's policy WP:IBAN, with respect to the presumptive "voluntary" interaction ban:

Proposal: 1-way interaction ban on user Springee

Minutes after page protection expired at Ford Pinto, even before our bot got a chance to remove the page protection hat, our colleague Springee reverted multiple contributions of HughD:

• 23:28 13 April 2016 Springee section blanks "Burgess v. Ford" section contributed by HughD, including five noteworthy reliable source references including The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber; no alternative summarizations of removed sources offered.
• 23:30 13 April 2016 Springee changes section title contributed by HughD 11 March 2016
• 23:30 13 April 2016 Springee changes section title contributed by HughD 11 March 2016
• 23:30 13 April 2016 Springee section blanks "Indiana v. Ford" section contributed by HughD, including multiple noteworthy reliable source references including The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, peer-reviewed journal articles, and a book-length treatment; no alternative summarizations of removed sources offered.
• 23:31 13 April 2016 Springee removed content and supporting references contributed by HughD 00:11 5 March 2016, 11:43 5 March 2016

After the recall, but before parts were made available, six more people died in Pinto fires.

• 23:32 13 April 2016 Springee removes a noteworthy reliable source The New York Times contributed by HughD 3 March 2016

• Stuart, Reginald (June 11, 1980). "Government notifies Ford of possible recall for 16 million autos". The New York Times.

• 23:33 13 April 2016 Springee removed content contributed by HughD 13:47 7 March 2016, 14:45 7 March 2016

The report recommended deferring the fixes until the more strict fuel safety regulations came into effect. The analysis was distributed internally by Ford's director of automotive safety.

• 23:34 13 April 2016 Springee removed a noteworthy reliable source from the article contributed to by HughD 3 March 2016

• Gladwell, Malcolm (May 4, 2015). "The Engineer's Lament". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 3, 2016.

• 23:35 13 April 2016 Springee removed POV section hat added by HughD 11 March 2016
• 23:43 13 April 2016 Springee removed ref-improve article hat added by HughD 6 March 2016
• 09:51 14 April 2016 Springee campaigning at Talk:Ford Pinto#Pursue Topic Ban for HughD?

Springee made 12 edits in the minutes following the expiration of the page protection, all but one of which were reversions of HughD; meanwhile, has been an outspoken critic of others making too many edits to an article on the same day (please see 7 March 2016, 8 March 2016, 8 March 2016, 28 March 2016). Hopes for voluntary compliance were dashed within hours. The demonstrated disregard for the community sentiment, clearly expressed in the above ANI filing discussion, is so blatant as to raise competency issues in my mind. Respectfully request 1-year, 1-way interaction ban. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

IMS, The widely expressed "community" sentiment on the talk page was that these edits, and especially the matter of Burgess v Ford, were acceptable; HughD did not, IMO make any case for keeping them, but merely reiterated himself in stock phrases. Anmccaff (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Question - What is the real problem that user UserD wishes to address? Is it hounding and bullying by User:Springee, in which case an involuntary one-way ban may be an extreme draconian measure, or is it disruptive editing or article ownership of Ford Pinto? Is the real issue with an editor or with an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Harassment WP:HARASS in the form of following WP:HOUND and reverting is the real problem. An extremely large percentage of Springee's total edits are reversions of HughD; please see Springee's last dozen edits, above at the head of this proposal, for a sample. A large number of Springee's first edits to articles are after HughD has edited there, see the diffs in the ANI discussion above for examples. The behavior is well beyond any one article. The real issue is with an editor, not an article. A 1-way interaction ban is simple, reasonable, measured, and well-earned. A more clear-cut case for a 1-way interaction ban is difficult to imagine. Inaction on this reasonable request is sadly emboldening. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, you followed Springee to Ford Pinto, remember? If you really want the conflict between you two to end, you're both going to have to "let go" of some articles and some edits. You can't have your cake and eat it too... Fyddlestix (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hours after you implored voluntary compliance, and pledged swift action for further harassment, Springee reverted me 11 times, and continued campaigning, but you're ok with that because the applicable principle here is, he was there 1st??? Hugh (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute on editing Youth time article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! Unfortunately I am obliged to report Jytdog who prevents updating information Youth time article, removing inaccurate information and replacing it with verifiable and productive content.

[135] - current version diff contains inaccurate and at some point unsourced information, which is not structured.

The new version diff: [136]

As you may see, the information has been divided into sections, almost every fact has been provided with an independent and reliable reference source such as Le Figaro (french newspaper), the official web-site of Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, The Huffington Post etc.

The above mentioned user repeatedly reverts all of the modifications back to an older version without providing any actual reason or any examples of promotional content, WIkipedia rules violation except for Proxying.

In my turn, I must say that I do not belong to this movement, I do not work there and I do not act on behalf of some banned editor (actually, I do not know who this person is) and of course I AM NOT PAID for updating information. Though I fully support the idea behind this movement, the updated information on this movement has been partially provided to me by one of the movement's ambassadors. My point is to provide wider auditory with true information corresponding to WIki community rules, whereas Jytdog exceeds his or her authority, his behaviour is unproductive as it does not allow to develop and improve existing content.

F aristocrat (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Youth_Time_redux. I recommend that this thread be closed. However, please note that this user is WP:PROXYING for a bunch of indeffed socks, as discussed in the COIN posting. Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) As rules state: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I am not acquainted with banned users. Moreover, as the rule states, I provide proof and reference, that the new information is verifiable and productive. F aristocrat (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang and block the nominator. Clearly part of this continuation of COI sockpuppetry on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• FYI No WP:SPI filed? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bojdufa. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for a couple of obvious blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block the following accounts, which were created solely to harass me:

• Special:Contributions/Malik Shabaz has yellow chest
• Special:Contributions/Malik Shabaz can produce black coloured milk from his black tits

Be sure to prevent them from sending email and disable their ability to post to their talk pages.

I'd also appreciate it if somebody could explain why some genius administrator was smart enough to revdel the eight thanks these accounts left me but too stupid to block the accounts.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, that loser was after me too. I'm in good company, Malik, but I got like 30+ likes, which makes me feel pretty good. BTW, I don't see those thanks or where they were revdeleted; the accounts are globally blocked but for some reason I can't figure out when or by whom. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • After seeing your message, I did a little digging. It's hard to find, but there's a global block list that shows they were blocked even though their block logs—both local and global—appear to be clean. My sincere apologies to m:User:Defender, who blocked them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't global locks or blocks be noted in local block logs? At least on whatever projects the blocked editor "contributed" to? A clean local block log of a globally blocked user is somewhat deceptinve to an editor looking into a disruptive editor. BMK (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It'd require changes in MediaWiki and I don't know how plausible is that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Cited Information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP keeps removing cited information on List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers ‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.59.129.201

BlackAmerican (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The stated concern seems valid, try using a reliable independent source instead of the fraternity's own website, that will always help. And removing material which cannot be independently sourced also helps reduce the bloat in these articles. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

F aristocrat making repeated legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When F aristocrat made a statement about "violation of freedom of speech and distribution of false and insinuatory information (btw, the latter is punishable by law)" [137], I warned him on his talkpage (warning diff). He followed not long after with this second one stating "once again I remind you that conscious distribution of false and dishonouring information is against law. You may block me as you wish and refuse to deal with it, but keep in mind that outside Wikipedia there are different laws in authority." Looks like a clear violation of WP:NLT from here. - Brianhe (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, firstly, dear Brianhe, I'm not "him", I'm "her". Secondly, you may report and block me, however it is not going to suppress my initiative to make this situation considering bias, distribution of false and offensive information, overpower of use, suppression of other points of view on Wiki open and discussed. As for the organisation involved, I suggest that they turn to legal advice but it's up to them to decide.

PS It's fun that Wiki is afraid of legal threats)))) F aristocrat (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@F aristocrat: I saw the relevant thread at WP:COIN. If you really want to help with the article, please find reliable sources so that we can verify the information. If you are serious about improving the article, I would suggest you to please withdraw your legal threats, find some reliable sources for the points you want included and discuss the issue in a civil manner on the article talk page. Are you willing to do that? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 do you consider French Le Figaro, German Focus, the official web-site of Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia and others (The Huffington Post, bne IntelliNews, The University Post of the University of Copenhagen, Czech Echo24, West Sussex County Times, One Europe) unreliable sources for a Wiki article? F aristocrat (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@F aristocrat: The Huffington Post seems to be reliable. According to this diff [138], you removed this content from the article: "Since 2010 it has co-hosted youth conferences in various countries in collaboration with, and funded by, the World Public Forum, which was founded and run by Vladimir Yakunin, former president of Russian Railways and at the time close to Vladimir Putin". The cited source clearly supports it. May I know why you removed this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 This information has been updated and divided into sections. Information considering WPF contribution is contained here: "The idea of creating Youth Time originated with participants in the youth section of the World Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations". "Youth Time has been funded by, and has worked in partnership with, organizations such as the World Public Forum, Siemens, Alstom, IES Consulting, and the ESEI International Business School". This piece is supported by information from Le Figaro, University Post (University of Copenhagen) and also YouthPress (YT is member of European Youth Press Network). If keeping information on Yakunin is important, it may be kept.

Considering youth conferences the information has been updated in the sense that there are two types of conferences: annual ‘Youth Time Summer School’ and the Youth Time Global Forum, formerly known as the Rhodes Youth Forum. According to that two new sections have been added to the article - Youth Time Summer School and The Youth Time Global Forum

"Since 2011, the Youth Time International Movement has organized an annual ‘Youth Time Summer School...". (sources - Focus (German magazine), One Europe, bne IntelliNews, Voices of Youth, YouthPress)

"The Youth Time Global Forum, formerly known as the Rhodes Youth Forum, is the main annual event organized by the Youth Time International Movement..." (sources - the official web-site of Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, both West Sussex County Times and West Sussex Today, the Huffington Post as well; also publication on Polaris Stations's facebook page and on EMIS blog)

F aristocrat (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@F aristocrat: The problem with your edit was that it totally removed the sentence I quoted above, even when there was consensus to have it in the article. Changes to any article are done by consensus based on existing policies. You also might wish to read WP:UNDUE which describes how much weight should be given to each aspect in an article. In addition, you also used a Facebook page as a reference. Facebook pages are not reliable sources since anyone can publish any information on Facebook. (Please see WP:RS for what are reliable sources). I hope you understand now that engaging in a civil manner helps to solve disputes. If you want some changes done to the article, you can propose them on the talk page (I suggest propose multiple small changes instead of one big change). When you started posting WP:LEGAL threats, it created a hostile environment. Again, if you are willing to help out with the article, please withdraw your threats and suggest changes on the talk page. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 Thanks for the explanation. the problem was that user who undid my edits did not want to explain the problems with the added content so it caused some grave misunderstanding. Ok, I'll withdraw the threats. I'm currently leaving but in the evening I will come back to this issue. Would you mind helping me enhance Youth Time article? Thanks in advance F aristocrat (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARBPIA issues with IP users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After having been adviced about WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 in edit summaries here, here and here and on their talk page here, IP user 110.148.120.64 has continued to push their POV edits to those three articles. The two first-mentioned articles had a similar attack yesterday from another IP address that is located within the same area in Australia. I am not sure what would be the best way to deal with this, block, semi-protection or both, but I guess someone with experience will know. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See the section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Adequately_protecting_articles_from_the_kind_of_Israel_supporters_who_threaten_to_rape_and_kill on this page. This is the same person. There's no point warning them and by doing so you may become the recipient of threats of violence. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a longstanding time waster who has been doing this kind of edit, followed by threats of physical or sexual violence, for some years. Short of semi-protecting every ARBPIA page the most useful response is revert, block, ignore. I'm in a similar time zone to them, so if you spot them and can't get a quick response here at ANI then feel free to also leave a message on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The reverts are being done, please do the block, Special:Contributions/110.148.120.64. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Surprised they were still at that IP. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And thanks! --T*U (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disrespectful, inappropriate and offensive views and edits concerning independence and sovereignty of several Balkan states

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a complaint about your user Biruitorul. Some of his views on Wikipedia and edits on Wikipedia may appear as disrespectful and inappropriate as concerns the independence and sovereignty of several Balkan states such as - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia (FYROM) and Kosovo. These Wikipedia views and edits of Biruitorul may also appear disrespectful, inappropriate and offensive to the victims of the war in former Yugoslavia. May I just remind of the genocides of Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and others. Wikipedia states that it hosts only content that is both free and educational in nature and not content that some viewers may feel disrespectful and inappropriate for themselves and their families. User Biruitorul must make a statement on his user page that he respects and abides by the law as concerns the independence and sovereignty of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia (FYROM) and Kosovo and that he does not support the genocides of Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and others in former Yugoslavia. I trust that Wikipedia will act upon this serious matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.4.135 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Did you have any specific edits in mind or are you just complaining generally? Kleuske (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't consider your response at all legitimate or appropriate Kleuske and I question your motives for posting it. The issues raised are extremely serious. Your response has the effect of denial. All the names mentioned are individuals who have been found guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. If you have nothing of value to offer the persons complaints, then I would advise you not to make it plain to to any who reads your response that you have contempt for the grievance made. And yes, I am point blank stating that I consider your response akin to a Holocaust Denier or any other War Crime committed in the last century on European Soil. Nuro msg me 12:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's Law after only two posts... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs or links where you have found recent inappropriate comments? --Jayron32 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Jayron32, it's helpful if people raising issues at ANI could post some diffs as evidence of the concern they're raising. Is the problem here that an editor is posting demonstrably false content? Or is it that content is being added that portrays individuals in a way that may be adequately sourced, but presents their actions in a way that others disagree with? Without this sort of context, it's hard to work out what administrative action, if any, needs taking. Appreciate any assistance the OP or anyone else can provide to expand on the concern. Also pinging Biruitorul so they're aware of the discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is also the misconception that Wikipedia editors must abide by some nationalist restrictive speech laws; the OP's request that " Biruitorul must make a statement on his user page that he respects and abides by the law as concerns the independence and sovereignty of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia (FYROM) and Kosovo and that he does not support the genocides of Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and others in former Yugoslavia." is simply not appropriate. Wikipedia is not bound by nor does it enforce such "law".

  If IP88 can present some of the edits they find concerning, either by providing a diff of the edit or even a link to a particular page and a quote, it would be possible to see if Biruitorul is violating Wikipedia's rules, which are the only rules we can or should be interested in. Jbh^Talk 12:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Nuro Dragonfly. There is a difference between a question and a response. I was merely asking to provide some examples of the gross missteps you are accusing Biruitorul of, as is the custom on WP:ANI. If you rely on others to provide examples for you, you will be very disappointed, I'm afraid. You may even be hit by a boomerang. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You may think that writing stuff like "I am point blank stating that I consider your response akin to a Holocaust Denier or any other War Crime committed in the last century on European Soil." helps your argument, but i'm afraid it's nothing but a personal attack, I find quite disgusting. Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I have misread your comment. You have come across extremely flippant and condescending. I gave you the response I did for this reason. If I have erred, then I do sincerely apologies. And yes I accept that it was a heavy response from me, but that is how I perceived your response to the question put. Nuro msg me 13:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You may want to check your perceptions, though, especially if they translate into personal attacks. Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I accept the lesson I have just learnt. I use words for their purpose; detailed meaning. I am, however, prone to the heavy side of life. My honest apologies for such a reaction.

As for the matter at hand, I think there is something to look into here, but unfortunately the complaint was made by yet another IP address, and I become suspicious yet again. Nuro msg me 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology but could you explain what you mean by "I am point blank stating that I consider your response akin to a Holocaust Denier or any other War Crime committed in the last century on European Soil". I assume you aren't saying it's okay to deny a war crime commited outside Europe but not okay to deny a war crime commited in Europe so I don't quite get why European soil comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I must say I'm rather puzzled by this complaint. I do have a box on my user page saying I oppose the independence of Kosovo - as do about 80 other users. I barely edit articles related to the former Yugoslavia, although I did just write Prokopije Ivačković, but I doubt that's the problem either. I assume this is the work of a fevered mind with too much time on its hands, and I urge the discussion be closed with all due haste, as there's simply no there there. Either put up or shut up. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disrespectful, inappropriate and offensive views and edits concerning independence and sovereignty of several Balkan states (part 2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did you close the discussion without giving me the right to reply? This is the first proof - on user Birutiorul's page there is a box in which he wrote - 'This user is Yugo-nostalgic - for the good Yugoslavia'. His personal views should not be made public on an organisation public space (Wikipedia), on a neutral encyclopedia, and especially when they are disrespectful and offensive towards the independence and sovereignty of former Yugoslavia states (all of them) and to victims of genocide in former Yugoslavia. The example given by user Biruitorul that there are other 80 users on Wikipedia sharing publicly the same view as his makes it even worse. I wasn't menitoning only Kosovo, but several Balkan states, which user Biruitorul ignored in his so-called answer. There are international laws that Wikipedia users must respect as everybody else, not only Wikipedia rules. The fact that I am not a Wikipedia user should not be disregarded by you when you should look into the matter yourselves and not dismiss it.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-acknowledged SOCK, please indef

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:MagneticMarcella is a self-acknowledged sock per their user page. See this for some background. They are being disruptive; would an admin please indef them? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

While I'm at this, please note this thanks to the sock from F aristocrat, (discussed above a couple of times, and at COIN]. F aristocrat is contributing nothing but drama to WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough of that. Placing a comment on your own talk page and signing it from another user? Bogus. Both accounts blocked for sockpuppetry. I don't know who's the master but Jytdog should take this to SPI post haste. If it turns out they're not socks, any admin can unblock. Katie^talk 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't reckon they are socks of the same master but who knows. They have both been at SPI for a while but they are backlogged over there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations of misogyny

During two separate AfDs, Nfitz (talk · contribs) has accused editors of supporting an official Wikipedia notabilty guideline (WP:NFOOTY) of being misogynists.[139][140] He has been asked to withdraw the personal attack twice,[141][142] but is trying to claim that it is not one.[143] and wikilawyering to claim he has not accused any individual editor.[144]. Could this be dealt with please. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. I pointed out a policy I believe to be misogynistic - that I too have been supporting in the past. I didn't make any personal attacks - especially as I included myself in the misogynistic practice we need to fix. When User:Number 57 questioned what I'd said, I clearly pointed out to him that I wasn't referring to any individual. It's a shame that some editors are far more interested in choosing to be offended and their constant wiki-lawyering and red-taping rather than improving the project. I'd like User:Number 57 to apologize for his personal attack against me. I'm sorry if User:Number 57 misinterpreted my statement. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was very clear from the original, pointed comments that the attack was aimed at certain editors. If anyone had any illusions as to the meaning, they were followed up with "I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age". The attempt at backpeddalling is not going to fool anyone (I hope). As for the request for an apology... Number 57 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did not aim the attack at certain editors. I aimed it at the entire project - myself included. To suggest otherwise is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia - and User:Number 57 needs to apologize for violating WP:AGF. If they were not sure, they could have sought clarification - and I'd already clarified that I had not aimed my comment at any individuals before User:Number 57 came here; by ignoring my clarification that I had not targeted any individuals, has very clearly to violate WP:AGF. Could this be dealt with please? Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You clearly stated in the edits that those who defend the guidelines are misogynists. I understand that in some situations we get a little hot under the collar and sometimes speak/type without thinking things through. But yeah, you did write that. Irrespective of whether or not you actually named anyone you cast a rather unpleasant aspersion on those who disagree with your take on this guideline. At the very least that is a breach of WP:AGF. I suggest that you strike the comment and make an appropriate expression of regret over the unfortunate choice of words. Let's all try to act like adults and not drag this out unnecessarily or make more of it than is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I simply meant that anyone who ignores the WP:BIAS and mysogyny issues would be misogynists. As I'd only just raised them, no one had yet defended the issues I'd raised, there could have been no individual I was referring to. I HAD already clarified that I wasn't targetting an individual with my comments - however User:Number 57 chose to ignore that, and still take offence, where none was meant. Then User:Number 57 chose to violate WP:AGF. This is a far greater transgression in my mind, and User:Number 57 needs to apologize or face the consequences. This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal attack and incivil. Nfitz, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It aggregates information from secondary and primary sources and attempts to give them due weight. If those sources are biased, Wikipedia will be as well. Similarly, if a system or institution has systemic bias in its outcomes for something like fame, Wikipedia will reflect that bias as well because notability is based on that systemically biased institution (e.g., Oscars). It's unfortunate, but that's how encyclopedias and tertiary sources like textbooks work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be a personal attack, if I wasn't making a personal attack. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize for wording it badly. I find it quite insulting that other people are telling me what I was saying and thinking, when I clarified my comments BEFORE it came to ANI. As for Wikipedia being Tertiary - we are discussing policy here, not content. Our policy to not allow articles about female players unless their league is fully-professional, knowing full well there isn't the money in the sport to have fully-professional leagues WHEN WE DO ALLOW SEMI-PROFESSIONAL male leagues in standards for other male-dominated leagues (basketball, gridiron, ice hockey) is clear WP:BIAS. If we held the same standards for ANY league of ANY sport, then I'd agree with you. But we don't. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have struck the offending comment, despite making it very clear to User:Number 57 that they weren't aimed at anyone personally. Re-reading them again, it was poorly worded, and I apologize for that. However, as I'd made it very clear that it wasn't personal, before they decided to bring this here, clearly violating WP:AGF and I await their apology for this. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is interesting stuff. Nfitz's apology is very welcome, but their original comments--the content if not the phrasing--is even more welcome. Even The Rambling Man agreed that there was bias in our guidelines. This is an opportunity to do something useful; if any of Nfitz's words crossed the line (and I think it was very mild) I think they speak to the frustration that is frequently felt when an underrepresented group is the subject of discussion.

  The bottomline is this, and Number 57 may not like it: "the guidelines is the guidelines" is not some sort of secret recipe that somehow eliminates bias. In fact, I am pretty damn sure that the guidelines are based on things that are inherently biased (media coverage, for instance; if I read my local paper and nothing but, cycling wouldn't be a sport and soccer was just for girls), like professional leagues and stuff like that (it's the "professional" part: of course women are underpaid, and this finds an expression in what's professional and what's not--just ask the US women's soccer team, with three World Cups and four Olympic titles, IIRC). Number 57 and others should seize this opportunity to investigate how our guidelines might be biased, and editors (including me) sometimes cannot see the beam in their own eyes. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: Football is a spectator sport, and this is what makes the players notable (with the exception of international footballers, all of whom we deem notable regardless of their professional status). A league's professional status is a direct consequence of the interest in that league, and the status of some leagues as semi-professional is a result of a lack of sufficient interest in those leagues, which is an indicator that the players in those leagues are not notable. Number 57 11:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple, or that "interest" is so easily defined. I think FOOTY needs tweaking and The Rambling Man was right; the highest level in the country should trump the mere "fully professional" requirement. Your response in the Brogan Hay AfD doesn't even regard the GNG which, in my opinion and that of others, is met. (Giant Snowman disagrees, but that's another discussion.) Choosing FOOTY over GNG suggests bias, yes, if FOOTY is biased--which seems to be the opinion of a couple of participants in that AfD. But this is for a different forum than ANI, I realize that. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: The reason we have avoided going down the top level route for notability is primarily because it would allow articles on thousands of non-notable male players playing in countries where football is not a professional sport (e.g. Ireland and other small countries in Europe). Number 57 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
        • While the manner in which this issue was raised was a little too gung-ho, I think what has been criticised is really worth looking into. The guideline for fully-professional leagues is helpful in most cases – however with gender as a factor it becomes a bit more difficult to apply as a general rule of interest/notability. Assigning the same criteria to both male and female players doesn’t take into account gender discrimination – as User:Drmies mentioned, women are in many cases are simply paid less; this doesn’t necessarily correlate with less interest for the sport. The pitfalls of amending notability criteria are clear, yet I think there may be ways to side-step potential problems. Perhaps for countries where there is notable football enthusiasm (where the men's league(s) are fully-professional) there could be criteria to allow for the top-tier women's league - This could aid in avoiding the problem User:Number 57 raised regarding non-notable male players. In any case, it would be good to start a constructive debate on this issue and discuss possible amendments. BoroFan89 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
          • • The level of interest in the sport in terms of playing is not relevant; the level of interest in terms of it being a spectator sport (which is what makes players notable) is. What you seem to be suggesting is that Wikipedia adopts some form of positive discrimination. Number 57 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
              • I'm a bit confused by what you're saying - I never linked the level of interest with playing? I do believe that semi-pro women's football cannot be compared with semi-pro men's football - due to the reasons given above, and the notability criteria should consider this. BoroFan89 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a good opportunity to fix WP:NFOOTY to make sure it's written in a way that does not discriminate against women in football. See Wikipedia:Writing about women:

Women comprise between 8.5 and 16.1 percent of editors on the English Wikipedia.[1] This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies in turn determine which articles about women can be hosted, and frame many of the ways in which they are written.

LauraHale has worked hard to promote women in sport. She hasn't edited here since January, but I'm pinging her anyway in case she has thoughts about how to change the guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• For ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY), we allow "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant." That's the situation with Brogan Hay. As I understand it, she's playing at the highest level at which she can play in Scotland, but there is no professional level for women there. So we ought to add that caveat to WP:NFOOTY. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: My question would be how would this be applied across football in general? I presume you are not suggesting creating a bias towards women's articles by imposing a lower level of notability based solely on gender? Are you suggesting that NFOOTY be amended to state that all players in a given country's top league are presumed notable?

The problem with that would be the vast number of non-notable male footballers who would suddenly fit this criterion, not to mention non-notable female footballers, all of whom play in very minor leagues which attract very little attention.

If the desire is to see more articles on women, then I would suggest editors start on the large number of missing articles for women who have played senior international football, who pass NFOOTY as is but do currently have an article and thereby begin to solve this problem top down not bottom up. And let's not get started on the poor state of articles on women's football clubs, national teams and competitions.

If the desire is to see more articles on women in a given league, i.e. Scotland in this instance, surely GNG is the best root to follow. Again this solves the problem from a top down pov by ensuring that articles are created on the most notable female footballers first before there is any need to alter a subject specific guideline.

I am more than happy to get in a discussion on how to make football articles more inclusive, but I am adamant that any changes made must be applicable to all footballers, not simply female footballers and that the risk of a flood of hitherto non-notable players of either gender may suddenly appear.

However, I would be interested to see, particularly if a wider audience beyond the usual WP:FOOTY editors can be engaged, if a consensus can be reached that players from a country's top division are deemed notable regardless of gender. That somewhat blunt approach seems to me to be the only way to resolve this issue in a way that provides clarity on notability to even the most inexperienced of editors and allows the inclusion of more articles on female footballers without creating a positive bias. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix, I'm not sure what you mean by applying any new suggestion across football in general. My suggestion is that WP:NFOOTY follow WP:NHOCKEY, and add a clause that says something like:

"Played one or more games in an amateur league that is the highest level of competition available because of the lack of a professional league."

Alternatively, NFOOTY could follow WP:NRU (for Rugby Union), which cites women, and say something like:

"Or has played one or more games at the highest level of competition available in women's football in her country."

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see other sections on that page cite women; e.g. WP:NBASKETBALL (though the Women's National Basketball Association is professional); WP:NBOX (mentions women and amateur boxers); and WP:NCYCLING. It should be easy enough to add a sentence to NFOOTY that accommodates what happens in the women's game. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Firstly, I think it should be pointed out that we do not allow male players articles in cases where the top divisions in their countries are semi-pro or amateur and dozens of articles on such players are deleted every year without any such uproar. Secondly, what needs considering here is what makes footballers notable. Our guidelines give two methods for footballers to gain assumed notability; the first is common to most sports, i.e. representing their country (playing international football). The second is related to football's status as a spectator sport – and this is something that not all sports get, as if there is not much interest in many sport from a spectator point of view, this in turn means the players are not deemed notable. However, obviously not all footballers are notable, as not all footballers play in leagues where there is sufficient spectator interest (I myself have played in a league where we used to get 10-20 people watching our games). So, we have to determine which leagues do make their players notable by virtue of playing in them. The best indicator of whether there is interest in a league in terms of it being a spectator sport is professional status; if a league cannot attract sufficient crowds or sponsorship, then this suggests there is not that much interest in it, and subsequently, that the players are not notable. Being a top division does not automatically make a league's players notable if there is little interest in that league in the country in question, and this rule is applied equally to both men's and women's football. If we had separate rules for men's and women's football, this would effectively be positive discrimination, which I would hope we all agree that this is not what Wikipedia is for.

Also, and I'm sure this was not your intention, citing the rugby union example is not really a good idea because I would say it is actually quite biased against women. WP:NRU allows an article on any male player to play in the world cup, but a female player has to be in a team that reaches the semi finals to qualify. Number 57 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have been involved with Nfitz over AfD discussions on football-related articles, especially on players from Myanmar, and we were frustrated that though we knew that many of these players were playing in their country's top league, due to the lack of reliable sources (owing to simply the lack of documented media coverage of football events in Myanmar. Just google..) we were unable to prove their notability as per NFOOTY, which resulted in the deletion of some of the articles.

Now, to my point: I think that Nfitz made an error in his original statements, which were the original subject of this discussion; what Nfitz essentially said in his original comments (which were linked by Number 57 and I'm not going to re-quote them) is basically: "If you support the policy, you are a misogynist, if you do not support the policy, you are not a misogynist". This is clearly a false dichotomy as effectively, it means that if I happen to support the policy, that makes me invariably a misogynist, and you can only be one or the other. That's not true of course, as just because I support the policy, it doesn't automatically make me a misogynist.

I assume that because of this error, that Nfitz is seen by extension to be calling people misogynists if they happened to support the policy, but here's the thing: he is not calling anyone misogynists in particular; by Nfitz making his statement verbatim, there is an element of if - "If you support, you will be...; if you do not support, you will be...". On that note, I do not believe that Nfitz has not made any personal attack on any particular individual or groups of individuals. Granted that his comments were insensitive and logically incorrect in the sense that he was trying to make others invariably make one choice over the other (false dichotomy), but other than these, I don't see any other wrong in his comments.

I'm not sure if it would help this discussion, but I'll state it anyway as a reminder to all of us, especially since Nfitz rightly said that we should be concerned with improving Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not censored. Oh and as a side point, I doubt Nfitz violated WP:NPOV, considering he was highlighting a fundamental flaw in policy, one which unfortunately has a gender element to it. Just stating it too, if it pops up in this discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also, as yet another side point, I don't think Number 57 should be required to apologise either; to me this entire discussion has been a whole big misunderstanding of both sides since the beginning. I also want to praise Drmies for coming into this discussion with a voice of reason that spanned both sides. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I wouldn't go so far as to say misogyny. But there definitely seems to be a double standard against women going on in this case study, unfortunately. That represents our Wikipedia community quite poorly to our readers. — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• A point on the substantive issue of non-professional top national leagues. I have not been completely happy with this, in a number of cases players who have played for a large country in major sports, in a major international competition, have had their articles deleted. In these cases, if GNG is not met, a redirect to a team page, with sections on each player, would be worthwhile. There are cases where player redirects have been deleted because the player no longer plays for the team. What we have is a combination of systemic bias and recentism. Clearly there is a basis for saying that professional leagues are more notable, that players representing larger (and hence better funded) nations are likley to be more notable, and that more recent players, especially current players are going to be easier to reference.

But that doesn't mean we should abnegate all coverage, bearing in mind the difficulty of finding sources, we should build what significant coverage we can using reliable sources to populate team pages, and where necessary <sport> in <country> pages.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

• Still waiting for an apology from User:Number 57 for their clear violation of WP:AGF. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't get what you mean by violation of AGF. If you could quote an example that is not already in this ANI discussion, I would love to see it. Otherwise, seriously there is no need for an apology to you or to Number 57. As per the second part of my original reply above, this discussion was clearly the result of bad misunderstanding, and (fairly) hot heads on both sides. He thought you were calling others misogynist, and you have acknowledged that you could have worded it better. It was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Can our feelings not be so easily crushed by others? I think we should just dust ourselves off and move on from this ANI discussion that has clearly been a few days in and doesn't seem to be heading anywhere. What should really be done is to focus on the issues with WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY, and/or other article-related policies or guidelines, as highlighted by yourself (Nfitz) and other users. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution to the WP:NFOOTY issue would be to say that all players (male or female) from the top level league in a country are notable, unless it is a micro-nation (say less than 500,000 inhabitants*). This then avoids the what about Faroe Islands, etc. problem. Most good standard players from those countries will meet NFOOTY anyway by playing for the national team, which is relatively easier anyway. *I realise this is arbitrary, but I think it would be possible to reach a consensus on what defines a micro-nation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is the claim that it's misogynist of Wikipedia to reflect that football is a male-dominated sport. It's the world that is misogynist, not Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if we decide to make all top level league players notable it should count for all leagues that are a member of any of the six football confederations. I think the current "professional league" level is better, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Global IP rangeblock

I just got caught in a global IP rangeblock made by @Masti: over on Meta. The message I got telling me about this (when trying to rollback anti-Semitic vandalism on the RefDesk) and then when I tried to post an unblock request on my talkpage was "Permission error

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki vandalism: + leaky colo.

Start of block: 19:05, 6 April 2016
Expiration of block: 19:05, 6 October 2016

You can contact Masti to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 188.29.164.122, and the blocked range is 188.29.164.0/23. Please include all above details in any queries you make."

Now, firstly it is a bit rich to leave established editors with no way to request an unblock on their home wiki, secondly it is even richer to block established users with no effort to communicate with them directly, and thirdly, the IP range is for mobile services from 3, one of the major UK mobile providers, so is likely to affect many good-faith users. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the merits of the block or its validity, a /23 block only covers 512 IP addresses, and is not likely to affect many people. It may be that you just got unlucky with this one. /23 is very targeted, and should not affect most (or even many) of that network's mobile providers. That does not say that the block is justified, or that you don't have a complaint, but rather that the portion of your complaint that it affects an entire ISP, or even that it affects a large number of addresses, isn't true. ---Jayron32 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it affected an entire ISP, or a large number of addresses (I wouldn't pretend to have the faintest idea how many addresses it did affect). I did say it's likely to affect a large number of people, as every time someone comes online they are likely to have a different address, and so, over 6 months it is likely to affect many. Even if it could be guaranteed to "only" affect 512 people, to leave them without any on-wiki way of appealing is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dropped a notification on Masti's TP for you. A ping is not considered sufficient notification due to the notorious way pings can fail. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I change the block to unregistered users only. So You should be able to edit now. Sorry for the problems @DuncanHill: Masti (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am now global IP block exempt too. I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable! DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

However both the big red text at the top of the page and orange box you see when you edit do say "must notify them on their user talk page" so the reasons are largely moot unless it's a discussion over the reasons. Perhaps the point of confusion is the ""discussion about an editor" bit, but that's normally taken to mean if you discussion includes commentary on the editor, they should be notified. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And the notices have been there so long that they merge into the background. I also rather think they did not always specify talkpage. Masti was well aware that I was unhappy with the situation as I had emailed him via Meta, mentioning that this was my home wiki. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what it's said in the past, but it's been clear since pings were introduced that you have to notify editors via their talk page not via other methods like pings. This is a standard expected part of starting ANI threads and for several editors including me, it reflects negatively on any editor who fail to do so. (Not just because of the failure to do the minimum required by the big notice, but because a lot of the time when I see an editor hasn't notified, they're a new editor with a groundless complaint.) The only few exceptions are generally when the editor is blocked or banned or when there's an iban or request to stay away (but in that case it should be mentioned when starting the thread) and with IPs that change so much that it pointless (although it's normally wise to at least attempt to do so in thos case). Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But they have to actually try to edit while using the IP, so in reality it's not particularly likely to affect that many registered editors unless the IP range happens to be used by a some large company (since it's a mobile IP not very likely) or something (I wonder why such a small range was blocked and whether there's something to do with the assignment policy which means people only tend to get a small number in which case it could be certain editors would have gotten it a lot or it's very rare). While there are quite a few anonymous contributions from that range to en.wikipedia, non registered editors always run the risk they will be blocked if others misuse their IPs and a /23 isn't considered sufficiently small that it may be justified if there are problems. I see some mention of leaky colo which I presume means leaky colocation, so the number may be slightly higher but then again perhaps this leak colo falls in to the open proxy arena (like a webhost) so they aren't allow to edit from that anyway. (Blocking a whole countries proxyy tends to be the more controversial thing.) Note that ultimately if you have problems editing from an IP and that IP was blocked for good reason, you should be complaining to your ISP for failing to have decent abuse policies or failing to enforce them as you're I presume paying your ISP for service which they aren't able to provide. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to edit from an account, not as an IP. Apparently registered users also always run the risk that they will be blocked for the deeds of others and with no on-wiki appeal. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If I might interject, what are we hoping to accomplish here? Masti has converted the global block to anon only in response to DuncanHill's request. DH was granted global IPBE so this won't occur again. Furthermore, I removed the local block in less than 15 minutes from DH's email to me. (~00:29 UTC April 7) It sounds to me that things have been handled correctly and promptly. DH, if you are dissatisfied with Masti's block, that's an issue that you will have to raise on meta. Mike V • Talk 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I was dissatisfied with the impossibility of appealing a block made without notification! Now, I do have email enabled, so after the initial shock and confusion I was able to contact some likely looking admins, but anyone who does not is left with no method whatsoever of seeking any kind of help. And Mike, I never asked you to undermine Masti's block by removing it locally, I asked you to restore my IPBE here on en-wiki which you had earlier removed on en-wiki without telling me, and make it apply to all wikis so at the very least I could ask for help in a more conducive environment. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC) and edited DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess my comment wasn't as clear as I thought. I never meant you were editing without an account. What I said is that when using an IP range that has been misused by others, you always run the risk you're going to encounter problems, both on wikipedia and elsewhere because of this misuse. If this causes problems for you, it is indeed an issue between you and your ISP, because you are (unless it's a free service in which case it's probably tough luck) paying them for a service and they are failing to provide it because they are assigning you IPs and not properly controlling misuse of those IPs by their other customers. Whether you are using an account or not, you still have an IP, that's the way the internet works. Frankly, the circumstances allowed here on wikipedia and wikimedia projects in general are very generous. AFAIK it's basically unheard of for IP or ranges to be blocked from accessing wikipedia. IP or ranges are only ever blocked from editing and usually with great attempts made to ensure it's affecting as few people as possible and the block is needed. And even there, multiple avenues of appeals are usually provided and frequently great attempts will be made to assist people who weren't the primary targets of the blocks to continue editing. With a lot of other stuff, you're often SOL often with little avenue of appeal even if you weren't the target of the block or the block wasn't even needed or is excessively broad. And that's just stuff like forums, things like The Spamhaus Project tend to be even more onerous. I'm not saying we shouldn't be so generous, but rather you have to consider how the internet works. It does sound like a hardblock wasn't needed here, so there's a valid point of complaint there, but ultimately the primary fault lies with those misusing your ISP and next your ISP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing a global block locally wasn't undermining Masti's actions. If there's a global block in place that does not have a positive benefit to en.wiki, any administrator can adjust it. In my emails to you I informed you that only stewards can apply a global IPBE and provided you avenues to request one. (Remember, IPBE on en.wiki only applies to local en.wiki hard blocks.) The reason you weren't directly contacted about the block is because your IP address was blocked, not your account. The blocking steward was not aware that you were on the range. When a user is blocked, directly or editing on a hard blocked range, he or she can still edit his or her talk page unless talk page access is revoked. Looking at the block log shows that was not the case, so you should have been able to place an unblock request on meta. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Small comment to DuncanHill and Blackmane before this gets closed: "I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable!". They are reliable. If they are not working, you are doing something wrong, like not typing four tildes in the same post as your ping. See WP:PING. The reason Talk-page notification is necessary is that that makes it official and firmly recorded (for the user and for others) and highly visible (not ignorable). Plus, some people don't read notifications closely or immediately or read all of them or may only skim their notifications; some people get dozens of pings a day; there is also no way of fully knowing how urgent or important a ping is unless one actually visits the page in question; some people don't format pings correctly (misspell username, don't type four tildes, etc.); and there is also a very remote possibility that a few people may have mention-notifications turned off (although I've never heard of anyone who does). -- Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• User talk:Materialscientist says "I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry." This may be related to the second userbox on their user page, which says "This user believes that the meaning of life is to live a happy life." MPS1992 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As Softlavender says, one needs to remember to do the pings plus sigs together. Going back and adding in your sig or ping after the fact causes the ping to fail. If one makes a post but forgets to ping, make a new post. Best policy when using pings is to use the Show Preview to double check. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The range block seems to be because of disruptive editing on the Polish Wikipedia by an editor now in the UK. The same IP addresses don't have edits to other wikis and the articles don't exist in other languages. A global block seems unnecessary. Talk page access shouldn't be revoked; I assume this is a bug, but has it been reported? Can editors affected by these blocks place unblock requests on meta? How would this work for a user with no account there? Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK if you have an account on en you have an account on meta due to WP:SUL and since I think finalisation has finally happened, I don't think it's possible to not have an account on meta. (You could have stuff like talk page access revoked there I assume.)

Also is there a reason to think this is only because of the stuff on the Polish wikipedia? I looked in to this a few days ago and admit I didn't find anything else. There was some weird stuff at Pilates, Talk:Pilates and User talk:Alexbrn but I'm not totally sure it's vandalism and so since it didn't look to be the same editor it didn't seem to me it would justify a global block.

But my ability to check other wiki contribs was hampered by the fact there isn't (AFAIK) any easy tool to look at cross-wiki range contributions. I only looked at the contribs of the blocked range to a few projects and looked for comments to the blocking steward on meta, Pl and here. As such I didn't comment as I suspected there could easily be something I was missing.

Today when writing this it occured to me to check the cross wiki contribs of those three or four IPs who'd recently been editing here and on pl. This made me realise simple.wikipedia was one project I hadn't looked and there did seem to be some dodgy looking stuff there. And sure enough the IP range appears to be a regular vandal at simple.wikipedia. [145] [146]

Whether or not this is enough to justify a global block, I can't say (particularly since I still don't quite know what the leaky colo is about). But as said, even before I found the simple stuff I didn't see any reason to think it was solely because of the Polish stuff. If there is a way to do cross wiki range contrib check I presume you would have found the simple stuff so I do find it quite mystifying why you think it's only because of the Polish stuff.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

A month ago I was blissfully unaware of Jytdog. Then he caused a car crash at the RepRap project article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [147][148] and this ANI thread. Today he's suggesting I need to get a "Moron Diploma".

Both of these show just the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with editors and their work dismissed as "Garbage content based on garbage sources".

I noticed this today at User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning. As those with long memories will know, there is little love lost between Wtshymanski and myself, but I've always recognised that he knew his subject - a courtesy clearly not being extended by Jytdog here.

As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with beryllium. He proceeded to 4RR edit war [149][150][151][152] to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the vast numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.

The main problem though is less what he did and more how he goes about it. Just take a look at the talk page comments, accusing Wtshymanski of edit-warring and my talk page (14 posts tonight!). See also WP:RSN#Documents uploaded to ScribD. This battlegrounding is just not acceptable here - other editors, even myself, just do not deserve this bile from Jytdog. This is far from a new problem either, ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.

I removed one sentence (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - here is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.

As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has commented there many times; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which he had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.

As I did at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and not follow me around picking fights. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.

About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page here his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I had written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was here. I removed it before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it). His inappropriate comments still stand.

And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.

Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It is true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.

I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Does this look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. here is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-in-the-citations content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Possible trout in response to Jytdog's initial action(s), boomerang for the filer of this report as frivolous and pointy as well as his own obvious battleground behavior that escalated things needlessly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well hello again Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media.) Andreas JN466 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not what he does that's the problem it's how he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is not the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.

Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply wrong? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on acute beryllium poisoning is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is not a positive outcome to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For a complaint about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... WP:BATTLEGROUND-y. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• FFS. Guys, the content looks perfectly acceptable but it does not seem to me to belong in the lede, as it's distinctly niche. Please read WP:LAME, bury the hatchet and move on. We have enough trouble fighting off the nutters without taking lumps out of each other over things where reasonable people might differ. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of CaptainYuge over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that he had decided were unfit to edit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment
  • Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
  • Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
  • Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad (version before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS (version when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You say " I have no desire to be in this discussion. " at Talk: as if that's a good thing. You're great at seagull management, but you refuse to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.

As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an occupational condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.

This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the comment by Alexbrn who aptly stated regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND problems with the filer of this report: "For a complaint about BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... BATTLEGROUND-y." In addition, Winkelvi is correct by pointing out that WP:BOOMERANG could be applicable here regarding the filer for WP:POINT disruption. I've looked over the relevant article history and evidence presented above and agree with Jytdog that these comments DIFF 1 and DIFF 2 on the talk page are disruptive and harm the community's ability to improve the article. Jytdog should be commended for efforts to improve the site with regards to application of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, are you trying to redefine WP:INVOLVED here? You and Winkelvi are behind the most fatuous and obviously biased deletion I've seen at Commons in years: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz_MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility and tone. There's a thoroughly trivial deletion request at Commons that you started, I commented upon, and now you show up here just to cause trouble. Coincidence? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith by the filer are remarkable evidence of further WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, or at the very least, failure to recognize I've already commented in multiple threads on this ANI page in the past 24 hours about many different topics. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So tell us Cirt, just what did bring you to an article on this obscure medical condition? You're fooling no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruption by Andy Dingley

• Update: It looks like Jytdog has chosen to disengage himself from the article Berylliosis. ("unwatching")

Despite this, unfortunately it appears the filer of this ANI thread has continued the edit-warring, disruption, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. When Jytdog left, the filer picked right up edit-warring against a different editor. Some examples of recent disruption:

• 10:49, 31 March 2016‎ -- "restore section - there is no contradiction between these two"

• 15:07, 31 March 2016‎ -- "Restore with another ref"

• 23:52, 1 April 2016‎ -- "You've been told once already. Undid revision 713104471 by QuackGuru"

Unfortunately, this now appears to be an ongoing pattern of disruption against multiple editors by the ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• [Note: Jytdog has since [153] [154] continued to edit this page Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)]

Cirt, please do not remove this note for a third time. You are making a now false statement in defence of Jytdog, who has clearly not behaved as he promised to. To keep reinstating this claim, against an obvious edit history to the contrary, is to whitewash the behaviour of the subject of this ANI post. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, for not adding this comment in-between my above comment, as you wrongly did previously, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Classic content dispute. Andy, please stop bringing these content disputes, front-loaded in your OPs with trumped-up unrelated drama, to ANI. This is strictly a content dispute, and resolvable on the article's talk page by discussion, consensus, DR, RFC, whatever it takes. I'm inclined to agree with others that a boomerang is possibly in order because it's the second time in a month or so that you've wasted ANI time on this sort of thing [155]. Softlavender (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Softlavender about WP:BOOMERANG here, especially after reading the close summary at the prior ANI thread cited by Softlavender, where admin Spike Wilbury closed it as: "Content dispute, primarily. ... These ridiculous threads where content disputes are spilling over into AN/I". These frivolous ANI thread filings by the current ANI filer are a waste of the community's patience and disruptive to the project. — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Hengistmate has been deliberately trolling and socking me for years, and has been repeatedly blocked as a result. That is not a "content dispute" and it was thoroughly deserving of ANI. Nor does it have any relation to Jytdog's behaviour here.

If you are complaining of me edit-warring here (despite Jytdog already being at 4RR), then you know where ANEW is.

Cirt, you are only here because of a bizarre deletion request you and Winkelvi are involved in at Commons and both of you saw this as a good opportunity to troll me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pure content dispute, no clear evidence of edit warring submitted by OP (edit: referring to Andy Dingley). In fact, the claim of "4RR" implies that Jytdog violated 3RR on some article. I don't see what article that is. As of the filing of this complaint, on Berylliosis, Jytdog had only performed 3 non-consecutive edits in the previous 24 hours, and one was not a revert as far as I can tell. The claim of edit warring seems spurious as well, or at least unproven. I concur that a boomerang sanction or admonishment should lie, not only for the (I'll assume unintentionally) misleading complaint, but also for the combative stream of responses in this thread. This is a massive waste of time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:I thought the term "edit warring" and "disruption" meant any type of edit warring, not only solely 3RR itself. Surely there is ongoing disruption at the article by the original ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, where I said OP I was referring to Andy Dingley's OP in the top section. Perhaps I should have made my comment up there rather than down here. I've added a clarifier. Anyway, I agree that there's actually ongoing disruption at Berylliosis by Andy Dingley, as you've shown above Cirt. I think that taken with Andy's conduct in the original thread here, some sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And now that Andy has retroactively amended his initial posting to include diffs of a supposed "4RR edit war", we can see that there's a greater than 24 hour gap in the claimed reverts. While the term "4RR" is meaningless (there is no four revert rule), terms like that are almost exclusively used to refer to a violation of 3RR involving more reverts (actually 4RR shouldn't be used at all since a 3RR violation necessarily involves 4 reverts). Someone making four non-consecutive reverts in a 72 hour period hasn't violated 3RR. If Andy intends to prove that those four reverts add up to an edit war, I think we're going to need more than that. Worst case, Jytdog should be told to be careful not to violate 3RR, and that edit warring can be called in the absence of a 3RR violation. I'm more concerned with Andy Dingley's conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

When you complain over a lack of diffs, don't then call to block someone when they give you those diffs! 3RR/24 is a "bright line" for edit-warring. As any of ANEW will inform you though, this is not the only indication of edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't say 4RR when you don't intend to mean the person has violated 3RR, then. The second "R" in 3RR means "rule". When you say 4RR you're implying a rule was broken. I don't see it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley has now followed me to yet another article and his intent to WP:HOUND is clear - here is where he reverted me, and again restoring badly/unsourced sourced content (this time what was sourced, was sourced to Investopedia). I am now requesting a 48 hour block to prevent further disruption and a 1-way interaction ban for Andy with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Followed"? To an article I edited months ago? Don't flatter yourself.

There is no justification in using a valid complaint against a source to start blanking whole paragraphs as well, when they contain simply sourceable, uncontroversial content for which there are abundant other sources.

And what's your excuse for this edit? [156] Sheer carelessness. Which you insisted on doing twice, even when reverted by another editor. You are too blinkered by your desire to Right Great Wrongs to even pay attention to what you're doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have apparently become your "great wrong" to right. I believe you will be blocked and will face an i-ban for hounding me, but we will see. You are continually bringing unclean hands with your editing decisions here; your edits are clearly POINTy and about me, and not about high-quality content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very good at assigning all sorts of motives to other editors. This was a question about your edits here. Why was your (seriously wrong) edit so important that you had to do it twice, over another editor? Have you even looked at what you did here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Angry or not, it is remarkable how often Jytdog is mentioned on this page due to battleground issues. To the point that he even had a ArbCom-case and a indefinite topic ban on his head... The Banner talk 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just like Andy Dingley has his "fans", I have mine. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Andy needs to be encouraged to work on something else. I think a short-term interaction ban will do that. If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term. I'm just not a fan of indef editing restrictions out the gate, and would rather not block a long-term editor when there's another way to convey the message to "Do something else". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A "one way" ban? Why? So that Jytdog can keep awarding me "Moron Diplomas"? So that he can describe adding needed sources as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content"? Or just so that he can keep describing other editors' work as "Garbage content based on garbage sources" and "demeaning to WP"? And this is all from "Mr Clean Hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog starts poking the beehive once a restriction is in place, then we can talk. If there's support for it instead, though, I could see a temp two-way interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I can live with the try-a-short-term remedy approach. I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Agree with Mendaliv, especially "If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term." This disturbing behavior pattern, now across multiple articles against Jytdog, has gone on long enough. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I just reverted this above mentioned edit by Jytdog. I have not scrutined the history of Jytdog nor read the whole discussion above nor looked at the Beryllium dispute, and I am pretty sure they were in good faith when they made the edit.... but if I should judge their contributions on the basis of this sole edit, I should conclude they are a vandal, or at best that they have not the competence to edit Wikipedia. They actually blindly removed TWICE all the categories, the Commons template, the "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" navigation box (in which the relevant article was actually linked), the portal templates, the official website. They were removed with edit summaries saying they are spam while none of these are spam. The supposed (a couple of them seems ultimately acceptable to me) spammy external links had been already hidden using the <!-- --> template. Cavarrone 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix. Yes I didn't catch that my removal of the WP:ELNO-violating external links included the cats and navbox. Thanks for catching that. Another user removed those ELs after you reverted me. Again, my bad on the cat/navbox removals. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 month one-way interaction ban per Medaliv and Cirt. Not much use in making it only 1 week at this point. And keeping open the possibility of revisiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? I haven't insinuated that Jytdog is a moron or garbage, as they have. I'm not the one making 4RR edits, or pushed repeated edits that another uninvolved editor has compared to a vandal or a CIR case.

Cirt is the one calling for an interaction ban, and they're (like Winkelvi) only popping up unannounced because I called them both out over a bogus deletion request at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The short answer is because you seem to be refusing to drop the stick here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Which stick is that? I've had a stream of abuse from Jytdog and I'm entitled to respond to it. Have I edited the Berylliosis article since? Have you seen my edits since with QuackGuru? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Tryptofish here, 1 month one-way interaction ban at this point is probably better than one week, could always revisit at a later point in time. Thank you, Tryptofish, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So what does bring you here, Cirt, if it's not your push to delete at Commons? I know Winkelvi already happened to be on the carpet at ANI over his behaviour in trying to delete the whole article. You're staying awfully quiet on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Already answered, above. I echo Tryptofish at this point, please drop the stick here. Thank you ever so much, — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Quoting scary ALLCAPS is no substitute for answering the question. Go on, why are you and Winkelvi here at all if it's not just simple retaliation against another editor who challenged your behaviour at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is retaliation. They were not involved until you disagreed with them concerning the Heidi Cruz picture above. They should just move along and let unbiased editors work out the issues with Jytdog. It is shameful the way that Admin Cirt is retaliating against your on the spot comments at Commons. Cirt is an admin and he should know better.--ML (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong. I'd already commented in multiple locations on this ANI page in numerous different threads before this one. — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andy you have stopped pursuing me out there in the 'pedia and I am grateful for that. And I have heard your concern here about my harshness. I have. If you would agree to let this go, this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that. I hope you will agree. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I must say that it's incredibly surprising how many WP:BATTLEGROUND complaints there are about Jytdog here. Almost every time I check this noticeboard, in fact. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 07:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • If one develops a bit of a reputation, or if others see a complaint, then it is certainly possible that they can just play "follow the leader." Smoke often indicates fire, but isn't really proof of it. Jytdog deals in a number of truly contentious topics, and as a result faces a lot of criticism. It isn't unreasonable to see someone who themselves is a frequent target of others to develop a bit of a battleground view if they see that others are to an extent engaged in battleground behavior toward them. Yeah, I've had some fairly strong disagreements with him myself, whether he remembers them or not, and I can see that maybe he is a bit too "quick on the trigger" once in a while. In at least some of the topics he edits in, several other editors don't get reported here, but taken to AE to be dealt with there, sometimes rather severely. That doesn't seem to be the case here, thankfully. Personally, I don't see a lot to be done here myself, other than maybe application of a WP:TROUT or smaller fish to one or more individuals, and hope that such a light reprimand might be found acceptable. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Further harassment by Jytdog using SPI

Far from disengaging or "this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that.", Jytdog has now proceeded to open a deliberately harassing SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

This is not a new tactic for Jytdog. He did it to CaptainYuge a few weeks ago. In that case he also refused to accept the decision of the SPI and continued to harrass and insult the presumed innocent Yuge: User talk:Jytdog#Final warning for edit warring Although in that same thread he says he wouldn't try it on me! Mind you, given his other statements of ":I am unwatching this article. I have no desire to be in this discussion." and " I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it." and their retrospective lack of accuracy, we can't place too much faith in any such statement.

Baseless accusations of socking with no other purpose are considered to be a form of harassment.

Just above, Mendaliv refers to the possibility of, "If Jytdog starts poking the beehive". I consider this beehive thoroughly poked. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Most certainly NOT "baseless accusations". Valid evidence presented by Jytdog at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. ---> Already led to one block on a sock account by admin JzG (talk · contribs). The evidence presented by Jytdog was compelling enough to lead admin JzG to block and in the block log note: "A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who.". Therefore, Jytdog was correct to file the sock investigation, as it was borne out by the admin action by JzG. Further investigation is needed. — Cirt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog has suspicions about one editor, there are acceptable channels to deal with that. These do not involve raising baseless SPIs on other uninvolved editors, especially not those editors with whom Jytdog is already deeply WP:INVOLVED. False accusations of socking breach NPA and this is not the first time that Jytdog has used this method. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The accusations by Jytdog are valid and led to a block by JzG (talk · contribs). Therefore they were not baseless. WP:INVOLVED links to Wikipedia:Administrators. Jytdog is not an administrator, last time I checked. — Cirt (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The block was good because it was a block." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you are using quotation marks here in a misleading manner. I never said that. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You said, literally, "Therefore". Implying that their baselessness was refuted because they had already been acted upon. This is an obvious logical fallacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is reasonable to say that something which is acted upon is not baseless, unless one wishes to imply that the person acting upon it is acting perhaps irrationally. The question is whether Andy is reasonably the sockpuppet master here. I tend to very much doubt that is the case myself, but there are and/or have been cases of editors who seem to be working together which are all but indistinguishable in some cases from sockpuppets. The only way one can know whether an SPI concern is valid is through filing one, ultimately, and, while it might conceivably if done too frequently be seen as an abuse of that procedure, it is at best a very long stretch in at least my eyes to say that a single instance of filing an SPI which is found to be actionable in some way necessarily qualifies primarily as a personal attack on the person perhaps falsely named as the sockmaster. Jytdog can at times be a bit overenthusiastic in some areas, and it may be that in this case the party named is not the sockpuppeteer. But there are conceivably sockpuppets of meatpuppets, or other forms of off-wiki coordination (none of which I suspect here either). There are also, sometimes, simply, old troublemakers coming back at an unfortunate time. The request seems to have been a reasonable one, even if the individual named probably isn't the real sock master, and I can't criticize anyone for basically finding an obvious sock, even if they get the identity of the sockpuppeteer wrong. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter (talk · contribs), I agree that the SPI investigation was warranted, and it is certainly possible the case page name may be changed by the end of it, but there was at least one sock blocked by an admin so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: There was a sock blocked by an admin based on behavioral evidence. After the fact, technical evidence proved the account were unrelated. That block should've been overturned unless the account could be tied to a different master.--v/r - TP 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the block log note by JzG (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean, "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who."

For NOTHERE, that's a hell of a judgement to make for an editor who has made one article space edit, one to the talk: page and two to a user talk:. We can't get real vandals blocked in that time, let alone indeffed.

As a sock, then "it doesn't matter much who." is shorthand for "indef block from an unproven suspicion" (and in this case, a disproved suspicion). We have, or used to have, some policies that said admins couldn't make arbitrary blocks on their own whim, there had to be some process first. For socking it is SPI. In this case they were blocked during the SPI (Why? What was the urgency for an editor with only one article edit?) and an SPI that then cleared them of being the claimed sock. Yet you are still defending this indef block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• just a quick note here; i was not happy filing that SPI and I hope it isn't Andy. As I noted in the filing, the behavior of the new account was just too weird. I'll note here is somebody at 62.255.240.157 (a library in the UK) stirring the pot: dif, dif, dif. The now-blocked Milligansuncle? This is all just weird but I clearly have a new hater. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI was just closed. I have a bad feeling about all this; the person editing from the library obviously understands how to avoid CU etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The SPI was closed. But half an hour later you're still insinuating that 62.255.240.157 is someone's sock (presumably mine!). You also seem to know that it's "a library in the UK", but how you might know such a thing is beyond me.

You did this over CaptainYuge too. Opening an SPI is one thing, but to continue to insinuate that someone is a sock and the SPI was just wrong not to notice this is harassment. It's also a very convenient reversal of your position over the block of Milligansuncle: when your enemies are blocked arbitrarily, that's "proof". When an SPI concludes against socking though, that's because the SPI must have been wrong, compared to your magic library finding powers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The block of Milligansuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was based primarily on [157] taken in the context of the totality of the user's edits. I don't give a damn whose sock it is, it's not a new user and definitely not here to help. That kind of JAQing off we can do without. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone reading the IP's talk page will read that it is a library. And WHOIS says Reading Borough Council (Library Project). Doug Weller talk 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If the RIPE is correct, then maybe. The talk page comment is 7 years old though. Looking at the route, it looks (IMHO) much more like a general Virgin retail ISP for South Yorkshire. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, when did you stop beating your wife? Your comments here, "An SPI itself is just an investigation; a question." show that you still, even after this, have no understanding of SPI. As the edit notice on the SPI page itself states, "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." This is not merely a "question", an SPI is a strong insinuation that someone is guilty of an offence with a summary ban. You do not throw such things around lightly. You certainly do not do them in the middle of an ANI thread where the subject of your accusation has shown evidence of your abusive and harassing behaviour.

Why, in all this, do you feel the need to apologise to Conzar, but not me? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Conzar is new to WP and doesn't understand how things work here, and if you read what i actually wrote to them, you will see that i didn't apologize. I explained. You are more experienced and usually sane; if you look at the evidence I presented at the SPI and especially the way I presented it, you will see how strange the behavior of the account has been, and how it weirdly pointed to you. And you will see neither glee nor anger in my filing, but puzzlement seeking answers. It is SPI and not SPA ( as in "accusation"). You call it "fatuous" below and cite the instructions above. You have been around long enough to know that a CU would not have been done at SPI if I hadn't brought enough evidence to justify that; I did and it was. You are so angry that you are warping things left and right, and that isn't helping you convince anyone and you put yourself at risk for community action the more you keep pushing this way. You are on a warpath and you should get off it, Andy. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to add here that when i wrote the SPI I considered writing: "it may be that this is a really sophisticated sock that wanted me to believe it was Andy (the edit at Calvert's Engine being just a bit too blatantly perfect a "tell") and who ever it is may laugh their asses off after i post this, and will surely laugh harder at how angry it will make Andy, especially if the sockmaster turns out not to be Andy (which would not surprise me)." I didn't write that because it is too conspiratorial sounding and i really wanted the CU done, but it is seeming less unlikely now, especially given the behavior of the 65 IP address subsequent to the SPI filing, which just stirred the pot yet further. anyway, that is the "pot-stirring set-up" theory behind that sock ...Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, DO NOT describe other editors - any other editors - as "usually sane", with the obvious implication that they're currently insane.

I put myself at risk of community action? When did I describe you as a moron? When did I file an SPI against you? Especially not one so unconvincing that you describe it yourself as "strange" and "weird".

Stop these attacks. You have gone on long enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy I wish you would calm yourself. I said above that I don't want to interact with you, and I don't. You have asked me direct questions twice now. I answered the first, and I will answer the second, and then no more. The SPI had enough evidence that a CU was performed. I didn't file the SPI gleefully nor angrily. I didn't distort anything. And I didn't actually call you a moron and even after I wrote that you should accept the "moron certificate" (as a valid source) in the same way you accepted the other as a valid source, i removed that and acknowledged it was inflammatory, and you keep writing as though I am defending it or even left it in place. I'm not.

You are not acting rationally here; you are distorting and attacking and attacking - like just in this exchange, describing an SPI that was solid enough to get a CU as "fatuous" or as somehow invalid, and saying that i outright called you a "moron" or "garbage".

On top of that, you keep pushing for ... something... and lashing out, but whatever it is that you want is not happening. The only sanctions under discussion have been a one-way iban on you, and possibly a mutual one. That's it.

As I have said before, it doesn't seem that my interacting with you is productive at all - so I will go back to trying to avoid you.

I'll end by repeating what I wrote above; the best thing all around would just be to let his go. I do understand your original objection. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've read the SPI, and although it looks like most or all of the combatants are physically separated from one another, it also looks like there are an awful lot of people in diverse places who are looking to hound Jytdog. With respect to the ANI discussion here, it sure looks to me like an interaction ban is overdue. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, per the subsection above, or two-way. But I think the goal here needs to be to get as much disengagement as we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for any sort of ban on him, I just want him to stop filing fatuous SPIs against me. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• further to the pot-stirring theory, this SPI was filed claiming that Cirt and I are one person based on this thread. The filer of that is apparently watching this with some glee. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • About the filer of that SPI: I looked at the SPI, and there is something that I would like admins to take a second look at there. After the SPI was closed with no action (and, indeed, it is patently ridiculous), but before it was archived, another editor posted a note there, saying that the filer is a sock of another account, that has been indeffed for other instances of socking, but there is no explanation of the connection in this case. (Not related in any way to Andy, please let me make clear.) I don't know what to make of that, but given the clearly disruptive intention of the filing, it seems likely that something is going on there, and it merits a second look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Onthost

Per Tryptofish above (and others) I have reviewed the edit history of Onthost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked the account as a disruptive alternate account. I think some people have suspicions as to the master account, I don't think we need to go into that because the pattern of edits after a six year break is pretty clearly not the work of an editor acting in good faith, and is quite likely someone evading a block. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So we have this and this. What is accurate in that, who knows. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that they too have been blocked. It sure looks like a full sock drawer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And it has gotten stranger, with this. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Right back to it - just-blocked Sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Thegranitekitty is a sock of the just-blocked MagneticMarcella. MM was blocked about an hour ago per this.

Their first edit was the same as one MM had made twice here and here.

Sorry to bug you all, but that editor's talk page is a delicate place right now, per the ANI above about Swami Premananda. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Freedom of speech, first amendment in U.S. Constitution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

it is clear the OP has an ax to grind. --Jayron32 00:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Freedom of speech, first amendment in U.S. Constitution? Does Wikipedia respect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.4.135 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an agency of the U.S. government, and is under no obligations covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is a private website, and just like you have the right to throw people out of your private home for any reason you want, Wikipedia also has the right to do whatever IT wants with the website IT owns. --Jayron32 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC) The irony of using the free speech argument while demanding we censor someone.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Clear enough. Wikipedia shares disrespectful and offensive views towards victims of the genocide in former Yugoslavia, the same as user Biruitorul concerning the independence and sovereignty of several Balkan states. I will address the media, that may have different view in this matter. We shall see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.4.135 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Wikimedia Foundation's editorship is multinational. It is effectively a global organisation, it has its own rules for these issues that it tries to administer fairly. Why would I follow a constitution I have nothing to do with, I live in Brazil. When on Wikipedia I, like you, must follow the rules of this organisation. The media will know that too. Cheers Faendalimas talk 00:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose BOOMERANG

This is getting a little excessive. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, and the above comment is a hair away from a legal threat. Please remove this IP. Four sections is enough time wasting. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP had a point, originally, but that point has vanished into a haze of ranting that is barely a hair above trolling. Threatening to go to the media has the same chilling effect as a legal threat and should be dealt as such, liberal application of WP:RBI Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2602:306:8383:53A0:D5C5:AE5:8242:23B0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just thought I'd let you guys know that there is a vandal that's been vandalising a couple of pages. Just so you can take any bigger action against them if necessary. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:8383:53A0:D5C5:AE5:8242:23B0 (talk · contribs) is the one in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. In the future, use WP:AIV for faster service. --Jayron32 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the head's up! :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disrespectful, inappropriate and offensive views and edits concerning independence and sovereignty of several Balkan states (part 3)

WP:STICK --Jayron32 23:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
U.S. recognized the independence and the sovereignty of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia (FYROM) and Kosovo. This means that all U.S. companies, organizations and citizens, in the U.S. or elsewhere, must respect the U.S. decisions. Here is what user Biruitorul posted on Wikipedia in his userboxes:'This user is Yugo-nostalgic - for the good Yugoslavia.'and 'This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohija. Живела Србија!'. These statements made by user Biruitorul contradict the U.S. decisions. His personal views should be kept elsewhere and not on a public space. Try not to delete my post, because deleting is censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.4.135 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Whoever Biruitorul (talk · contribs) is, it is highly likely that he does not speak on behalf of any government. Also, he's been an editor here for 10 years, and the userbox has been there nearly as long. While kind of a strange take on things, it does not appear to be inflammatory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC) This was just closed. Twice: [158]. Can someone block this IP already?142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC) If user Biruitorul has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, it only makes it worse. This shows either that Wikipedia tolerates his offensive views or that Wikipedia shares them. I still hope that Wikipedia distance itself from this offensive views of user Biruitorul and takes appropriate action. User Biruitorul's views are offensive to all citizens in the Balkan countries mentioned above and particularly to the victims of the genocide in former Yugoslavia. How would you think if you were one of them? I hope this topic is open to discussion and not cut off in an unilateral, radical manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.4.135 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Incivility problems in Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have created this proposal to change the title of the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, which is very clearly incorrect. My proposal has met very strong opposition from several users, who have engaged in uncivil behaviour. I have asked them in several occassions to change their behaviour, but they have continued behaving in the same way. I posted a list of the policies and guidelines they are breaking , but they ignored this as well.

This is a list of the editors involved and a summary of their misbehaviour:

• LouScheffer: I asked him to clarify his argument, but he ignored my request for three months. When he finally answered, I showed the weakness of his argument[159]. After that he ignored me again.
• Bubba73: I asked him three times to clarify his argument, but he ignored my request. Rather than answering, he wrote several comments which are irrelevant or off-topic.
• VQuakr: He said he agrees with LouScheffer. I requested the same clarification I had previously requested from LouScheffer, but he ignored my request.[160]
• Dr. K.: He accused me of disruptive editing by “Failure or refusal to ‘get the point’” after my requests for clarifications had been repeatedly ignored. He suggested that he and the other editors don’t need to follow those rules.

These are very experienced editors. It might be worth noting that all except Bubba73 have a history of complaints in their user pages for breaching Wikipedia regulations. In the case of VQuakr, the list is huge.

Elendaíl (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reply I think that the talk page speaks for itself. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional comment One of the other named editors invited him to make a formal request for a move (WP:RM) - more than once, I think. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Actually three times. first, second, third. Ironically, the OP got exactly the same advice as I gave him/her when, following our discussion, he went to editor assistance and thanked the editor who gave him the same advice as I did. Dr. K. 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Make that four times. VQuakr had actually beat me to the punch. He advised the OP first about requesting a move through WP:RM. Dr. K. 07:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • More On April 8 the editor came back, asking about his proposed name change from January. I asked "What do you want to rename it to?" Rather than simply state what he wanted to name it, he replied "I wrote my proposal above (16:50, 17 January 2016). I'm afraid that once again I fail to see the relation of what you say with my proposal. Also, I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer my questions above." wanting me to wade back through all of that mess to find his proposed name. I did that. He accuses me of not replying to him - I stopped because I think he is a troll. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • The OP is clearly an inexperienced editor with only 64 edits. The problem starts when, despite his inexperience, he seems quite adept at choosing to investigate and report four experienced editors to ANI rather than follow repeated good advice about using the simple process of WP:RM. Dr. K. 08:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Elendaíl: How do you imagine a discussion might be conducted when one editor has been wrestling with several others since 6 January 2016 regarding an unclear proposal at Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings#Proposal to rename the article? The fact that people disagree with them might cause some to find another article to work on—it is not uncivil to disagree, and it is not uncivil to comment in a forthright manner, particularly after three months. Not commenting is not uncivil. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Disagreement with and lack of interest in pursuing your rather nebulous proposal is not incivility. No administrative action is requested or warranted for what is clearly a content dispute, where consensus is running against you. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Totally uninvolved and never will be. OP is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND by the act of filing this report. IMO, this thread should be closed now by an admin with a clear directive to either file an WP:RM immediately, back away from the article or face a block for disruption. I have seen worse examples of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:IDHT, but not many. John from Idegon (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Notified of discussion here. I suggest that the participants here remember that Elendaíl is quite new; this may be their first time encountering editors that disagree with them and managing disagreement can be a challenging thing on Wikipedia. I see also that over at WP:EAR, @TransporterMan: suggested that they take behavioral concerns here; again knowing that Elendaíl it might be difficult for him or her to differentiate between behavior and content. I disagree with the assessment of Elendaíl as a troll; I think they are a good-faith editor that needs some guiding. Maybe a good candidate for adoption? @Worm That Turned: I generally associate you with mentorship. Any thoughts here? VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Does Elendail believe that the Apollo landings did not happen? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't point to a diff that indicates that is the case. VQuakr (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that he has expressed that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am appalled. Bubba73, a user listed in the top 1000 contributors list of Wikipedia, has said that I am a troll. In an ANI about incivility! I would certainly expect him to know better than that. I request immediate administrator action. Elendaíl (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bubba73 is a very civil editor with no complaints about his civility. You said so yourself: It might be worth noting that all except Bubba73 have a history of complaints in their user pages for breaching Wikipedia regulations. He just expressed his thoughts given your wikilawyering and failure to acknowledge the valid points of four experienced editors who were in good-faith trying to advise you since last January to request a move through WP:RM, advice which you blithely ignored multiple times. That he got a bit frustrated is completely understandable. I think that if there is any admin action needed here it has to be applied to your continuing disruption calling for unwarranted action against good faith editors for no reason. Dr. K. 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Elendail, Bubba did not call you a troll. Bubba said that they quit discussing because they thought you were a troll. Bubba was explaining why they stopped discussing. And they are entitled to their opinion. -- GB fan 01:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That is why I quit. Some others continued the discussion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Elendail also has a lovely post about being called a troll on ANI over at the Teahouse (link). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bubba73: "I think he is a troll". "Uninvolved" editor: "Bubba did not call you a troll". Wow! I mean, seriously, WOW! You guys are amazing. You have greatly surpassed all the expectations I had when I started this. Thank you so much. Elendaíl (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bubba73: "I think he is a troll". "Uninvolved" editor: "Bubba did not call you a troll". Wow! I mean, seriously, WOW! You guys are amazing. You have greatly surpassed all the expectations I had when I started this. Thank you so much. Elendaíl (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this gets better every day. Now it turns out that GB Fan, my beloved uninvolved editor, didn't say "Bubba did not call you a troll". Except, unfortunately, this diff says he did. And that's not the best. The best is there is no diff showing he changed "Elendail, Bubba did not call you a troll" to "Elendail, I think he is a troll". The history entry magically disappeared. Just like the history entry of the mysterious editor who called me a vandal (see the Teahouse discussion). Except this time I do have evidence, that is. I mean, seriously, guys, this is not fair. This is worse than the most addictive videogame. I have so much to do and I promised myself I wouldn't spend more time here. But you keep raising the bar and making this more exciting all the time. You're irresistible! Elendaíl (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The best is there is no diff showing he changed "Elendail, Bubba did not call you a troll" to "Elendail, I think he is a troll". The history entry magically disappeared. No it did not. You changed the comment by GB fan. Dr. K.

And I have reverted my comment back to the original. -- GB fan 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict while I was trying to restore it. :) Dr. K. 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Such a shame. So anticlimactic. For a while I thought this was getting even more interesting. My real life will be happy about it, though. Anyway, thank you all. Elendaíl (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean you cannot recall your own actions? Dr. K. 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost. To be precise, I mean I was editing in three or four tabs at the same time and I copy/pasted the wrong text in the wrong place. I guess it never happened to anyone before me. Elendaíl (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to egregious WP:IDHT, hectoring, forum shopping and sundry other disputatious behaviour, I propose a six month topic ban for Elendaíl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from articles relating to the moon landing hoax, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support especially in light of the Teahouse thread. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Editor has paranoia issues. --Tarage (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time; WP:ROPE - editor seems to have indicated that they intend to stop the behavior per [161]. Closing admin is invited to ignore this !vote if editor subsequently resumes disruption. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Welp, that made it easy. Indef per [162]. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This editor needs more than a temporary topic ban from moon-landing conspiracy theories. He keeps alleging that "history entries magically disappear" and comments are altered while the latest "magic" comment alteration was done by him. Please see my comment. At a minimum we have serious WP:CIR issues. Dr. K. 15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nooooooo! Please, I'm begging you here. Don't be mean. Don't make this even more interesting. I REALLY, REALLY have so much to do! Elendaíl (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support also support a general ban after this: [163]. Dr. K is right here.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I was on the fence, thinking Elendial was just perhaps a new editor, but modifying someone else's comments, then complaining about them on a incivility basis, is way, way beyond the pale. This is not something that happens by accident, no matter how many browser windows you have open. LouScheffer (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support The simple fact that they blatantly re-edited another user's comments, claimed to then say the user said the altered comments, then plays the "oh I had open browser windows" line is either elaborate trolling (and yes I'll use that term), pure incompetence, or deliberate disruption. A topic ban might not be enough if this type of behavior keeps up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support An indef, now. We'll be back here in 6 months any way, why not nip it in the bud. It's obvious we're just getting trolled now. Blackmane (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Dr.K. ansh666 03:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [164] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [165]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much Calidum for the link) [166]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful hound, and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See User:Lips Are Movin for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making false sockpuppeting accusations to clogging up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he took this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes WP:POLEMIC writings about me on his user page, and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to WP:DOX my country here. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin accepted stuff like [167] and [168] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing for this AN/I here, here, here, here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another policy vio just committed: editing my comments in this ANI here. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another comment and observation: Does MF really want an IBAN? This comment on my talk page and this comment on Chesnaught555's talk page doesn't cause me to think so. The continued responses to me in this filing fall into that, as well. Then there's this comment in the subsection below ("No opposition votes yet, yay!"). It has since been removed by MF. What I am seeing (especially with the "Yay!" comment), is a desire to WP:WIN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it be an issue? Further, this comment from you, "to be at the center of drama for whatever reason" makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Official discussion

• Support - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. This message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, MaranoFan. It was not appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page after the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, Serge, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I know Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am not an admin, Sergecross73! The Support !votes only slightly outnumber the Oppose ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide Support majority later... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - If MaranoFan wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--ML (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Is this enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable here. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [176], this diatribe [177] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [178]. Calidum ¤ 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the Feudin' thread below directly relates to this one, as does User_talk:Floquenbeam#Please Calidum ¤ 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if Winkelvi sees faults with MaranoFan's editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read WP:CANVAS and WP:ADMINSHOP closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like WP:TPO which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and frequently correct critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [179] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your competence because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, possible boomerang based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. WP:BOOMERANG applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that you get your facts straight. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then Chesnaught555 started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Mandruss. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply informally staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- MrX 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. only (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Changing to support based on this discussion, which clarified the need for this IBAN. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting turn of events. Especially since the original premise for your "Oppose" !vote was "Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting." - and that premise/observation remains the same (as far as I'm aware and based on my own continued non-interaction with MF). I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you have changed this out of the blue, Coretheapple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Core, but personally, its the way you badger and bicker with anyone who disagrees with you in these discussions with these snippy responses, coupled with the fact that these issues with Marano have been spanning months (years?) now. I know you probably feel you're just "defending yourself" or something, but constant aggressive responses doesn't exactly send the "I'm not the type of person to be hounding someone" message you're going for here, nor does it instill confidence about this issue just going away on its own without any action taken. You're not exactly portraying yourself in the best light in these responses (and similar bickering/badgering from Calvin and Ches probably aren't helping either, they just make this all look like an even bigger mess.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that puts it well. My sentiments entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your explanation and Core's agreement with same makes no sense in that (1) It has nothing to do with the IBan proposal; (3) When Core changed her !Vote, I hadn't responded to anyone in this thread for a considerable amount of time; (3) The reasoning you gave seems to be based on a punitive mindset. In other words, "If you respond to comments and defend yourself we will punish you for doing so". None of this has anything to do with interaction between MF and myself (which there hasn't been for a week now), doesn't establish a need for an IBan (no one, including the filer, has been able to provide any evidence to support that need) and certainly doesn't fit the picture of action taken to prevent disruption (prevention, not punishment). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, based on your response, you're not following what I'm saying at all. I'm not criticizing the fact that you're responding/defending yourself, its the way you're going about doing it. Think of it this way. Have you ever witnessed this exchange: A person says something with their voice raised. Another person, in response, says "Please don't raise your voice, I don't like it when you're angry." Then, the first person responds by screaming "I'm not angry! You'll know when I'm angry!". Generally, you'll find the second person unconvinced, because, you know, screaming is a common sign of being angry. Bringing this back to you, you're essentially defending the accusation that you're hounding this editor, by going about hounding anyone who disagrees with you. It makes your argument...hard to believe. You've got an explanation for every example people provide you, but the fact that we keep having these discussions, makes your dismissals hard to buy into. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I do now see your point, Sergecross73. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--MaranoFan (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit as of 09:41, 30 March 2016 proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.

I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.

Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.

I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen here) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [180]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is not wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.

There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, "In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN." No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the previous proposal a year ago by Calidum, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for months. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and highly provocative behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required.  — Calvin999 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle, you are both black.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist.  — Calvin999 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999 Were you joking? WP:KETTLE's existence is ample testimony to this metaphor being widely understood on English Wikipedia, and if you seriously think your being called "black" in this case was about race, then you should be more careful about responding before clicking on the links. In my experiences, calling you a kettle when you call someone else "rude, non-compliant, unwilling to listen and failing to understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia" is a perfectly reasonable argument. (I haven't looked at the rest of the content here, so I'm not sure if you were technically correct; I only posted here because when my browser refreshed after I posted a comment in another thread it jumped around a bit, and my cursor wound up hovering over the word "racist", which peaked my interest.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable Adele song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185]. And calling Winkelvi a "very placid, calm and peaceful editor" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required.  — Calvin999 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with.". Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, Softlavender. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus" Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into boomerang territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.

"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick" Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

K. Here's one, in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was, "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick". I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: "I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings.", and then further claim that I stated I "...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request" Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"No one is keeping score, here" Sure. No one is keeping score. That's a laugh. Obviously, you're thinking of what happens at the My Little Pony and Rainbow Unicorn Noticeboard at Cotton Candy-pedia rather than ANI at Wikipedia. And yes, you have mischaracterized what I said. Several times. Which tells me I need to stop saying anything to you because every time I have responded to you in this report, you've turned my actual words and obvious meaning into something else entirely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Block for MaranoFan whose behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with Fortuna here... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur, Mirela. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: A sub-section, yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Mirela and Fortuna - filed as subsection below. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. SSTflyer 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't see any recent edit warring from me, SSTflyer. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Neither of these editors have clean hands in their interactions with each other, so a two-way IBAN seems to make the most sense. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Changing to strong support in light of the fact that Winkelvi has opened two fruitless SPIs against MaranoFan, the second of which was pretty much completely frivolous. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to understand the history on the first SPI filed a year ago. I had been undergoing an extreme amount of unrelenting tag-team harassment by both parties named in the SPI in my userspace. It seemed to me (and others at the time, including Calidum who emailed me about opening an SPI on MaranoFan but has since turned on me for reasons I am completely unclear about) that they were the same editor, especially considering how it was all occurring. If you'd like diffs, Starke, I can provide them for you). The latest SPI was poor judgement on my part and I shouldn't have done it. I'm not saying this because of your comment or because of this IBan proposal, but because I have had time to think about it and realized that it was not the best thing for me to do. We all learn from our mistakes, and the last SPI was a mistake on my part. The other one, however, was warranted considering what was happening at the time. The harassment was horrible - and was noted as such by more than one administrator and several editors. It did look like the two were the same person. Link to that SPI here. One more thing: I wasn't the only one who thought MF was socking, Chasewc91 did as well and filed another SPI on MF a few months later here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially agree with WP:BOOMERANG analysis by EvergreenFir (DIFF), and harassment analysis by Chesnaught555 (DIFF), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support an IBAN, but I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (Correcting, now support IBAN.) Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. Softlavender's characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of christ... "someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. Drmies, Bbb23, NeilN, Ritchie333: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style." Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to point out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was bending over backwards by calling it a red herring, and the diffs cited by MF were gratuitous and provocative, and appeared to have the desired effect. Clearly you are impervious to reason over this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WV loves one way interaction bans. How many editors has be banned from his talk page now? Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WV is not the problem here. Possible boomerang considering the behavior documented above. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support These 2 editors, despite the well-established truth that nothing productive comes of their relationship, cannot seem to stay away from each other on their own. It is time for the Wikipedia community to take action and prevent needless bickering. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd also recommend an IBAN between MF and Calvin, even more so than the current proposal. Keeping the three of them separated would be beneficial to all three parties. Azealia911 _talk 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Fine with IBAN, and agreed with Azealia911. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - clearly an issue here that would be resolved with an IBAN. - ^theWOLFchild 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While I am starting to see Sergecross' point re: my responses to comments in this thread, I will not be silent on this !vote. Clearly a retaliatory move based on this exchange and my comments here. Prior to the AN/I he filed, I had not heard of this user and have never had any interaction with them previously. I realize anyone is allowed to comment at AN/I regardless of previous interaction, however, I think that the diffs I provided here along with this diff to Wolfchild's block log (numerous blocks specifically for harassing other editors) gives a good picture of what their !vote is really all about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing out that I have an active report on ANI - that's why I'm here. And yes, our recent interactions demonstrated to me your poor attitude towards others and this project in general. Unlike you, I actually took the time to read through the ANI I'm commenting on, and can easily see that an IBAN is the best way to protect the project from any further disruption caused by you two interacting. The fact that sooo many others here agree with this assessment speaks volumes, and you should spend more time considering your actions and attitude, instead of attacking others. ("Block log" indeed... have you ever heard the saying about "People in glass houses"...?) You should worry about your own, very active, very recent, block log, instead of mine. - ^theWOLFchild 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing this?

Do any admins feel like reviewing this to determine if an interaction ban should be enacted as requested? I'd rather not see another meaningful discussion be archived prematurely. Calidum ¤ 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great if someone could help out. Its been going for about a week and a half now, and discussion has slowed down to a crawl. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone at all? Calidum ¤ 21:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Making sure this doesn't auto-archive again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus for the iban. But I participated. So, if no one closes this and it goes in the bin, can I at least get admins who didn't comment to keep an eye open for shenanigans? This would be the second thread about some of these editors to end up archived without consensus, and I don't want to see a third. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I put in a request for closure yesterday at WP:AN/RFC. I don't know if that'll help. Hasnt so far. only (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much represents where I'm at in all of this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discounting WV's known allies, the consensus looks pretty clear. Hope that some Admin will look at this and close. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suggested by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who stated that MF's "behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times". MaranoFan's canvassing of other editors and lack of evidence supporting a reason for an IBAN between them and Winkelvi calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions - not to mention the uncivil behaviour over on my talk page, which MF has stated was directed at me simply because I wanted to archive an escalating thread: Here and here. Posting now to avoid edit conflicting - will edit this post as time goes on. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as co-proposer, if that is a word. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Marano's actions don't especially seem worse than any of the other 3-4 editors involved in this. Unless we're doling out blocks to everyone involved and meddling in all of this, this is not a good proposal. (An iban solves this issue better.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross. An interaction ban would solve pretty much everything, I would hope. Of course, if the ban fails to gain consensus and shenanigans continue - yes, blocks (for multiple editors) would likely be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. MF has done nothing to warrant a block. She was provoked by some comments made about her, but "gossip" does not justify what she is asking. That said, asking for something you're not entitled to doesn't give rise to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion is about an IBAN for WV and MF. That's it. If anything grows out out of this discussion then an IBAN for WV and MF is what is needed.--ML (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - A block is not justified and would only address (roughly) half of the problem.- MrX 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MrX notes, this would solve only part of the problem (though I reckon one-fourth, not one-half). Calidum ¤ 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zero justification. MaranoFan is a good-faith editor who has been trying to do their best. This is a partisan proposal. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, and Ches is no one's meat-puppet. Please stop with the nasty, hateful personal attacks and unfounded allegations against other editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm not here to represent anybody else's views. I have my own, and this is essentially my proposal (two other editors had agreed with it beforehand, neither of whom were Winkelvi). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I would support based on the the reasons given. There is nothing good-faith about MF, but I will agree that she has been trying her best (at being disruptive, rude and disrespectful). I don't think an IBAN would be sufficient as MF just can't help herself.  — Calvin999 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The whole notion of this discussion is laughable. Some admin please speedy archive this. Lolol.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You can't oppose (or support) a block on yourself. It's obvious that you wouldn't agree. You're not even taking this seriously and you are being disrespectful. Also, no admin will help you when you are calling them "some admin".  — Calvin999 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes you can. There are no restrictions on who can vote; I done the same thing with myself in the past. JAGUAR  16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Didn't I ask you to never communicate with me again. (Rhetorical; doesn't require an answer). 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Thats irrelevant, what you said is objectively wrong, and any number of people would have said the same thing if he hadn't. And even that's ignoring the insane odds against this poorly thought out proposal. You're only reinforcing the idea that you're probably amongst the group of 3-4 editors that can't stop with the petty bickering that inspired a call for an Iban in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
          • • It is relevant, shows you are an uninvolved editor. MF wants the IBAN too, so. Several editors here have said Oppose but have written that is is still a viable option to block MF. So it is more than 3-4 really.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification to block MaranoFan, so long as he agrees to keep his comments civil. Lack of evidence and canvassing, while not encouraged behavior, isn't a "blockable" offense to me - provided that he stops the canvassing when asked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose MF has done nothing to deserve this proposition of a block. Calvin on the other hand, well... JAGUAR  15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The feeling is reassuringly mutual, Jaguar. Please grow up and stop harassing me/mentioning me/talking about me. You're coming across like a child.  — Calvin999 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I was just pointing out the fact that anybody can vote in any debate, even if it's a block imposed on the intended user. I don't know how that's considered harassing. Believe me, I would be over the moon if somebody created a sub-thread "Proposed interaction ban between Calvin and Jaguar". JAGUAR  21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You are harassing me by making unnecessary comments. I already asked for an IBAN between us but nothing was done about it.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
        • What, me voting in this discussion is considered harassing? JAGUAR  10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since MF is a good-faith editor, a block for this user is a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose-My vote is probably not needed here, but I'll give it anyway. It is unfair to block only MaranoFan. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MaranoFan, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the Oppose !voters. This will not help your case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This isn't a court case, MaranoFan. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC) And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Good one, NE Ent. Thanks for the initial confusion, the good hearty laugh, commemorating the spirit of the day, and closing this nonsense. Best to you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RE: Disruptive Editor - Karst

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Administrator. I would like to report a Disruptive Editor I have had continuous problems with the user Karst, as have many other editors: User talk:Wkpe16, User talk:ZachDelRey, User talk:Nuro Dragonfly, User talk:Donottroll... He nominated my old userpage for deletion (Link) when I was drafting in it, instead of just politely informing me that this was against the guideines. More importantly, they frequently replace Up-to-date images for old ones, and deletes cited, valid content, both for no reason. This irritates many editors. Most recently, he caused an edit war on J. Ralph (if you'll please look at the revision history) with Eldorado74, who noticed that I had had trouble with Karst before, and came to me for help: "hello Limehous-0. I am hoping you can help me a problem I am having with the user Karst. I see that you have had major problems with this user as well on your articles. He keeps vandalizing the article on J. Ralph and removing valid info. The article is properly cited from valid external sources yet Karst continues to revert and change relevant, factual information that is properly sourced and cited. Can you help me?" Please see Karst's talk page and read my most recent attempt to politely tell him that he was annoying loads of editors. Also read the other editors posts. Please do not conclude this report is vengeance for my userpage. I make this report to help Eldorado74, and make Wikipedia a better place. Thankyou, and Kind Regards.Limehous-0 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this another WP:SOC of Eldorado74 (talk · contribs)? Keith D (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi This isn't Sock Puppetry by Eldorado. When I used the CandidLibraryEditors Karst repeatedly disrupted my edits. Many other editors can confirm that he disrupts. See my report for their talk pages. Eldorado came to me for help. Karst is now "enlisting editors in an edit war against Eldorado on the article J. Ralph. I do think he needs to be sorted out. Thanks. Limehous-0 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Funny how there's no post on your talk page from Eldorado74 about this issue. Also funny how he couldn't have emailed you because you haven't enabled email in your preferences. Katie^talk 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely some fishy stuff going on. Limehous-0 is a new user with two lifetime edits to actual articles. Here they seem to be removing someone else's barnstar from Karst's talk. Here they add an entire months old conversation back to his talk, supposedly, because they wanted to add their own content. The sock is strong with this one. TimothyJosephWood 19:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy and Katie. If you'll look, on my userpage, A box says "you can find me on discogs too!". following the link, my Discogs profile shows my email. This is how Eldorado contacted me. Also note, my lack of contribs is because I used to use the account CandidLibraryEditors, but swapped; unaware I could have just changed the name. Sorry, but can we get to the matter in hand - Karst's disruptive beahavior! Limehous-0 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Also note, my email uses "Limehouse" and my eBay and Discogs profiles both use "Limehous-0". a sock wouldn't have all this! Limehous-0 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The long post including old content was me trying to talk to Karst and tell him how annoying he was. The old content was "proof". I removed his barnstar, because I no longer thinked he deserved it (and admin wasn't appropriate). Note, I was CandidLibraryEditors when I gave it too him. Limehous-0 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant COIN Thread TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like both Karst and Eldorado74 have passed 3 reverts on J. Ralph so I have given them both warnings. It looks like Lemongirl942 has come on and is contributing to this article and what it really needs now is to have participation from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I fully except the warning on the WP:3RR and will leave it to third party editors to work on the article, sincerely hoping the other party in the dispute will do so too. As indicated on the Talk page for J. Ralph, after failing to reach consensus, I sought mediation on resolving the issue (aware that the other party did not need to engage with it). At the suggestion of @Voceditenore: I lodged the issue at WP:COIN yesterday. I'm rather puzzled at the involvement of Limehous-0 who has never edited the article. I'm happy to respond to any other specific issues, but as no diffs have been given, I'm currently unable to do so. Karst (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For my personal input and with my subsequent investigation of the proof given by the aggrieved party, can't find the specific part where Karst has been the editor who altered the page in question. It is by my viewing of the given link to be Skyerise that has changed the article last. I, without proof, am not going to condemn Karst for something that hasn't been shown, in specific proof via a link provided, to have been the guilty party. Nuro msg me 02:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dood. Conciseness. U need 2 git u sum. TimothyJosephWood 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Please stick paragraph breaks in there and consider pruning your comment. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I do, with the evidence presented hithertofor, and the agreement of all thus far concerned, retract my previous spurious accusations of robust argumentation. TimothyJosephWood 03:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. Just want to clarify here as well. I am not affiliated with Limehous-0 in any way whats ever. Today was the first time I contacted him/her as I am trying to get some help regarding the J. Ralph article. I have also reached out to Keith D previously for help as well. I certainly do not know the ins and outs of wikipedia as well as all of you nor all this lingo. I again state that I am only trying to create an accurate properly cited article that is fact based however impressive or "trivial" as Lemongirl942 has said certain things are. That is an opinion. I have left my opinion out of the article and only used the sources and facts themselves as the highlights. I would appreciate any help to resolve this. Eldorado74 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

G'day - I will start by saying that there hasn't been a concise, clear, specific link to the part where Karst is proven to be altering anything. The only change to the article that was given was implicating Skyerise in the last change to the article. If you could provide the link to the specific part where Karst is doing so that would help us make some sort of opinion on the alleged disruptive behaviour. Nuro msg me 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nuro, if you look on the J. Ralph talk page you can see all the events between Karst and I. Again Karst continues to change the article to delete relevant properly cited material and add information that is not cited/correct. Eldorado74 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment and Explanatory - G'day Eldorado74 - Firstly, I find it very strange that someone who has asked the help, and going into to bat on behalf of another editor, of the Adim and Mediation process (sort of, that's specifically another page) that doesn't have a User Page set up themselves (your name is in red). You might want to fix this.

To the question at hand.

Either you or L-0 or CLE (who are the same person) have asked for there to be some consensus on the behaviour of the long time editor Karst about the content issues that are on this J. Ralph person's WP Article.

#1 - My original response to the request to become involved was very long-winded and I edited it, but after your request for me to read the Talk Page, and I now have, I will state the basics behind Karst's 'oversight' of the article itself is nearly what I had to say myself.
#2 - I will support the efforts of Karst to get the point across that WP is not an Advertisement for any one, and this article is blatantly self promotional in the extreme as far as I'm concerned, and that's completely irrelevant of any protesting that 'its just the facts' Ma'am to quote the Blues Bros. The amount of times the words 'award winning' or 'Oscars' or 'world renowned' and various others in a multitude of mixing and matching them is, quite simply, not what is expected of a article for someone to come on the WP and find some relevant, Neutral, Unbiased, information to start to research an artist they are wanting to.
#3 - The entire article needs to be rewritten by who ever put it up or by someone who has some interest in the artist, as I've never heard of the person or any of the works he has done, which in itself is not relevant to the issue but I am stating as much as musician of over 25 years myself.
#4 - What Karst is trying to get through with his comments on the Talk Page are what is expected of any Senior Editor on the WP to keep free from such issue as the Copyright infringements that had been noted. This is a very serious matter I will stress.
#5 - You have claimed to be acting on behalf of another party, if I'm not mistaken, which in itself is unusual, in some ways, though not unheard of. I find the fact that there is Three (3) different parties with WP profiles attempting to claim the same stance in the manner it has been done quite suspicious. That's not slandering your name personally but if you've been on here long enough you learn how some people try to circumnavigate the rules.
#6 - Karst has put the effort in to educate the facts of the WP rules in the Talk Page, and I will state here that he (I think) and I did not get off on the right foot for similar reasons. But the learning process that I went through to understand the way things HAVE to be done around here has made that redundant now. The expectations of any person who wishes to Edit Articles is quite specific and quite high.
#7 - My summary of whether or not the 'Tone' or the written word of the Senior Editor has come across as being 'Nice' is to an extend also redundant. I don't like the attitudes of various Senior Editors that I have had to deal with on here for various reasons but that doesn't change the fact that the rules have to be followed, by us all, and there is a plethora of WP articles on how to go about your editing the WP.
#8 - If there is a specific point on how Karst has written his explanations, and responses to the issues raised, on the Talk Page, then that will need to be specifically outlined by you, then dissected by a Senior Moderator, which is not here, and that's after you request a Mediation process, which I'm afraid to say will most likely not happen, considering the way the article is written. If it gets rewritten, before it most likely, due to the scutiny it now has, gets AfD'ed for the content and Copyright infringements that have been raised, then you may have a case.

The unfortunate truth is that the article reads as an attempt at free advertising and that is not what WP is for. Nuro msg me 03:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this is going anywhere other than a group therapy session for people Karst has reverted. Someone might want to look toward closing or redirecting the conversation toward something productive.

Also, "Just the facts" is Sgt Joe Friday, not the Blues Bros. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming your not referring to me, as I was asked to give my thoughts on the matter, so I have done so, and for the record I have no issues with Karst.
I do agree that this is rather redundant and somewhat pointless though and should be moved. I also consider my input to be productive for the sake of neutral impartiality, and don't consider my effort to be a waste of my time, or to be treated as such by anyone...

And it was the Blues Brothers, when they go to the door of the lady who had two of the band living upstairs of her house, and its Elwood that says it, but I agree, as I have always assumed this was a piss-take (Aussie slang for mocking someone) of Sgt Joe Friday anyway. Nuro msg me 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Naw fam. That was the blue brothers making a reference to Dragnet. <3 TimothyJosephWood 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahh yes, thats it, Dragnet....both on tv here in Australia when I was a kid, but more my parents gen than mine. Nuro msg me 00:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing of Swami Premananda (guru) article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Swami Premananda (guru) has suffered from repeated vandalism and whitewashing attempts since its creation. I cleaned up the article and added it to my watchlist in 2013. Since then I have been reverting disruptive edits on the page. Most of the editors are unregistered but some have accounts. The editors try to remove any mention of his crime, or write that he was innocent and was wrongly convicted. These editors frequently use the same set of dubious sources:

• Justice For Premananda and other such sites/blogs.
• Articles published by Share International, a religious organisation.
• A particular book called "The DNA Detectives", which they claim is written by a "world's top genetics experts, Dr. Wilson J. Wall". They claim that he had personally handled the case. But I only found he has briefly written about it in his book "Forensic Science in Court", which has been added to the article. Other sources don't mention him.

More recently, editor Rishi Mano (talk · contribs) has been reverting my edits and adding self-promo material.

• Diff 1 - Reverted my edits.
• Diff 2 - Added claims from unreliable sources. He wrote, "Earlier in his life, In 1969 while he was addressing some 200 people who had gathered to listen, his body began to glow and an ochre-coloured robe suddenly seemed to descend onto him." Without any citation.
• Diff 3 - Inserted promotional edits like "Many volunteers and spiritual seekers live and provide their selfless service in the ashram. The ashram has centers in many countries including the UK, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Poland, Argentina, Ivory Coast, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain, USA, the Netherlands and Sri Lanka." Without any citations.
• On the talkpage, he replied to my comment about using blogs as sources by saying, "Again I find a book quoted, and any privately published book is not better than a blog."
• On the talkpage, he has also written, "Now a days we should not believe everything that media tells us".

Another editor Doughnutgirl (talk · contribs) has been engaging in similar edits since 2010. She exclusively edits only this article.

• Diff1 - Removed everything about DNA evidence.
• Diff2 - Added claims from the "The DNA Detectives" by Dr. Wilson J. Wall.
• Tried to hurriedly push through the Draft:Wilson J Wall but was rejected.

I formally request protection for the article from all unregistered editors and these two particular editors to be barred from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfyre (talk • contribs) 08:10, 12 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Protection is not intended to help someone preserve a preferred version in a content dispute. I have no opinion of the promotional material or general disupute, but the book by Wilson Wall is reliable and pertinent and should be included. The authors of reliable sources don't need to have Wikipedia articles for their publication to be considered a reliable source. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel:The book by Wilson Wall is a not very reliable source as it claims that he had access to the DNA evidence. It should be held true only if third party sources or the court documents acknowledge it. Nevertheless, opinions of Wilson Wall have been included in the article, but claims like he access to the DNA evidence has not been included. I am not trying to protect a preferred version of the article. I am trying keep the article neutral and preventing promo material from appearing on it. -Kenfyre (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The place to resolve a dispute of whether or not a source is reliable is the reliable sources noticeboard, maybe this should be brought up there so a determination of the books reliability can be made. As for myself, I don't have any personal interest in this topic or subject of the article, I just noticed what looked like an edit war and seeming POV pushing and OWNership. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing of several pages related to Tetrapodomorphs.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Lavalizard101 has been adding unsourced material and making sweeping, widespread changes to articles including taxonomy templates, taxoboxes, and changes to sourced phylogeny analyses, apparently in order to support information he found on a web site and on outdated Wiki articles. continues to revert/edit war when corrected with newer and more valid sources, removing references and changing data when corrected. Examples [186] B[187] Block requested. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring and 3RR violation. In the future, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 21:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, OP violated 3RR after being warned, so blocks all around. Katie^talk 21:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If I may comment @KrakatoaKatie:. I had also had an issue with User:Lavalizard101 with his/ her edits. I did not revert at the time I commented on his mistakes on his talk page in the hope they may fix it themselves. I have now reverted that edit. Although a little surprised this got put here so quickly by User:Dinoguy2 I have come across many edits by the later user he is generally very good and the damage being done by Lavalizard, in particular to taxoboxes, gets out of hand very quickly and can be difficult to fix. Knowing this may have influenced Dinoguy2's reaction. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but Dinoguy2 has been here for more than ten years and he knows better than to edit war and violate 3RR. We have a specific noticeboard and everything to stop it before it gets out of hand. There's no reason to edit war like that. None. Katie^talk 23:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I understand and agree totally that edit warring must be avoided. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Muboshgu is systematically targeting articles I have started for deletion. This behavior extends back at least three years, and perhaps as many as five, but has ramped up the behavior within the past week, having PRODed or AFDed half a dozen articles. In addition, he has attempted to call me out or start arguments by using over-assertive or aggressive language in various talk pages. His behavior flies counter to the goals and pillars of Wikipedia, and drives active users with many thousands of edits, such as myself, and potentially productive members, away. This also flies counter to the goals of Wikipedia. I ask something be done about this. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative place, but activities such as his make it anything but. Alex (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't create articles on non-notable individuals, despite all attempts by myself and others to coach you on WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N, I wouldn't nominate them for deletion. I think you need a primer on the term "harassment" as well. Please provide evidence of these "over-assertive or aggressive" talk page posts. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No proof, no help. TJH2018 talk 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I just perused the OP's talk page and nominated a bunch more articles for deletion based on what was linked there. So am I harassing you too? You create articles that do not come close to meeting notability, they are going to get nominated for deletion. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, start a discussion at the appropriate talk page--don't keep creating articles that do not meet the existing guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If I had more time to spare, I would go further in looking through articles Alex has created to see which ones should be nominated for deletion. Some are perfectly valid, meeting GNG or BASE/N. Others, like Brett Nicholas, luck into it eventually. The majority should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is a joke, right?--Yankees10 23:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that Yankees10, above, is another member that has used hateful and mean-spirited comments toward me for years. As well, I would like to reiterate some of the major points from the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected." Please recognize that Wikipedia's active membership has declined steadily for the past five years. The English website now has less than 30,000 active monthly editors, and has averaged that few editors for the past three months, the worst three month trend since 2013 and a trend that has not been truly matched since before Wikipedia became popular, in 2006. Perhaps it is time some of its members allow for a more inclusive environment, one free of hostile cliques as witnessed in the baseball editing community, one that encourages people to contribute without the fear of having other members stalking their every move, one that allows for content that has true research value that might not fall within the exact wording or phraseology the guidelines, one that limits the bureaucratic hyper-attention to exact wording of said guidelines, which flies in the face of the goals of Wikipedia, and one that actually wishes to attract new members, rather than supports a milieu that will only discourage members from joining and drive members away, as has been occurring for many years. Alex (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Would an Admin please consider a block for WP:NPA for this? This fella needs a time out. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I assume you meant this edit? If so, that's not much of a personal attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "This fella needs a timeout" is yet another attempt to drive me away from Wikipedia. It is clear they have a bone to pick with me, and they are attempting to use any means possible to get me to leave. Alex (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• There is no "they". I seldom edit sports related articles, with the exception of numerous non and borderline notable people I encounter on Notable people lists at school and settlement articles. I saw this thread and I acted upon your repeated creation of non notable articles. No they. That is the risk you run when you come whining to mommy about big mean editors that are picking on you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Alex, my advice is to cite the Literature in Print still, or since, of the payer in question. 350 home runs is not a small achievement. It should be listed somewhere. John your "whinning home to Mummy" comment betrays your time on WP, and shows a complete lack of respect. Muboshgu I also don't think, with your time in WP, you've accounted yourself well with your rebuttal. If the two of you are involved in a Dispute Resolution, you've both acted unlike the expectations of a Senior Editor with the Badges you both display.
  Pre-Internet requires Academic source citation Alex, so my advice is go find some of this payer (I'm Australian and don't know much baseball), which as I said, for that many home runs, should be somewhere. Nuro msg me 03:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing of baseball, but there appears to be a notability guideline for baseball at WP:NBASEBALL and FWIU the number of home runs is not a criteria. It seems to me that this discussion should be only about the notability of the baseball player in question, allowing for time looking for pre-internet sources if they exist. But that is not to say that this notability guideline can be ignored, that an exception can be made because Alex has put a lot of work into these pages, or anything about the drop in the numbers of editors on wikipedia. If we make an exception to the normal proceedures here, how do we decide where to make exceptions elsewhere? Genuine question. That's the crux of this - whether anyone can be considered to be harassing another editor when they're find and proposing articles for deletion based on the current notability guidelines. I say no, not at all. We're trying to be an encyclopedia about all kinds of subjects, and as such we're only interested in the cream of any given thing/subject/person, the notable. In this case, only the very best baseball players. If we're going to say, nope we'll just allow any baseball players in then (for example) we might as well allow any page about any kid who happens to have a few good years in his High School team or little league team or whatever. I appreciate, Alex, that it can be hard seeing your hard work ending up in the digital dustbin, but there must be other wikis and places where you can write about all the baseball players you want to write about without having to justify their inclusion to anyone else, right? JMWt (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption of ArbCom case by Dan Murphy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disruption of Arbitration Committee standard proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, reverting an Arbitrator and an admin at the page -- after prior history of block for doing exact same behavior.

---

Note on prior block for exact same behavior:

Dan Murphy (talk · contribs) was previously blocked by Courcelles for "Disruption of ArbCom case. Do not unblock without permission from the Committee".

---

Reverting Arbitrator and admin at Arbitration proceedings

• Reverts Arbitrator Drmies at DIFF.
• Reverts administrator The ed17 at DIFF.
• Reverts The ed17 again with edit summary that appears to be harassment: "oh, right. I forgot. He's still behaving out of process for his mate. So still improper WMF employee."
  • Note that user also has a prior block from Elen of the Roads for "Personal attacks or harassment

---

Requesting admin action for disrupting Arbitration proceedings, after block for prior history of doing exact same behavior.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What on earth is this "Cirt" construct on about? I would hope there'd be a little support for the "arbitrators" being treated exactly like the rest of us. That arbitrators are opposed to that arrangement, or people like "cirt," is hardly surprising to me. But knock yourselves out.Dan Murphy (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll just say in Dan's defense that he stated on my talk page that he had no idea Drmies was an arbitrator. This is the only thing I'm going to say here, as the whole "WMF employee" line has a nasty chilling effect attached to it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Chilling effect?" You're a WMF employee mixing in Wikipedia politics. Pointing out this fact is not "chilling." It's "grown up behavior." Meanwhile, squid ink is being thrown by you and one "cirt" to prevent a member of the "Wikipedia Supreme Court" from being subject to the same rules as the rest of your millions (y'all claim "millions," right?) of users.Dan Murphy (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Life doesn't work that way, Ed. You're a PR guy for the WMF. That you'd claim "personal time" on Wikipedia related matters is beyond astonishing. Here's your "fourth paragraph." "I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department; my staff account is located at Ed Erhart (WMF). Edits, statements, or other contributions made from my volunteer account (this one) are mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer—I am first and foremost a Wikipedian, and I didn't lose my personal thoughts and opinions when I joined the WMF. Any accidental cross-pollination between the two accounts (forgetting to log out, etc) will be swiftly corrected." That's flimlam. We are what we do. And what we own up to.Dan Murphy (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding that Arb case, Gamaliel is not acting as an arbitrator, and really their status as an admin means nill. They are a party to an Arbcom case and that is their only status in that scope.--v/r - TP 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  Cirt seems to be referring to Drmies as the arb and Dan (The ed17) as admin, not Gamaliel. ansh666 06:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, but Gamaliel's comments don't belong in the Arb section. Drmies was wrong to put them there. I'm not making an accusation against Drmies here, but his actions implied a special status for Gamaliel. He should've known better.--v/r - TP 06:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, I thought you'd misread Cirt's report, sorry. Too many admins and arbs involved for me! ansh666 06:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can I just say that, sheesh? special status? for one comment? oh it's in the wrong place? We're not a bureaucracy, TParis--I thought you of all people knew that. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charlene McMann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A person purported to be Ms. McMann left a lengthy message on my talk page. She took issue with a citation I added yesterday, and upon investigating further, I agree with her contention and removed the citation. However, she is also making legal threats against me and Wikipedia. This was the same tactic used in March in an attempt to remove the article from Wikipedia because she felt the conviction was unfair, despite pleading guilty to it. To the extent that herself and others who have engaged in sock to remove the article, or blanking on the citation, I seek administrator guidance on this matter.--Cahk (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I blocked the Ip for 1 year for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a Ban

The human behind this IP, who seems to be Charlene McMann, has been causing so much disruption about the article on that person, and is now trying to exercise a chilling effect, that I recommend a Site Ban on a person who is not a registered user, but is the person behind the IP, so that IP should be indefinitely blocked. (The IP appears to be static over at least six weeks, which is longer than most.) I realize that others will disagree with a formal ban for a person who is editing via IPs, but this is my opinion. I suggest that editors who disagree recommend an indef or a long block, or to disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• 73.9.140.124 is now blocked with an expiration time of 1 year for making legal threats. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the ban gets accepted it would supercede my block and would also apply to other IPs the person can use.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ah. Then support as being clearly disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Evidence suggests they'll just come back with a new IP and do the same again. So only option is to siteban them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, along with her husband and his sock drawer. I have nominated the article for AfD - though refactoring as an article about the defunct charity she scammed might be better. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - They'd only be back under a new one and then a new one etc etc so ban the lot of 'em, Maybe the article should be kept so we can show the encyclopedia how pathetic and sad some people are. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, and I think if we end up blocking them past this point to both leave a message to only contact Foundation council and let the Foundation know. Censorious thuggery tends to stand mute in the midst of lawyering up; it's the same principle patent trolling works on. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I am okay if the community consensus is to remove the article. However, it is clear either the subject, or someone related to the subject is actively attempting to damage control stemming from the court processes. As noted in the 2nd AfD process and the comments here - it appears someone related to the subject created the article in the first place to promote her work, and now that negative information is out, they want the article taken down. The only (more neutral) solution appears to be a ban.--Cahk (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support Per Joseph2302 Jdcomix (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support I created the 2nd AFD on the article, namely on the fact that I felt that the subject was not notable enough for inclusion, and agree with Guy that the information on the page could be turned into a page about the charity. The constant legal threats and attempted Wiki-lawyering is enough for me to support a ban on the IP and its socks (including the subject's husband). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Update Upon seeing this: [188], this only furthers my support for a ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As only indication from this we have is that the person has no interest in anything but threatening the project and its editors. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the IP did not make a legal threat, IPs are just numbers. The person behind the IP made the threat, and that person is de facto banned anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I don't often vote for such comprehensive bans but this is not your typical case of a wayward editor. McMann contributed to her own biographical article but once documented information about a criminal conviction was included in the article, one that she pleaded guilty to, she wanted the article removed. She even claimed to be a friend of McMann who said the article was causing her friend to become suicidal and initially a lot of editors were extremely sympathetic until they realized it was likely McMann herself who was posting. Now, with the threats, I agree that she should be kept from editing on the project. Whether or not the article is kept or rewritten is another matter but McMann should not be threatening or trying to make editors feel guilt that they are responsible if her health worsens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with incidents in March, I'll link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing/Archive for further reading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated. User seems to be willing to keep coming back until they get what they want, which is disruptive. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• 'Support per Liz. This is a SNOW and is just awaiting closing and enactment. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support for all the above reasons. It is most unfortunate that Ms. McMann chose to commit a series of felonious actions which have been more than satisfactorily cited in the media IMO. The first AfD way back when ought to have ended it. I would think the subject cannot be less notable since her arrest, conviction and sentencing. (EDIT) Predictably, a new sockpuppet appears to have surfaced as well. See here Time to close this I believe. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed it myself. Not good. So why is McCann still being allowed to edit? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mindimoo just shot herself in the foot and is now confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete her article: Far from the first time someone begged and sweat and scraped to get a wikipedia article, and then when the only possibility of notability comes from a criminal conviction, they want it deleted. The sad story of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) has happened again. It should be deleted anyway.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deleting (or keep) her article has nothing to do with the proposal at hand?--Cahk (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Robert McClenon and Liz. The legal threats and sock puppetry far outweighs any positive contributions the user has made. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Liz, joining the dogpile. My own input will make no difference, but I have no tolerance for those attempting to use chilling effects and editor-shaming to whitewash an article for personal gain. I mean, take a look at this wall of text, for example. GAB^Hello! 18:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I've left a message on my talk page for Ms. Mcmann.--Cahk (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This thread was archived without closure?--Cahk (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... - Unarchived per a request on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvios by Krosklo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have previously warned Krosklo (talk · contribs) about copyright violations, both in terms of images (political party logos added here and again, followed by a warning; added again, warned again and text (copy/pasting from other websites e.g. this includes text taken from here; warned). However, despite two requests and a warning that I would request a block next time they did this, they have continued adding the non-free images. Could someone possibly issue a block? Cheers, Number 57 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock #3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per my last ANI (#2), the sock is back and tormenting the same editor as before.

• dif and dif, logging their own socking activity. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bogus warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have received a warning which is in my view bogus. See [189]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Well, here is a warning that is not bogus. You have violated the three revert rule at Book of Daniel. But then so has Clarkpaton. A block is normally mandatory for such a breach. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Undoing policy violations does not count as 3RR violation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise who would be left to protect Wikipedia, if all defenders would get blocked before they can issue level 4 warnings? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism? Sure, no problem. Someone replaced the article with "lol penis"? Revert away. But this is not obvious vandalism - this is a content dispute. Doesn't matter if you're right about whether clarkpaton's edits belong in the article or not. You're expected to not edit war. It's not your job to be the defender of wikipedia. If someone violates policy, you don't get to violate policy in turn - you warn them and then report them and have done. I'm inclined to block you both for 72 hours, but want more discussion here first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) Under these circumstances, I might opt myself for some short term protection to get the matter resolved on the article talk page first. In some cases, like WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, it can be difficult to determine exactly how to apply policy in a specific matter. WP:BLP is another matter entirely, and it does call for immediate reversion of problems - the other policies and guidelines generally don't have such a quick trigger for application. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if I have erred, I still attempted to redress policy violations such as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I don't know what I could otherwise have done to protect the article. If the message is that I should not defend articles, ok, I get it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that at all, and I personally believe that if there is clear evidence of WP:OR violations (which I haven't looked for) that is reasonably grounds for reversion. And if the other party in an edit war seems to be intent on not using the article talk page as it is intended, but simply continuing to engage in an edit war, I think that behavior can reasonably be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted twice the phrase "It is difficult to believe, though, that Daniel would have been accepted into the Canon of Scripture if it were only a few decades old, suggesting that a much earlier date is likely." It is definitely WP:OR: no source is given and the tone is personal (not formal). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, your opinion that it is OK to violate 3RR to "redress policy violations" is duly noted. Be advised that the Wikipedia community does not agree with your opinion, and that you will be blocked if you don't stop doing it. The reason is that everyone who edit wars thinks they are "redressing policy violations". See WP:3RRNO for a list of exceptions to 3RR. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are in disrepute. What about the possible OR? QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:I saw an editor making edits unsupported by sources, such as saying "liberal scholars" when no source called them "liberal" and saying "many liberal scholars think" when sources say "this is the consensus view". What should I have done, then? John Carter said that I should have asked page protection. In future, I will therefore ask for page protection, although such requests don't get honored if there aren't big edit wars. So, if such requests won't get honored, how should I act? Asking others to intervene could be seen as canvassing. I also note that a claim of policy violation might not necessarily be true, so admins should only have problems with bogus claims of policy violations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What should you have done, then? Before answering, I would ask whether you "get it" that edit warring to "redress policy violations" is not allowed and will get you blocked. Please confirm that you understand this (you don't have to like it). So, assuming that you get it, what should you have done? WP:DRR is the right place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have learned this for the future, I will follow John Carter's advice given at WP:AN3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree--block us both. I have made well-sourced, accurate changes on the Book of Daniel page, but have been attacked repeatedly and threatened by the above person *simply due to content dispute.* The essential issue is the dating of Daniel. Tgeorgescu insists on blocking my edits in which I add comments noting that there are plenty of scholars who can sustain (for a number of reasons) an early dating for this book. He instead forcefully insists on the retention of wording that there is "broad consensus" of a 3rd-2nd Century BC date for Daniel. There is no such consensus. As someone with an advanced degree in Old Testament, I can assure you that this issue is HIGHLY disputed, and has been in dispute for over 100 years with no end in sight. I do not insist on deleting all references to a later date, though Tgeorgescu does, in fact, insist on the same for an early date. Furthermore, I have asked him on several occasions which specific issues he has with my changes, and I have gotten no response. As highly a seasoned editor as Tgeorgescu is, I'm surprised at his negative, somewhat heavy-handed response to my good-faith editing and attempts to resolve this issue. Wikipedia's policies on editing include a page on "Please don't bite the newcomer" [[190]], which I suggest Tgeorgescu carefully review, as he is certainly succeeding in turning me off of editing.Clarkpaton (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, you were a newcomer in 2014. Why have those nice userspace warning templates, if after issuing a level 4 WP:OR warning or level 4 WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE warning you get yourself blocked? Some of them even tell the other editor that his edits were reverted, so it would be a lie to issue them without reverting. If there was a real policy violation, its revert should not be offensive to admins. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There are WP:RS/AC references in the article, do you take issue with any of them? Which, precisely and why? Are those top scholars telling bald faced lies that there is a consensus? I have also took issue that you call "liberal" whoever you disagree with. Non-fundamentalist would be a more accurate description, as I have told you on the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarkpaton, looks like your changes have been reverted by three different editors, and further that your "broad consensus" boils down to one source. The correct thing to do would have been to stop trying to force your preferred changes through, and present your broad consensus on the talk page. Instead, there are exactly two comments by you on the talk, and neither provides a source. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There is, actually, a Clark Paton who I find from searching the net has a graduate degree in the field of Old Testament studies, although it would be useful, I regret to say, to know from which school it was received. Some institutions are much more set on promoting views than others. But, even some people who are published can make really dreadful errors, and that is why we have to know the sources. I can think of Texe Marrs, who in a book I recently finished going through referred to a Catholic cardinal going to Northern Dakota State University to talk to American Indians, among other fairly dreadful mistakes. Anyone wanna take a guess why the NDSU link is red there? John Carter (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha! Your search result is probably of me, John Carter, though there are, in fact, more than one. I also have a connection to NDSU, as my daughter attends that school, although I have no idea why your link is in red. Your points are well-taken (unlike some other comments above, which appear to be designed to humiliate and shut down debate). I have tried to have a rational discussion on the Book of Daniel talk page, but have gotten nowhere with the individual in question, who has now even resorted to name-calling ("fundies").Clarkpaton (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that, considering both parties have had comments filed regarding their conduct WP:AN3, this thread could reasonably be shut down, as action is more likely to be taken there anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block reviews

I blocked Threegoodmonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as WP:NOTHERE, two edits only, both blatant trolling, and if this is not a sockpuppet then I am a threegoodmonkeys' uncle.

I also blocked Hendersonmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for more complex treasons, which should nonetheless be readily obvious from a quick review of his contributions. I have been watching Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some time, it is a device claimed by its inventor (a convicted fraudster) to generate substantial amounts of essentially free energy; there is a crossover with cold fusion and a long history of promotion of claims which are generally reckoned by the reality based community to have no merit. Given [191] I'd have thought this wasn't in the least controversial as a block-and-revert, but one editor has demanded that I recant so I bring it here for review. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Good blocks both. Miniapolis 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Without even giving my thoughts regarding their possible sock puppet connections here, I will say that both of these blocks are completely justified, were made with good judgment and cause, as were well within Wikipedia's blocking policy. I agree that they are suspicious per this edit. Not only a day after Hendersonmj was blocked, Threegoodmonkeys was created. Just 11 minutes later, the edit above was made (which was only the user's second edit). Is it a "smoking bullet", such as having similar words, habits, articles, MO, etc? No. But it does yield reasonable suspicion? Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

We block people for WP:TREASON now? Heh, all hail His Royal Majesty Jimbo the First, Ruler over the English Wikipedia, Emperor over all language colonies, projects, and metas and Lord of Wikia.--v/r - TP 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly. For treason, we sue them in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Only petty treason you know! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Violates BLOCKNO - What JzG forgot to mention is that he is not only watching Energy Catalyzer, but also editing it, edit warring on it, and discussing it on the talk page from a strong POV [192] [193] [194] [195] [196]. It was only after the block that the blocked user outed themselves as a sockpuppet. WP:INVOLVED and WP:BLOCK are pretty clear that admins don't get to take control of content of an article that they have decided is not "reality based" and block users who get in their way. I would expect that admins doing this repeatedly might find themselves desysoped at some point. I would also point out that while comments about Rossi's past criminality are not WP:BLP violations, speculation that he is still committing crimes blatantly violates WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep; two edits there in the last six months... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So involvement "expires" after 6 months now? I must have missed that memo. Pretty obvious that Guy is involved here - while these may have been good blocks, he should not have made them himself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am "involved" in preventing long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a convicted fraudster. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to tie an admin's hands because they're familiar with a topic. It's unnecessary bureaucracy to have to call in another admin for such obvious cases. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy and practice say otherwise.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is also policy, you know, though I see below you don't put much stock in it. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I'm honestly a bit torn here. First of all, I will acknowledge your response, your concerns, and the diffs that you provided. While the diffs do show JzG's involvement with the article, they were made back in August and September 2015. It also appears that any opposition to Hendersonmj's edits would be content and source-related (I'm going to read through each of Hendersonmj's changes again). Do edits made six months ago still consider a user involved? My thought is that it depends on the situation. My first gut reaction when it comes to this situation is no, but I'll admit that I'm not overly familiar with the "history" of this policy and what has been determined in the past. However, if I were in JzG's shoes, I probably would have played it safe and had someone else do the blocking (because you never know). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for other admins to take an interest in this article. It's been a problem for a looooong time and it's heating up (no pun intended) because Rossi is now suing an investor who considers he failed to prove his claims. We are likely to see a fair bit of SPA action there in coming months. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an emergency. If the article is subjected to problem editing, someone will report it, and someone else (an involved admin) will take care of it. This is how it's supposed to work, and by the way, it tends to work really well.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:. The reason JzG is involved and should not be blocking people he's in content disputes with and protecting the article for a year, is not only because he's edited the article, but also because he has an expressed bias about the subject, and apparently a loathing of its inventor. Admins don't get to skate around policy or WP:BLP policy just because they really really feel strongly about a subject.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I completely understand what constitutes being "involved" as an Administrator, and I agree that he would have been seen as "involved" if he had made those edits you listed a week ago, or maybe even a month ago and then performed the block on Hendersonmj today - especially if it would have gained him an upper hand in a dispute, argument, or with contributing or editing the article. However, it's been six months since he's last contributed to the article whatsoever (assuming the diffs listed were the latest edits that he made to the article/talk page). Is he currently in any content disputes with anyone involving the Energy Catalyzer article and at this very time? Is there something that can show that his blocks were done in order to gain an upper hand in a dispute that is currently occurring? Again, I admit that I haven't observed enough discussions to where I fully gauge how long or when an Administrator would cease becoming "involved" with an article, but my first reaction here is to ask these questions and then base my judgment off of these answers. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• JzG was completely upfront about his minor involvement (note the lowercase) in this article and I don't see a case here that the blocks were bad ones in any other respect. We have WP:IAR for this very reason, to ignore the strictest interpretation of policy subclauses in order to do something that obviously benefits the encyclopedia. Let's remember we have 2-300 active admins and 5 million articles. We can't rely on getting someone else to do it in every case. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Interesting. Does it go without saying that you also believe that IAR applies to the BLP policy that people constantly beat their chests about? - MrX 20:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  The whole point of IAR is to employ common sense in specific unforeseen cases that don't fit into strict policy boxes. So I can't say what would be an appropriate case until I see it, otherwise we'd just put that into the policy. If there's a BLP issue here, please let us know what it might be. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think I already understand the principle and practicality of IAR. Regarding BLP, evidently you didn't trouble yourself to read any of the diffs that I already provide upthread, such as:

• "Yes, he [Rossi] has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch."
• "I think it is very useful that you have publicly associated yourself with Radin, Weiler, Sheldrake and sundry other cranks"
• "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims."

I look forward to hearing about how these comments improve the encyclopedia and how they are not indicative of an inappropriate bias for anyone using admin tools anywhere near this article.- MrX 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're right, I apologize for forgetting that part of the discussion. I don't want to encourage such comments but I don't see anything particularly problematic about them, sorry. According to our article on Rossi, he was responsible for a series of frauds, including a notorious cold fusion fraud. The encyclopedia should not be used to lambaste criminals but we can point out that a person who committed fraud is a person who committed fraud if it is relevant to the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. Rossi is a convicted fraudster, that is a matter of established fact. It is also an established fact that he has used several successive announcements of funding to imply legitimacy. I encourage any admins to look through the talk page history - there are two kinds of people promoting the e-cat, cold fusionists and Rossi believers. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion is relevant, as is the pseudoscience case. I draw a distinction between newbies appearing at the talk page to tell us we're completely wrong and Rossi's device will save the world, and people who appear and pitch right in to editing content, repeating prior rejected edits, and showing knowledge of Wikipedia jargon. I don't think that is unreasonable. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying "Rossi was convicted of fraud" (past tense; factual; sourced) and "Rossi is perpetrating a fraud" (present tense; speculation; unsourced). If I posted on talk:Dennis Hastert something like "Dennis Hastert is probably molesting boys right now", I would rightfully be admonished, if not blocked. If I did it repeatedly, I would be blocked. This type of conduct from an admin is shameful and falls short of the high standard of conduct that's expected of admins (or so I thought).- MrX 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the three quotes you list states that Rossi is committing fraud, only that he has a history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims, which is - as you yourself note - a matter of simple fact. I have no particular interest in this other than as an extension of the cold fusion article with its long history of advocacy editing by cold fusion believers. If anything my POV should be the opposite to what you imply, as my best friend actually worked on Fleischmann's original cold fusion experiments, but I don't really have a POV other than "prove it" and that means not taking Rossi's word at face value. It would be like taking Kevin Trudeau's word on a claim about the HCG diet. We simply don't take the word of people with a legally established history of dishonesty, especially in the area where that dishonesty was identified (in Rossi's case free energy). And we don't sit idly by while "brand new editors" pile in to add previously rejected promotional content. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims." I don't see how a reasonable person in the reality-based community, with basic grade school reading comprehension skills could see that as anything other than strongly implying that Rossi is committing fraud. To put it even more simply, "It happened again (Getting people to throw money down the drain)" and "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model" are unsourced smears and plainly not allowed by WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• These were both good blocks. The second would not have been if it hadn't been promptly brought here for review. —Cryptic 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and I thank MrX for prompting me to do so, I should have done this without a reminder and I will bear that in mind going forward. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

JzG's behavior has fallen short of the standard's expected of both editor and adminstrator; this rollback style edit is not minor [197] and does not meet the criteria for use at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. His block of Hendersonmj, with no prior discussion on article or user talk, is both hasty and involved. The fact the Cold Fusion has been crap since Fleischmann and Pons conned politicians and the media in 1989 is not a valid reason to violate policy; Wikipedia standard is reliable sources, not truth (see, for example, Chemtrails and numerous articles on inexplicably notable people -- names omitted per BLP but think so-called "reality TV" ...).. WP:IAR is properly understood as not letting the technical wording of policies interfere doing the commonsense thing, not an excuse to skip necessary steps in dispute resolution. WP:AGF and all that, and no, no one is suggesting wiki suicide, it's really just not that important an article. The notion that admins are hard to find is not supported by evidence; a recent AN request had a wait time of only 21 minutes; there was nothing so urgent requiring action on Energy Catalyzer in an accelerated time frame. I'd like to see a reversal of the Henderonmj block and a commitment from JzG to avoid misuse of rollback in the future. NE Ent 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I always enjoy your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. I rolled the edit back because it was blatantly promotional. Remember the context: a "free energy" cold fusion device that is being promoted by a convicted fraudster. Dispute resolution is fine for genuinely new accounts (cf. recent AE against Conzar, a sincere but misguided newbie). This looks like a sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet, given the known and documented off-wiki collaboration of cold fusionists).

With the exception of the lawsuit, which was under discussion on Talk, the material added was largely material that has been the subject of extensive prior debate, and rejected as synthesis. There is a patent, therefore it works! Or not, since British Rail had a patent for a flying saucer powered by nuclear explosions.

If any admin wants to replace the block with a DS notice and warning then that's fine. Or if the consensus of uninvolved admins is that I was wrong, then I will unblock and apologise. I have no problem with people asking me to post a block for review, I have no problem with accepting the results of any independent review (we can of course ignore the voices of the usual griefers). Guy (Help!) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual, NE Ent is encouraging trouble for the encyclopedia with completely unrealistic views about what others should do. Anyone wanting to offer advice about how to prevent fringe pushers subverting articles should spend a few months helping stem the never-ending inflow first. Johnuniq (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging trouble by pointing out that an admin is using admin tools (rollback, protection, and blocking) to control content? Thank you NE Ent! The way to prevent articles from being subverted with fringe pushing is the same way you prevent bad content in any any topic area. If you want to see a never-ending inflow of bad content, try new page patrol. I assure you, fringe topics are not our biggest wiki-emergency, by far. - MrX 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, a contentious topic Homophobia has been kept NPOV without any involved blocks by simply watching and editing [198], [199] and reverting NPOV inclusions with appropriate edit summary [200]. While tiresome and tedious, it's not actually that hard to edit per policy. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison. Homophobia is not a commercial product being promoted by a convicted fraudster, and bigots typically get short shrift on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• both blocks were good. i should note that i was one of the targets of threemonkey's monkeying around. also kudos to Guy for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have read through all of the difference posts and the comments here. It seems to me that JzG ought to have asked another administrator to step in. There are many admins who would have been able to intervene without the appearance of impropriety. I seem to recall the Arbitration Committee requiring that in multiple rulings of theirs. I don't see any outright problems with what JzG did but HOW he went about it. New England Cop (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds easy, but people who have tried it know that it often does not work. Admins are busy and an uninvolved admin would need at least half an hour to understand the background before they were in a position to think about the particular edits being reported. The topic in question is a magic box that produces an inexhaustible stream of very low cost energy, and people have invested large amounts in the company that is developing the device. Along with the free energy comes an inexhaustible supply of editors keen to add factoids to promote the device. Please review the archived talk page discussions and join in if you would like to help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Please post a diff of an administrator requesting assistance on either AN or ANI and not getting a timely response from another administrator. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • JzG has been an admin for a very long time and has been involved in enough controversy that he clearly knows the Arbitration Committee requires excusing oneself and calling in an uninvolved administrator when there is even the appearance of impropriety. He chose to ignore this and all in all it's a very, very minor violation of the rules of conduct governing administrators. I'd simply file it away and keep it in mind when and if JzG is ever called to the carpet to explain the many controversies he has been involved in. I propose archiving this thread but not forgetting it. New England Cop (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What I should have done was post it for review unprompted. That owuld have stopped the disruption and maintained transparency. I acknowledge fault here, and have thanked MrX for reminding me that this is what I should have done. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• First block is obviously fine under the traditional interpretation of wp:involved, which is to not worry about it much when it comes to "duh" cases like that one. I didn't bother looking at the second block but it sounds ok too based on other people's comments, and that no one has called for overturning it. Bringing it here for review when someone asked for that sufficed, imho. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

132.177.197.98 : persistent BLP-violating edit-warring

Reporting 132.177.197.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent BLP-violating edits to AnnaSophia Robb. This started with wildly unencyclopedic comments ([201] and [202]). IP then switched to an unreferenced claim about "internet memes" referring to the same thing, in an attempt to get the comment into the article. IP has continued despite multiple reversions by multiple editors and a series of escalating requests-to-desist on IP's talk page. IP's few responses (e.g. [203]) have been basically "F you, I'm going to do what I want" (one of them to ClueBot!). Suggest IP block for NOTHERE, BLP, DIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. Jeh (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A report like this should start by going to WP:AIV, as that's the page that handles vandal issues. Adding a note there might be overkill, as this is a heavily watched page by admins, but in the future, repeatedly warned editors that continue to vandalize should go to WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll move it if that's what you're recommending. Jeh (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to post it there either. Just a friendly tip for if you catch this in the future too :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User black washing the articles

The user 92.106.216.139 is continuously black washing the Kurdish women article. Edits of this user:
Diff [204]: This edit was a clearly against WP:POV.
Diff [205]: Wordpress --> [WP:FAKE].
Diff [206]: Reversed or edited 6 cherry pickings. Check the sources.
Diff [207]: The user changed Sorani speaking Kurds to all Kurds, Iraqi Arabs to all Arabs (Black washing).
A 2014 survey from UNICEF found a 58.5% prevalence of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan.--> The source doesn't mention anything like that. The source is related to the small survey about two cities, not all Iraqi Kurdistan (Black washing).
Diff [208]: Read the source, it's clearly cherry picking.

The user has added only FGM, honor killing and other negative things to the article. The article is related to the Kurdish women but ~80% is about FGM, honor killing and other crimes. Also, according to another user, this users has involved in mass deletions of sourced contents, offensive edit summaries, disruptive editing and meatpuppetting.-->[209]Ferakp (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The disruptive behaviour of this user Ferakp has been reported previously: see this discussion at ANI and this conclusion

To summarize, just some of the many issues with this user

He deletes, removes and reverts information and sources that do not comply with his nationalist POV. Such deletions include well sourced information

He in particular does not tolerate that articles mention the women's rights situation and the violence against (Kurdish women). He also wants articles on LGBT Kurds and on Kurdish feminists deleted.

When information is added that goes against his nationalist POV, and he can't delete it, he very often editorializes it until it gives a completely different spin than the original

In these cases, he made many source misrepresentations, including some gross ones, which hurts the reputation of wikipedia, like modifying direct quotes from books

His excuses when challenged are that some random news articles contradict the information, or that is blackwashing, or Turkish propaganda

Because of his disruptive behaviour it has been impossible to write in these articles

Besides, his claim that violence against women is overrepresented at the Kurdish women article is baseless. Just two examples: Female Genital mutilation is nowhere else outside of Africa as widely practiced as in Iraqi Kurdistan, and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) has characterized "honor killings as a serious concern in Iraq, particularly in Iraqi Kurdistan". @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:@GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:@SlimVirgin:@Shawn in Montreal:@ThePlatypusofDoom:@Snow Rise:@Shadow4dark:

PS. I won't have time to comment further until late Wednesday. --92.106.216.139 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just point out that Ferakp has stated on his user page that he has stopped editing Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Above Ferakp claims I was cherry picking because of this:

The original source reads: More or less silent on women an non-princely classes, it makes references to the women of the ruling landowning class, and their exclusion from public life and the exercise of state power. According to this source, the Kurds, following the Islamic tradition, took four wives and, if the could afford it, four maids or slave girls (jariyya). […] Daughters and sisters were given or exchanded in marriage as a means of settling wars and blood feuds. When one side was defeated, the victor took over the women of the enemy as booty and as proof of the humiliating defeat of the adversary. Although state power was execised only by males, Bidlisi mentions three women who, after losing their husbands, aussumed the reins of power in order to transfer it to their sons upon their adulthood.

Out of this, in the wikipedia article it only read until I corrected it: Sharaf ad-Din Bitlisi's 1597 Sharafnama mentions three Kurdish women assuming power in Kurdish principalities.

If THIS was not cherry picking, then what is?? --92.106.216.139 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Besides, the roughly 58% percentage of FGM in Erbil is correct, and there are sources to it that Ferakp also deleted, see this article Female genital mutilation, from which article he wasn't able to delete the information, even though he tried. I could go on and on.--92.106.216.139 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no knowledge or particular interest in this area. I had noticed Ferakp before editing exclusively in the Kurdish/Turkish area. I only became involved because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houzan Mahmoud struck me somewhat suspect. Anyway, if he's truly resigned I suppose this discussion can be closed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I bet that the user 92.106.216.139 is involved in meatpuppeting. I am 100% sure he is banned before because of his behavior and so fast response and just check the users he tagged, they are all pro-Turkish editors who I have warned about their WP:POV, WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL edits. As I said, check his edits and the sources, they are clearly against WP rules. I have edited maybe thousands of times and it is normal that some are not happy because I found them black washing the article. Show one my edit and prove it that it is not allowed or wrong. I have explained them all using WP rules. Ferakp (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see that I have been notified. Ferakp has been involved in POV editing. I was patrolling pages marked as "Controversial" for vandalism, and I came across Ferakp. People have told him many times to not continue, but he just accused other editors of being pro-turkish, as he just did. I really don't have any bias on the subject, but it seems to me that Ferakp has been editing in an unhelpful way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Ferakp

The conclusion of one of the last discussions was that this is getting close to a topic ban, and since then other veteran editors have reported his behaviour as WP:NOTHERE. This has been going on for too long, and he won't stop. I propose a topic ban for Ferakp. --92.106.216.139 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

oppose From my experience, I would agree that Ferakp is not the easiest editor to deal with, however also from my experience, I have found that he is looking for neutrality and respects the ideas of discussion and compromise. At the end of the day, we had a few too many reverts (each) and then we found neutral ground, based on reliable sources and discussion. Yeah, I'm sure he has political feelings (as do many editors) and these feelings are reflected in his edits (same for most editors), but when treated with the respect and good faith than we all deserve, he was not disruptive and our discussions certainly resulted in an improved article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Although I agree that Ferakp does try to have discussions and not be a troll, he has been disruptive. He has caused many editors to continuously edit the articles in question because of his POV editing. I think that a topic ban for a year or two would help the encyclopedia, and is what is needed for Ferakp. Even though he has stopped editing Wikipedia for now, It's probably a good idea to have this in place in case he decides to start editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Well, apparently Ferakp's resignation lasted all of 24 hours. I certainly have no opinion on whether he should be topic banned -- I don't know enough about his editing history, nor do I care to. I only became involved when I spotted this Afd, which didn't seem to me to be policy based and seemed more motivated by a battlefield mentality about any content related to mistreatment of women by Kurds. That's really why I waded in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I should also point -- to state the obvious -- that 92.106.216.139 and Ferakp have been embroiled in an editing dispute for some time: indeed Ferakp had tried to get the Kurdish women article page protected to stop 92.106.216.139's edits. So again while I don't know enough to pick sides, what we may have at this ANI is yet another installment in a dispute between two editors, and WP:Forum shopping across multiple pages in an attempt to lock in each one's preferred version of reality. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You are all welcome to check my edit history word by word. Thousands of edits and only 8 disputes and in many of them I have reached consensus. You can clearly check all my disputes and you will realize that I never start any kind of "war" before I am 100% sure that my changes clearly removed or edited something which weren't true or against WP rules. I always use the talk page and explain my changes if another user is not happy with my changes. However, some users are not trying to reach consensus at all. I improved many 92.106.216.139 edits, I edited them to according to their sources even though it was clear that he was cherry picking. However, he didn't stop it, he still continues it. That's why I wanted administrator or admin to lock the article. @ThePlatypusofDoom:: If you think I am disruptive editor, prove it. Whether I get topic ban or permanent ban, I don't care because I am not editing anymore: Only fixing and adding sources and of course I am just trying to stop disruptive editors. Ferakp (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think you are trying to do the right thing, but personally, I agree with 92.106.16.139. Kurdish women are treated terribly, and it is still a very major problem in the world today. It is very, very widespread, and the reason that a good 70% of the article is devoted to this is because of that. You shouldn't let this stop you from editing, but you may want to back off. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I do think that this ANI should be closed. This is not to be the forum to resolve this, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing of this incident report

As Shawn in Montreal and I feel, this should be closed or moved to a different page. I propose a move or a close of this report. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism/Advertising at Game_of_Silence_(U.S._TV_series)

My apologizes if I'm doing this wrong, however I noticed the following edit from user named SierracrawfordmpD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom is possibly advertising malware on wikipedia, or at the very least advertising his own site. I have, however, already reverted the change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_of_Silence_%28U.S._TV_series%29&oldid=714954592

My apologizes if I didn't link it properly, I just thought I'd step in. 50.186.26.192 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I sent a note over to WP:AIV about it. The link came up as possibly malware on my system, and was blocked as such. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You. It's his only edit, so I'm questioning if there are Socks or not.50.186.26.192 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:81.103.184.187

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor has commented on my talk page attacking me because I made a revert that may of been vandalism (Ill have to check my contribs). I suggest a ban from interacting with me because I believe s/he has only the intent of vandalizing and/or attacking editors. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A single message such as this is not even close to meriting the need for any sort of ban on block. Please don't make posts on this board until you better understand what actually constitutes vandalism and disruption. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Review: 92.19.170.43

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

92.19.170.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP was blocked indefinitely as another ref-desk troll. Though the block was clearly justified, IP's are never blocked indefinitely (unless occasional Proxy IP servers). Usually Vote (X) for Change IP's first blocks are 36 hours. Can an admin take a look into this, please?

2607:FB90:A502:88F9:0:3C:D175:F701 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One of yours? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, no...? I just saw the block and was curious as to why it was indef-ed. My contributions are clearly not from the same user. 2607:FB90:A502:88F9:0:3C:D175:F701 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What brought it to your attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, stop poking. Helpful IP 2607, thank you for noting the discrepancy in the block length. I adjusted it to 48 hours assuming the indef was an unintentional error by Jayron32, one I've done myself a number of times.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a fair question to ask of any user raising this type of issue. It's a question I would expect you to ask me if I had been the OP. Except you wouldn't have had to ask, because I would have already stated what brought it to my attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The IPs observation of the block was completely valid, and a review of their edits show they were doing vandal patrolling prior to their edit here. Your comment ("one of yours?") was unhelpful, rude, showed bad faith, and served no purpose other than to cast aspersions on someone who was pointing out a likely error. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution.

The IP-hopper that I posted an ANI on ten days ago [210] is still at it. He has been vandalizing Talk:Social work for two months straight.

• Blatant lying: [211], [212], [213], [214]
• Altering others' posts: [215]
• Deleting others' posts: [216], [217], [218], [219]

• Vandalizing others' posts: [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229]

• Archive/format vandalizing: [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]

• Trolling: [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244],

• Time-wasting: [245]

Need a permanent solution. Since Talk:Social work is a talk page, I'd like to request indefinite pending changes. Indefinite so it's permanent (he quickly returns after protections expire), and pending changes so that any legitimate posts by non-trolling IPs can get through. (There are a number of people watching the page who can "accept" legitimate non-autoconfirmed posts.)

Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(PS: The last non-troll-IP post to that talk page was six months ago, and before that, years apart. So if indefinite pending-changes doesn't sound ideal, I suggest six months of semi-protection.) Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd do it but the PD2 button seems to have fallen out of my Protect menu. I applied regular semi-protection for a week so that some other admin can do what I seem incapable of doing. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pending changes does not seem to be an available option for talk pages. — Diannaa (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Then can we apply plan B -- six months semi-protection? He's an IP-hopper with dozens of IPs used so far. This guy has been around steadily for over two months straight. If he wants to contribute, he can register. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that anon ips's shouldn't contribute and only registered members should. Blocking talk page is kind of annoying. Blocking article page for personal reasons are understandable.117.241.21.127 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Whatever you attempted didn't take -- it's not in your contributions log or the page log. Also, one week isn't going to help; he returns immediately after protection expires -- see the edit-history of Social work. Can we please therefore apply plan B above -- six months semi-protection? He's an IP-hopper with dozens of IPs used so far. He has been around steadily for over two months straight. If he wants to contribute, he can register. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As an editor consider helping other newbies. Consider an editor as an editor not as an he or she. Accusing all those IPs as one IP-hopper doesn't match with the talk page posts. If ip editors are editing and they are sourced, your claims are........I don't know. Well learn to team player in a community effort.117.241.21.127 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, looks like Drmies went to bed without doing anything at all. Can an admin please semi-protect Talk:Social work for six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected for one month to start. — Diannaa (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Before going for blocks kindly look into what is really happening. Editors like Softlavender and Jim1138 actions are synonymous to persistent vandalism. They edit out elements. They edit out sourced content. They are not willing to engage in a meaningful discussion. There objective is harmful to the the article. I am not sure and not going into research of there past activities. But to restrict access to talk page or article page is an extension of there need to close any good contribution. Many of those links are just labeled for personal interests and in scaling system highly dangerous when it comes to biting and harassment. There are some genuine ones, but looking at the talk page one could find them resolved. Kindly look through thoroughly before granting these editors there wishes.61.2.171.197 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors like softlavender and jim1138 Activities are presistent to vandalism and trolling with reverts. There primary way of dispute resolution is reverting posting warning then giving requests for blocks. These are all understandable from a through search. Also if one has to assume the reason for the current block initiaton, what would be the reason. There is nothing valid in the talk page or the article to initiate such a block. Only active duscussion. If this is an issue we have to look whether these blocks are a therapeutic need for burnouts. If so taking leave might be more beneficial than using wikipedia to find confident by dissing and name calling others. Furthermore if the recent activities of these editirs looked in the specific talk oage one could see deletion of posts from an op editor, even after the continuos warnings these efitors engaged in such activities without an orooer explaination. Who shoild be really blocked for a permanent solution ? 106.208.158.137 (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced that this person can't be turned into a productive editor in time. Some of this seems to have stemmed from a lack of understanding that talk functions more like a message board than a collaborative product. They seemed fairly receptive to this when it was explained...patiently.

Regardless, I don't think it's too much to ask for this person to register an account. Assuming they're open to constructive feedback, this would certainly make the process much easier. TimothyJosephWood 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian IP disruption in music articles

There's a persistent person from Sicily who is making lots of unreferenced changes to music articles, mixed with a few obvious falsehoods. The most recent involved IPs are as follows:

• 82.51.32.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.53.4.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.30.91.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.56.98.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.27.106.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy persists in changing to wrong credits in a few song articles, for instance "Go Away Little Girl"[246][247][248][249][250][251][252] and "To Love A Child."[253][254]

A previous notice about this guy was archived without any discussion: Sicilian IPs pushing Durium Records, Nikka Costa, inserting falsehoods globally. That discussion had a lot more detail about the person's disruption. KrakatoaKatie blocked 82.61.34.110 shortly after the March 19 notice. Can we do something stronger to stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He has been warned, and blocked, multiple times so I will block the latest IP. However, he is using Telecom Italia dynamic IPs so will simply pop up on another. A range block is out of the question, the IP addresses are too scattered. We do have the option of semi-protection or pc1. As "Go Away Little Girl" has been suffering since the first week of March and the disruption has continued after a one-week protection, I'll semi-protect it for a longer period. I am not sure if an edit filter would help, perhaps others might comment? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've created a page to start bringing together reports, IPs, article affected and action taken at User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian_IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish we could globally block this guy. I've been going around to different language wikis to try and counter him, and I've contacted the most effective admin who is quick to recognize, revert and block this guy on Italian-language Wikipedia.[255] Let's see what K'n-yan says about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly prolific. There are a few articles that he edits more than others, "Go Away Little Girl", United Artists Records and "Sleep Walk", for example. If he pops up at those, I'll semi-protect them (or you can request s-p at RfPP). Being quick to recognize him will be key, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He's popped up again as 95.238.111.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), this time he is block evading. Added to User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian_IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

178.217.194.100's long-term edit warring and continued addition of unsourced statistics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last year, Jolly Janner and I repeatedly tried to explain to 178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at User talk:178.217.194.100 the need to source additions of statistics to demography articles. The editor largely ignored our advice, and engaged in edit warring. As well as adding statistics without sources, their additions are often poorly formatted, they have ignored repeated advice about the correct use of commas for thousand separators and full stops for decimal points, and the edits are likely in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I noticed today that the editor has resumed their behaviour, restoring unsourced material that was recently removed from the Demographics of France article and re-adding statistics about England and Wales to Demography of England that were previously removed. I think that enough is enough and some action needs to be taken to stop this disruptive behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that wasn't reverted? Jolly Ω Janner 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to advice about correct formatting, suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a fairly long block and a six-month topic ban on stats charts. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• It would be great to get input and/or action from some administrators on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• This issue appears to still be ongoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with recommendation by Softlavender for a long block and topic ban on the IP user, who unfortunately seems unwilling or willfully ignoring requests to engage in further discussion about the matter. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this still a problem? I see a comment from the IP editor acknowledging a problem with their editing and recent edits try to provide a source, although the formatting isn't ideal. Zad68 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The IP has commented that they won't edit UK demography articles any more, but that's not really acknowledging the problem, which concerns their insistence on ignoring WP:NOTSTATSBOOK at a whole range of articles. Edits such as this suggest that they also haven't taken on board messages about the need for proper referencing, as the URL linked to is just a menu page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• More of this today. Quite why Demographics of Algeria needs population pyramids for 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014 is unclear. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• The IP has made lots more similar additions tonight, including reinstating that material at Demographics of Algeria after Jolly Janner reverted the additions I linked to above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• He seems to have acquired a fetish for raw survey data used to calculate population pyramids. I suggest all of them be removed. Only the population pyramid itself would be useful in an encyclopedia. I've suggested a possible workaround to it on his talk page. In the meantime, we will have to remove all the survey data from our articles. I would still welcome a block, since we've previously advised workarounds, but the user doesn't listen. I don't hold much hope on this occasion either. Jolly Ω Janner 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please block this user soon? Another round of disruptive edits today after ignoring my alternative on their talk page. I've cleaned up some pages, but it takes a long time to revert them all. As they admitted, they are trying to add it to every country. Jolly Ω Janner 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this case? The IP user doesn't appear to be willing to respect consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP continues to insist that these are good edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user (using an IP) made an edit to the page on March 16 and then self-reverted it. I accepted the revision since there was no change between the previous revision. However, I have now noticed that the edit summary of this edit is explicit and the equivalent of an attack page (it's defamatory) targeting Anna Walton. Could an admin please somehow hide this edit summary. Thanks, LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been RevisionDeleted by Favonian. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Longfamily417

This report is about the conduct of User:Longfamily417 concerning Draft:SageTea. This draft was submitted nine times to Articles for Creation within 36 hours by the owner of the company, who is apparently in a great hurry to obtain free advertising in Wikipedia for his company, and who has repeatedly made minor changes to the draft without addressing substantive issues. The author was repeatedly cautioned to stop resubmitting the draft tendentiously, and was advised to request comments at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, but persisted in resubmitting. Finally one of the reviewers nominated the draft for Miscellany for Deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea. At this point (and only at this point), the author stated that he would step aside from editing and resubmitting the draft, but would ask another editor, a former employee of the company, to take responsibility. That is a clear case of attempting to game the system.

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASageTea&type=revision&diff=714487940&oldid=714486700 the author included text of a granted patent that was copyrighted by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Longfamily417 may have a valid argument for notability, which doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem. The problem is not so much the company or the draft or the notability issue. The problem is a disruptive single-purpose account who will stop at nothing to get his free advertising. It is clear now that the real answer is not whether to delete the draft, but whether to delete (or sanction) the editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The following edit was made to my talk page, only after the eighth submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=714535620&oldid=714477850 I may be cynical (or WP:AGF really may be a suicide pact that I am not honoring), but I can't accept the good faith of a statement that my advice is appreciated, when my advice to ask for advice at the Teahouse was ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad Topic-Ban

I propose that User:Longfamily417 be topic-banned from SageTea, broadly construed, and from any other topic in which the editor has any sort of conflict of interest. COI editing in draft space is not normally considered forbidden by policy because the draft is not outward-facing, is subject to review, and may be edited to neutralize it by reviewers and other editors. However, in this case, Longfamily417 is pursuing a COI agenda so aggressively that only a topic-ban will prevent further disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The nominator obviously supports his nomination, and is already counted in. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unnecessary point, actually! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the problem. They've removed the offending content, they've made a COI statement, they've tried to get outside help in good faith. They've agreed with removals of content. They're trying to comply with our policies; and they've tried to comply with everything being said to them. I don't see what has made you rush over to ANI on this topic. What, exactly, are they doing that is disruptive?--v/r - TP 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Comment - In view of the fact that they did harm by wasting the time of the AFC reviewers by tendentious resubmission, what harm to them is there in handing them a topic-ban from an article that they shouldn't be pushing anyway? It is very common for an editor to say that they won't edit on a topic in order to get a topic-ban quashed, and then wait a few months and resume. Since this editor (although now cooperative) was stubborn and tendentious, why not just topic-ban them?: Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support They're clearly only here to advertise, so topic ban seems okay. However, I think indefinitely blocking as not here to contribute positively would be more appropriate. Also, he's said he's getting someone else to write the article for him, so I guess the topic ban should cover that too? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I propose we topic ban Dweepsteeple too, since they created SageTea in main space, and are clearly the person that the above CEO said he was going to get to work on the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The above is presumably intended to refer to DweepSteeple rather than the non-existant Dweepsteeple. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the characterization of myself as "aggressive", I don't share that view. I work very hard on everything I do, and usually put in a 16 hour day, including looking after my 3 kids and running a business with 22 employees. I have been on Wikipedia for all of 2 days, and felt I was putting my time in last weekend, to make the article as best I could. Naturally, being the first submission, I had a lot of feedback, and responded quickly out of respect for the time given by the editors. My intention was not to be aggressive - it was about being timely.

I have done my best to take a step back from being involved in the article. As a CEO, I certainly understand the dangers of conflict of interest. That said, once disclosed, the problem becomes manageable, as long as it is done carefully. I fully recognize this take the guidance of others. I am refraining from comment or involvement in the article, unless asked.

In terms of the statement "getting someone else to write the article for him" I would not say that is how I communicated with the current submitter. Factually, he was a former employee of SageTea, a temporary student who is no longer with the company and left on good terms. He is also bright, and someone I don't talk with very often. What I did say is that he is free to put the article into his own words, and write about the topic however he wants. That said, his comment back to me was that the folks on Wikipedia were very aggressive. So I actually had to apologize to him for that. I think the point here is that I communicated with him about the idea. What I did not do is force him or make any other demand, just passed on the idea. Where it goes after this is out of my hands.

I am the inventor of the patent and the CEO of the company. If anyone wants to ask me about that one topic, I am the expert and willing to answer any questions. If I am not asked, then at this point I have nothing to say. I think that is best with respect to the COI question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have admin glasses to see the deleted article in mainspace. Does it read almost the same as the current version in draft space? If so, quack, quack. Does it pass the duck test, in which case we are not just dealing with tendentious and disruptive editing, but sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I has the admin glasses and the two articles have most of the same content. The deleted article has some additional technical jargon but the puffery is identical. If DweepSteeple isn't a sock, he's a meatpuppet. The claims of 'I just passed on the idea' are disingenous at best. Katie^talk 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie: Reasonably sure they are different users, because User:Longfamily417 has been adamant that he'll get someone else to write it, although I explained that that would be a COI and meatpuppetry. :ike most of their responses, they didn't listen. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I'm not opposed to a block but I'm not convinced there is need. The topic ban seems sufficiently broad. Most likely it'll just means the editor stops editing or is blocked because they don't stop and continue to make COI edits. There is a small chance they'll edit other articles, hopefully productively. While there is also a small chance their editing won't be productive or they'll test the boundaries, the highly narrow focus of their editing thus far suggests to me this is fairly unlikely and we can probably easily deal with it if it does happen. Based on the above comments of meat at a minimum, I suggest DweepSteeple also be topic banned. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support six-month topic ban for Longfamily417 and DweepSteeple as necessary at this point; the aggressiveness in trying to ram this article into the encyclopedia is inappropriate. Miniapolis 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

SageTea article

A point noted above: there is a draft, Draft:SageTea, which is at Mfd, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea, as promotion of a non-notable topic. The mainspace article appears to have been created as an end-run around that. Since the bar for inclusion in mainspace is higher than that in Draft and the mainspace article had all the same issues identified in the Draft (it was a copy-paste, in fact), I have removed the main space article pending outcome of the Draft MfD. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that I have been on Wikipedia for all of 4 days now. Give a guy a break. I can learn fast, but am still learning the interface. I hear what everyone is saying. Really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - If you are multiply cautioned to ask for help rather than resubmitting, having been on Wikipedia for only 4 days is a flimsy excuse. Most regular Wikipedia editors try to explain to new editors what they should do differently. It is true that we are not always patient with editors who keep repeating the behavior that they are advised not to repeat. How many warnings do you think are needed to a tendentious editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

IP-Hopper troll

86.187.165.84 is the latest IP of the troll in my entry further up on this page. Eik Corell (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie has applied a rangeblock for a week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

86.187.185.109‎ (talk · contribs) just now edited Rossiya Airlines in typical fashion here, so something still needs to be tightened up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he's skipped outside the rangeblock. I've blocked the IP and will keep an eye out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Minjoo Party of Korea move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, would an admin care to take a look at the move proposal at Talk:The Minjoo Party of Korea? By my count it's been up for about 3 weeks, and I think the consensus is relatively clear with only one editor opposing, hence why I'm posting here rather than at requests for closure, but the admin can assess (I am involved). Not sure if AN/I is the appropriate venue, but this is "a specific problem", the move would need an admin to carry out if accepted, and the article is currently at the main page (though probably not for too much longer). —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The move was closed by an uninvolved editor shortly after I posted this, but still needs an admin to carry out. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, this is natural with non-admin RM closures. Be patient, I have already listed a request at WP:RMT. Note that WP:ANRFC would be a more appropriate venue for closure requests. SSTflyer 03:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above I thought this would be the appropriate venue since WP:ANRFC states that it is for discussions "where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications", and I didn't think this discussion fell under any of those, but point taken. Thank you for the closure. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue at Collective narcissism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Horacewcrosby1 is persistently trashing collective narcissism applying off the wall original research totally contrary to any perceived wisdom or reliable sources. He also sometimes trashes the formatting at the same time eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective_narcissism&oldid=715049830 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective_narcissism&oldid=709624868 --Penbat (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't discussed this with User:Horacewcrosby1 on his or her talk page? Brianga (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Brianga, they don't have one to do so, it's in red if you've noticed, and creating one on their behalf isn't allowed as far I understand. Nuro msg me —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nuro Dragonfly, you may want to watch and learn more before advising others at AN/I. You have 20 posts to open cases here, but you have confused a user page and a user talk page which shows a lack of familiarity with some of the basics. Fences&Windows 00:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no I haven't. My meaning was to state there isn't a way to send them a message through the normal manner. And don't use such demeaning language. Be grateful someone is trying to help. Nuro G'dayMate! 00:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Their user page was a red link, and other editors should not start another's user page. However, their user talk page had content and others are permitted to start a redlinked user talk page - it is there to communicate with them. You did misunderstand, and my advice stands to stay off this "dramaboard" until better versed in editing. Fences&Windows 00:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A draft at AFC seems to include private information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see User:Fae Chen/sandbox, it includes amongst other personal info, passwords that look like they might give people access to private educational records. I'm not sure about this stuff, but it looks to me like it should be redacted to protect an inexperienced editor from their own mistake. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to oversight.--TMCk (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robot psychiatrist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Might be a good time to take a look at Robot psychiatrist. User has garnered a steady stream of warnings in the past few days, including four over the last 24 hours, none of which they have responded to or discussed. Edits range from the innocuous, to the wrong, to the bizarre. Not obvious vandalism, but seems generally revert worthy across a pretty wide range of articles by multiple users.

...and in the time it took me to write this they've made five more edits. So...yeah. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 14:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Example here: Changing so that you cannot directly access Illinois from the infobox. And this. Does not seem to be the most helpful edits to me. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you taken this to AIV? Looks like blatant vandalism to me. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I just reported him/her. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Qpalzmmzlapq. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think all we have is a new editor not sure of the wikiway yet.--Moxy (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a close is in order. The issue was taken to AIV and the user has been banned for 31 hours by Widr. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neve-selbert asking others for proxy-edits to go around 1RR rule

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Neve-selbert (talk · contribs · logs) came back from a two week block on the 11th, and immediately got back into the conflicts he was blocked for, trying again to either unbold Palestine in opposition to a talk page discussion, and then even moving Palestine into a sub-entry under Israel in direct violation of a long RfC on the topic.

Since he violated the RfC by reverting the implementation of that RfC, he can't revert it again. It's covered by the Israeli-Palestine conflict 1RR rule. So instead he asks other editors to do it for him. First here, and then despite being told by two others that this is not OK, he did it again here.

Heads up for admins: Neve-selbert is not listening to anyone or any arguments, and every time he is asked to follow Wikipedia policies he acts like he is the victim and is being attacked, while all other editors are evil and bad. This goes on until an administrator comes along, at which point he will tell you that he understood what he did was wrong and he is very sorry and will not do it again, and then as soon as the threat is over, do it again. His talk page history is full of him begging to be unblocked because he knows he did wrong and he will never do it again. And yet, every time he gets unblocked, he is right back at it. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed they've been forum shopping the Help desk about content disputes, 1RR and BRD- trying to get proxy editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly wanting to push Zionist Nationalist POV, not build an encyclopaedia. Palestine should be under P in the column of Asia, because it is alphabetical. The General Assembly voted in favour of recognition. Yet another Israeli trying to change this fact, somehow, somewhere...sick of Nationalists coming on here, of any stripe or colour... NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 07:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve is not an Israeli and he is not trying to push a "Zionist Nationalist POV". It's more complicated than that. He does things for reasons that make perfect sense to him and he will do them repeatedly. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your point. He is quite clearly pushing Ultra-Nationilst Zionist POV by doing what they've done. If he/she is not Israeli, ...well with the edits they are making, I can be excused for assuming this. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 07:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that your while your conclusions may appear to be consistent with the data you have sampled, they are inaccurate in my view, and as such are not useful in deciding how to deal with Neve's behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"He does things for reasons that make perfect sense to him and he will do them repeatedly" - exactly why a block is needed here. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block This editor has been warned so many times. They have had two recent blocks over their behaviour at List of state leaders in 2016 and related matters. Their behaviour during the RfC was disgusting and subject to much criticism during that process. They continuously harassed other editors who opposed their frankly ludicrous suggestion Palestine should be listed as a "sub-state" of Israel (in the same way as Gibraltar is in the United Kingdom entry). This editor has absolutely refused to accept the overwhelming outcome of the RfC and continued to edit-war endlessly. They are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POVPUSH. Frankly, I think the community is sick to death of this behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - @Sean I strongly disagree. My summary of the facts before me are quite specific for a reason. He is clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POVPUSH. He clearly outlines a Nationalist agenda in his actions. This is another thing that the community is sick of. As well as apologists for certain groups of editors and their behaviour. Having a position of 'good faith' is fine, as I see you trying to do, until this sort of thing comes along. Again and Again and Again. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 08:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't follow 'assume good faith', I follow 'assume nothing' and regard AGF as a worse than useless way of conducting oneself on issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict because that is what the small evidence available demonstrates - AGF is wrong more often than it is right in the ARBPIA topic area. But Neve's behavior is more easily understood by considering that he has OCD. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, well that's a much better way a making your point. I detest any hint of Nationalist Ideology. From any walk of life. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 08:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

His motivations are irrelevant, I don't see any reason to assume that he is nationalist or zionist. It's his actions that should be judged, not his opinions. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

50/50. His actions are what have brought it to this point. His motivations are why he behaves the way he does. I don't consider them mutually exclusive. He also clearly states Zionist Nationalist view points, and not the first person to do so on WP, of which there is no room for. I would say the same if he was pushing the agenda of Hamas or the PLO and their stated aims and goals. Zionist Israeli Government Policies and their continued Denial of Palestinian Statehood, ratified by the UN General Assembly, is the issue here. This editors actions support this stance. Though I submit to the message you are conveying that the person actions are the more senior of the problems; that is due to their political views, which they can't leave at the door. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 13:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not their political views but political (mis)-knowledge. At one point in the RFC they thought the occupied territories are part of Israel and the Palestinians are some sort of separatists, an honest but false belief born out of nationalistic propaganda which is spread all over the web.--TMCk (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I missed that part in it all, and yes I will agree that that is showing a complete lack of understanding the International Truth about the 1967 Six Day War, or the Yom Kippur 1973 war and the ramifications because of it. You just made my brain hurt. I still support a topic ban until they can prove they have a correct understanding of History. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 15:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions that Neve-selbert is pushing a pro-Israeli pov, would be the same as suggesting that Baking Soda is pushing a pro-Palestinian pov. I think you'll agree, giving the volatile nature of the Israel/Palestine topic? it's a road that we best not go down :) GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve probably doesn't think or use information like other people. An example of his thinking, as some here will recall, is - since Palestine is under occupation by Israel, it should be under the entry for Israel. Makes sense in a way, no? Each position he adopts in arguments, he adopts with absolute certainty for the period he attempts to hold that position and clearly enjoys fighting for it using a writing style that is unfortunately the exact opposite of Lydia Davis. And yet despite his certainty, his arguments to defend his positions are rather fluid as he adjusts them to incorporate new reliably sourced information brought to the discussions. Since he doesn't use RS as the basis of his arguments, he only seems to use the information in his mind, new information has to either be ignored or interpreted in a way that supports his positions, or his positions adjusted slightly. This can be very frustrating for editors as I know from personal experience, but I think the main problem is that Neve can't seem to do what he says he will do, perhaps because of his OCD. He already said that he was done with this Palestine issue but he appears to have fixated on it and may need help to get him to focus his efforts elsewhere. He probably needs more constraints, less degrees of freedom, rather than a sledgehammer approach. FWIW, on the idea of pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine pushing, I see this notion of symmetry quite often but I think it's wrong. In reality RS and the international community generally push, if you want to call it that, what many pro-Israel people nowadays will see as a pro-Palestinian pov. If an editor is pushing that same view, the view that faithfully represents the state of affairs according to RS, it doesn't indicate that they are pushing a pro-Palestinian pov, and yet some editors always draw that conclusion for reasons I have never really understood. Following policy inevitably makes an editor look like they are pushing a pro-Palestinian pov to some pro-Israel editors perhaps perhaps because it has reached the point of 'you are either with us or against us'. But none of this is relevant to what to do to help Neve stay out of trouble and continue to contribute. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note in the interest of fairness, I feel compelled to mention that (not knowing about the 1RR restriction) I did tell Neve–selbert that he could ask other editors if they'd revert the page to the status quo for him, although I specifically advised against it: see my talk page at this revision. My rational for saying this was that he specifically asked for restoration of the status quo, which seemed to not be against policy, even if inadvisable in this case. I realise now that that would probably constitute Canvassing, and I have retracted my original statement. Apologies if I've caused a problem.—  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 10:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

  He was then told by two other editors to not do that, and then did it again anyway. So that's not really an excuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

  For clarification, I do not support his actions, I think they have shown a distinct lack of civility and no attempt to keep a NPOV, as well as an apparent lack of understanding for the need for community consensus in the highly controversial area he is editing in. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew at least some of the background to his edits. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support As WP is neither a recruiting serjeant nor a soapbox for editors' personal crusades. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indef ban - I've only ventured (these last few weeks) into those list of state leaders in Year articles & in particular, the Israel/Palestine topic. IMHO, a lot of commotion would be avoided, if editors would not make bold changes & instead, merely bring up their proposals at the respective talk pages. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise, that a volatile real life issue would be possibly volatile on Wikipedia. As for Neve-selbert? an indef-block of him or any editor who hasn't been vandalizing or socking? is too harsh. AFAIK, there's way less edit warring on those articles, these days. As a member of WP:RETENTION & a fellow who's been through a 1-year site ban, I'm always reluctant to see any editor being shown the door. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support, would like to propose mentorship +1RR restriction as an alternative. Neve has a turbulent history of canvassing, forum shopping, POV pushing, edit warring, and article ownership issues. Baking Soda (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for gaming the system (asking people to edit in lieu of him due to his 1RR restriction) and his aggressive behaviour towards other editors, which shows a complete lack of collegiality. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hold on a second - I will back off the articles if it means a block as an alternative. This is truly the time WP:TOPICBAN must be considered. For what its worth, I spotted a mistake that Baking Soda had made and I proceeded to correct it. He then immediately thought I was pushing a POV agenda and reverted my revert of his. I simply asked other users if they could review the situation and perhaps revert again if they felt necessary. Crh23 said that it was okay albeit unadvisable to indeed go and do so, so I thought it would do hardly any harm just to ask two other editors I have known here for quite some time what their thoughts on the issue were. Of course, I was then demonised by the likes of TMCk and OpenFuture and others as some sort of POV-pushing "Israeli" madman—which could be nothing further from the truth. I'm from the UK actually (as stated on my userpage) and I have never been to Israel or Palestine (yet, maybe). I explained more of my case at the help desk yesterday. Please, I am not trying to game the system at all. If I were, I would ask any random editor to revert if they felt compelled to. But I didn't. I asked ZBukov and GoodDay whom are both users I know quite well over here for what they thought. I am not a vandal, contrary to what those hostile users may think, and I was only trying to fix an error. I'm sorry this has come about and I desperately want to be a good editor. Yes I have been officially diagnosed with OCD in real life, and in virtual life sometimes I do find it hard to know when to back off. I will back off now and I can promise you that absolutely. Please reconsider.--Neve–selbert 19:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I will do anything to avoid a block, let alone an indef one. Please can we come up with alternatives?--Neve–selbert 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Instead of simply removing the citation-needed-tag you should back up or redact your distortion of the facts. + You'll find the exact opposite of what you're claiming in this very same thread.--TMCk (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Why is it that you are willing to accept a topic ban if you haven't knowingly violated any policy/guideline? Baking Soda (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would rather that than be blocked. I really can't afford the latter, I just can't.--Neve–selbert 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I was skeptical to an indefinite block, I wanted a time based one, to give him a chance to actually realize that he can't continue like this. But much of his response above are directly factually incorrect. I don't know anything about OCD, but if his reality is so distorted by the illness, he can't be a constructive editor until the illness is under control. He has promised to back off multiple times before, but he never does. It doesn't matter if it's intentional or if his illness means he doesn't have control over his actions, a topic ban is note going to magically grant him control. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is completely cruel. I have only ever been involved in disputes involving related articles. To ban me from other related articles is totally unjust and wicked.--Neve–selbert 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punishments, and hence can't be cruel. They are administrative actions to stop non-constructive editors. This is not about what is good for you, you already know what would be best for you. This is about what is necessary for Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an indefinite block is indisputably punishment. It means I can't edit Wikipedia forever. That is the ultimate Wikipedian capital punishment.--Neve–selbert 20:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's life-in-prison-with-parole-possible. You can apply for parole after six months. EEng 22:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I have just commented on the subject’s talk page as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeve-selbert&type=revision&diff=715770874&oldid=715768883

• Oppose indefinite block or site ban at this time. Subject is mentally incapable of presenting own case at this point. However, Support one-month block to see if maybe subject will be able to present their own case in one month. At this time, the community has other tasks than trying to save this editor from themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeve-selbert&type=revision&diff=715771556&oldid=715770874. Editor has in effect agreed to one-month block. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thesandboxuser has been edit warring on The sandbox, I warned him, but he ignored it and blank the page anyway, on the edit summary he threatned me to get lost. Any comments, proposals? KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

so what who or what will be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesandboxuser (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, especially after this edit summary[256]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

please help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted a derogatory comment made against me; according to WP civility any editor may do this. Several editors keep putting the derogatory comment back in. I've removed the comment again a few times, citing policy. Ironically, I'm now being warned on my own talk page for "edit warring." Here is the talk history link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)&action=history Thank you.68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you firstly please tell us where you got the idea that you can go around removing editos' edits? Specifically a link to within WP:CIVIL. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think they are referring to "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

in the section "removing uncivil comments" it states, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I only have one question: have you even bothered speaking with the editors about the comments? The only attempts you've made is just to remove the comments and essentially going over WP:3RR. Secondly, I would call those comments as bordering to incivility but not derogatory comments. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't exist in a vacuum. I presume you have read the entire section? VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Refactoring others' remarks is a last resort but has been treated here as a first resort. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

being flatly labeled a "crank" while trying to have a substantive discussion seems objectively derogatory to me...it's harmful to people's perception of me too...what is the utility to the Wikipedia project for leaving that comment? I'd prefer it be removed and then they can argue to have it reinstated, if they can make it an argument that it's appropriate...I informed them on their talk page about my revert and asked them to please refrain from personal attacks..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you haven't talked to the editors. This shows that you posted a message on EEng's talk page and then half an hour later you open an ANI report. You haven't bothered trying to resolve the matter with the editor(s) involved. What you should had done is talk to the editor first then if all fails remove the comments. If WP:3RR is involved, search for help elsewhere. The way you treated this "incident" was rather a complete 180 of what should had been done. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

is it possible for an administrator to remove the comment? that way it's not a back and forth between me and them? Considering it's a personal attack on its face I'd prefer it not remain and that they have the burden of arguing its inclusion, if they actually care enough to do so...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, let us continue to discuss your behaviour to the satisfaction of the community. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

the problem is there's several editors who keep putting the derogatory comment back in, so it seems odd for the victim of a personal attack to have to negotiate amongst several editors (and meanwhile the comment remains on the page)...if you go look at "EEng" response to me on his talk page you'll see his inappropriate behavior was just continuing...again, it would seem best for the comment to be removed as it's on its face against policy and then they can argue for its inclusion, if they care enough to do so (which they probably don't anyway)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

one of the editors "EEng" is now filling the thread with unsubstantive personal attacks/harassment/trolling...please see his response to me on his talk too...can anything be done?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Has that worked? I would doubt it! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. I guess that does it unless anybody else has in objections? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's moot now, but surely I should have been notified of this thread, since I'm involved despite not being actually named. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MelanieN: flagrant abuse of administrative powers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Petitioner: Herny Mazzer vs Respondent: User:MelanieN
Re: Abuse of admin abilities.

I hereby bring the following case to ANI in the knowledge that the person being reported is an administrator. I have recently been involved in very heated debate opposing the removal of the hyphen from the word e-mail and this has involved edits wars between me and a cohort ostensibly representing a "consensus" viewpoint. See history.
I have also been involved in discussion whereby I have certainly tried to follow grievance prcedures as you can see here. No avail as I cannot obtain the consensus from any editor other than User:The 321 kiddo who I tell you, I am not (but you are welcome to perform a CU).
Meanwhile, I have also opened a discussion here. So I am not merely flouting policy.
A short time ago, another "new editor" who has recently become one of the Wikpedia darlings with his avowed status of heading for the top (User:Roy Howard Mills) requested page protection on Hillary Clinton email controversy and admin MelanieN obliged instantly.

As I interpret the subject of dispute/consensus and edit-warring, in order than this status be realised there needs to be two parties, and Wikipedia operates a no-wrong, no-right policy. As such, Melanie suddenly placing a restraining order on the move button may seem the right thing, yes?

No. She did it purposely to target me, her words are clear, and this is discrimination. You see technically locking this feature prevents everybody from using it, but then why would the cohort use it when they like it where it is? They wouldn't. But the ultimate proof of discrimination comes when she openly admitted that she would have first reverted me and then locked it. Yet here I am, placed under threat by her in the same message that if I keep on, I will be blocked by her. So first she gets WP:INVOLVED and then she threatens disciplinary action. Something isn't right here. I mean all she had to do was tell me straight, "do not change it from email to e-mail" instead of taking measures, and I would have respected her directive. After all, she is an admin. But she has got herself involved, acted and threatened, all three at the same time. This is surely a breach of admin powers, so can we have a full investigation into this. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you (Henry Mazzer) explain why you apparently feel that you can ignore consensus you disagree with, as implied in this edit summary? clpo13_(talk) 19:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry is this question for me or for the respondent? Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Arguing over hyphens is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Background reading, in which every participant other than the OP appeared to disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, Oxford says "email (also e-mail)".[257] Whether Henry likes it or not, "email" has become the preferred spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Henry Mazzer: I believe it's meant for you. If I was you, I'd withdraw this and start a WP:DR discussion based on the content before the Boomerang comes back and hits you. Maybe it wasn't entirely right, but your actions here are hardly perfect under our guidelines either, and nothing good will come from pursuing this either. Feel free to email me if you would like any more guidance. Mdann52 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Pro tip: Henry Mazzer, you are unlikely to help your case when you begin a discussion by referring to everyone who disagrees with you as "an uneducated pool of imbeciles". ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed[258]. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing evidence of MelanieN being WP:INVOLVED. That would suggest she was editing the page prior to using the tools to lock the page from moves. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, the locking comes after very egregious page move warring that was reported at WP:RPP. clpo13_(talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@The three non-admins to comment: I'd like to remind you all that this discussion was launched to request an independent investigation into the conduct of one of the amdins. Naturally if she has acted correctly then she has nothing to fear. With regards the debate, kindly leave your comments on the talk pages in question and I shall respond to those points there. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Henry Mazzer: Wrong section? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would assume so, and I've moved it. clpo13_(talk) 19:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Clpo13, all right, I'll answer your points.
  
• Your first question is what makes me feel I can ignore consensus? The answer is that per WP:IAR I felt that use of correct English could triumph over informal usage. I do not believe I have the right to ignore consensus and this is the reason I have stopped doing what I was doing, plus I have also self-reverted. So the "ignore consensus" is now an out of date observation because it has evidently stopped.
• Your second question, where is the evidence that she is invovled? Read the second link I gave on my original post and read what she said that she would have switched it back before locking, which is not the same as simply "locking" and telling every party, "ok people, go and discuss, and when you reach consensus, come back with it". Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, WP:IAR ≠ ignore consensus. Using IAR does not mean you "win" against others - if they revert, then they can. Also, for example, colour and color are both examples of proper English, as are email and E-Mail. Mdann52 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Misread - apologies! Mdann52 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • They already have gone, and discussed, and reached consensus. —Cryptic 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG should be the order of the day. This clearly "older" editor wants to take Wikipedia back to the dark ages, check out his other edits where he makes insults while changing things like this which I don't even know what he means. We live in 2016, not 1884. No place for Henry Mazzers. Block him and move on. Reggie Wisecrack (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• You all are welcome to review my actions. Here's my "involvement": I was patrolling WP:RFPP yesterday. One of the requests I looked at was for semi-protection of Hillary Clinton email controversy. I had never looked at that article before, as is usually the case with requests I handle at RFPP. From the log page, history, and talk page I determined that the problem was actually move-warring, and that it involved autoconfirmed users, so that semi-protection would be of no help. The move-warring consisted of repeated moves by Henry Mazzer which were clearly against consensus, based on both the talk page and the variety of people who were reverting the move. HM had been warned and could have been blocked for edit warring, but I chose instead to move-protect the article. Based on what I had seen at the talk page I was sure he would complain on my talk page, which he did. I have tried to explain why his against-consensus moves and edits are disruptive, but he has persisted in them, and I have warned him of the possible consequences. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did notify the admins at WP:RPP becuase all I saw was things getting out of hand. I believe I acted properly here because Henry Mazzer was making a bold change but had no consensus other than from The 321 kiddo which makes it a minority. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry, Melanie is not involved in the article and there was no abuse of the admin tools. She move protected an article that was the subject of edit warring the title and has started if it had been at the new title she would have restored it before protecting. That is actually the preferred action. She would have been restoring it to the long standing title and then use the requested move process to work toward a new title. We don't move an article to a new title and then have to justify moving it back. You need to justify the new title and gain consensus. This thread should be closed with no action. -- GB fan 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Postscript that isn't particularly useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Postscripts: Petitioner? Respondent? Talk about WP:Wiki-lawyering! Also, I really hope the word amdins can become part of the permanent Wiki-lexicon, to mean either a group of particularly dim admins, or (preferably) admins who give faithful service and get mostly abuse in return. EEng 23:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Maybe it's a paler (dimmer?) shade of rouge. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Whiter shade would be more traditional [259]. NE Ent 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Can we skip ahead to the part where they're indef'd? When the opening entry in the email drama includes "Solecisms of this nature should not be tolerated anywhere on English language Wikipedia since this defaces our precious language" you gotta know this person is either totally not going to be a good fit for Wikipedia, or engaging in some well done trollilng. NE Ent 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Give them a break; they are now making arguably productive edits, in which they unsplit infinitives and make sure that a preposition is a part of speech with which we never end a sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC) So .... that's a no, we can't skip ahead. I was afraid of that. NE Ent 23:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Well, there's is this rather dramatic pronouncement, which might result in further hijinks. clpo13(talk) 23:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan and WP:CIR issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a report concerning the user MaranoFan, whom after the emergence of several incidents on Wikipedia, I have come to determine has WP:CIR issues. Understandably, one may think that I am being unduly harsh, but here is my evidence which suggests that this is the case. Please note that I may shorten the user's name at times to "Marano" or "MF" throughout this filing.

1. At Talk That Talk (Rihanna song): MaranoFan removed content from the article which was actually present at the time it was nominated for Featured Article status in September 2013. The explanation was that the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, was an unreliable source. Had this information and its source been contentious, it would have been removed prior to achieving its high standard award. However, what Marano had failed to realise was that the Daily Mail can be used as a source for musical reviews - see here. Furthermore, this negative review, carried out by a DM journalist, is needed to achieve a balanced viewpoint on the article.
2. Following this, MF then proceeded to continue with their removal of several sources from the article Love Me Like You; difference between revisions here. The same behaviour was demonstrated here, here, and here. Another user, Snuggums, told MaranoFan later that HitFix was indeed a reliable source here.
3. The aforementioned reversions actually appear to be an attempt to WP:HOUND the user Calvin999; the sources were initially added by him. I also see passive-aggressive attempts to WP:HOUND the user Winkelvi, such as through the giving of barnstars to editors whom they had ostensibly never had interactions with before, and also who had been in disagreement with WV before here. The statement "I don't think we have ever interacted on wiki before" is incorrect, as MF had interacted with this user on their talk page previously in regards to an issue with an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Here.
4. Furthermore, this non-AGF edit summary calls Calvin999 a vandal, something which he is most definitely not; he has been on Wikipedia for over six years.
5. Finally, MaranoFan recently requested autopatrolled rights. In their reason for requesting these rights, MaranoFan said: "[It] would be REALLY helpful in creating articles." - diff here However, WP:AUTOPAT does not help one in the creation of articles. It was evident that MF had failed to read the aforementioned page on the user right, and another editor had pointed this out on the WP:PERM page - diff here.

Also note: There's also this GA nomination. MaranoFan had nominated this article for GA when they had not edited it for weeks - they also had not met the improvement criteria issued in the previous GA nom which had failed. Calvin further addressed the failed GA at User talk:Carbrera. When MaranoFan decided to notify Tomica of the situation, and even when asked by him to stop, Marano carried on - difference between revisions here.

Whilst I have time to do this, I'll add: Polemic vios by MF here and here. In one of these revisions, I am referred to as a "vandal", as MF had previously referred to Calvin. I, for one, have never vandalised Wikipedia, and this is therefore a baseless accusation, not to mention the fact that it seems they are unaware of the definition for "vandal", further demonstrating their incompetence as an editor.

Overall, I feel as if I can no longer assume that this editor is contributing in good faith in any way whatsoever. When a long-term editor fails to understand key policies, and is harassing other editors, I can only assume that there are WP:CIR issues involved. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding: MaranoFan has demonstrated serious WP:OWN issues on "Watch Me Do". It completely fails WP:NSONGS and MaranoFan reverted my redirect with the edit summary of: Advising you to not edit articles I've created. thanks.. I am being threatened to not edit any article that MaranoFan has created. That is OWN at it's absolute highest.  — Calvin999 19:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan should not had advised you not to edit an article created by MaranoFan, but otherwise, looking at the article history, you're both equally guilty of edit warring and not discussing on the article talk page. Notable or not, do you truly feel redirecting an article 4 times without any talk page discussion is proper protocol to handle this? You're really just citing more examples of how none of you seem capable of mature discussion or playing nice with one other. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Ches

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Having reviewed this report (which demonstrates that Ches does not even understand WP:CIR or WP:AGF) and the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_proposal:_block_for_MaranoFan spectacular time wasting failure by Ches to get the same editor blocked above, it is evident that Ches is on a quest to drive User:MaranoFan off the project for no good reason. This behavior is harassing another editor and should not be rewarded by more attention at ANi except to look at Ches's behavior.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the background of this but the first 4 points presented seem legit and the 5th makes an off-topic point. I see no reason to ban Ches for that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I can't see how Ches should have a WP:BOOMERANG hit them here - as per QEDK, 4 valid points worthy of bringing to the community I feel, and there's no 'driving off the project' going on here I don't think - evidence please. Mike1901 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and condemn this as spurious and tendentious. As some of the complaints contained within the previous thread alluded too were equally legitimate: and it is perhaps slightly unfair to blame Chesnaught555 for that thread, when in fact it was originally proposed *BY ME*... and was supported by other editors too. This will undoubtedly be a case of that rarity in physics and wood-working... the boomerang that itself boomerangs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK also. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and recommend the proposer withdraw this absurdity. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm going to create a Bingo card for ANI. The first row will have "meritless calls for a boomerang", "accusations of bullying", "166 IP harasses Ricky81682", "Drmies", and "a close is reverted at least three times". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note I have undone Legacypac's close: if WP:INVOLVED could apply to non-Admins, this would be the money shot. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually you did not, Ches and his proxy did. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well DUH... edit conflict. That was a great close of yours though, really great. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In passing the community is empowered to reach consensus on topic, interaction or site bans but cannot impose a block. Whereas admins can unilaterally impose a block, but not a ban. Yes it's a boring technicality - only worth mentioning in that strictly speaking this division of authority invalidates the proposal in the above thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread and was appalled by Legacypc's proposal. May I remind everyone that Ches did in fact not create the idea. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi initially proposed a block for MaranoFan with Ches and I agreeing. I suggested to Ches to create a sub-section for the second proposal in MF's thread. To just blatantly assume that Ches was the initiator was just wrong. Please check your facts straight. I haven't reviewed this thread, but I will once I find the time to do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you both (Callmemirela and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) for clarifying that. Of course, I do accept responsibility for starting the official proposal as such. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So, Callmemirela, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, QEDK, Mike1901, Gamaliel, Hy Brasil, and NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input so far. I am pinging you all as you have all responded to this thread in some way - what do you think of these WP:POLEMIC violations posted after I filed this discussion here and here? As you can see by the diffs, Marano is referring to me as a "vandal" - does this demonstrate incompetence due to the fact that I do not fall under this definition? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of drama going on, and much of it doesn't have an immediately obvious instigator. Part of the problem is that I don't want to spend hours reading through a dozen old conversations to get the full picture, and ANI already has enough people who go off half-cocked. But, yes, I think MaranoFan needs to stop posting polemics and calling people vandals, which is a personal attack. Making lightly-veiled personal attacks in a rant on your user page is a bad idea. It's not going to reduce drama. I don't know what's going on in all this other drama, and I'd rather not dig deeper to find out. My advice is for everyone to just chill out and leave each other alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable. Some of his comments seem intended to illicit a negative response. If the pattern continues perhaps re-visit later. Hy Brasil (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Given how you and especially your proxy WV have attacked this editor over and over, I think you are the last editors that should be auditing his edits. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feudin'

It might be better, in the long run, to community ban a half dozen to a dozen editors, on both sides of this feud, and see if the grownups can claw back some amount of control. Or, setting our sights a little lower, it might at least reduce the average length of ANI by about a third. A lot of the same names keep popping up, either attacking one of the editors in the other clan, or defending their own clan members who are being attacked.

It would be tricky to decide how far down the list of hangers-on to go with the bans, but a couple of good rules of thumb that someone might be a good candidate for banning might be:

• they have commented in this thread, or the Winkelvi thread further up the page, and consider more than one of the other participants a "friend" or an "enemy"
• they have said 'you are banned from my talk page' to more than one person in the last 6 months
• they communicate primarily through templates
• they seem to have an extremely tenuous grasp of the golden rule; indeed, they seem to follow its complete opposite

One approach would an ArbCom case, wherein we try to get all of them banned at once. However, I suspect that many of them would welcome that, as the drama is fun, and it would get derailed. Wide-ranging interaction bans would be too difficult to maintain where there are so many editors involved. Another approach, which I'm considering instigating unilaterally on my own, is to declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be, either directly or on their friend's talk pages, no matter how many vandals they report or edits they make or friends they have, no matter how long they've been here, I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances. Until they're all blocked, or until they all stop it. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that, with an exception for user talk pages. If they want to whine and bitch at each other about nothing much they can do so as much as they like on their own talkpages as far as I'm concerned, but when crap like this keeps cropping up on watchlists they're over the line into disruption. I'm more than willing to hand out indefs all around and let all parties compete to write the most convincing {{unblock}}; this is possibly the most ridiculously overblown dispute I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I was around for the Em Dash Wars. This page is supposed to be "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", not "for people to waste other peoples' time whining that someone disagreed with them". ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in major agreement with many of your points here, Floquenbeam and Iridescent. My watchlist has many "go away" type reverts from these "factions" on their respective talk pages on weekly basis. Lately it's been the barnstars and such for, basically, being on the same side of the argument as them. They assume bad faith of each other. They attack each other through both veiled and unveiled references. They follow each other around and act in ways that would violate WP:INVOLVED if they had admin tools. Little good is coming from this group. only (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As an observation, just looking at those who appear currently to be the three current noisiest protagonists, Chesnaught555 has more edits to ANI than to the entire Talk: and Wikipedia Talk: namespaces combined, and 10 times as many edits to his own userpage than to any actual article; Winkelvi has more edits to both ANEW and ANI than to any article, while MaranoFan has less than 100 edits to all the drama boards combined and consistently has the majority of their edits to article space. If this doesn't end in blocks all round, it may be time to consider topic bans for the former two from any AN/ANI/ANEW discussion not directly concerning them pour encourager les autres, to be extended as necessary to any further members of this particular squabbling group who continues to raise trivial complaints anywhere other than on their own talkpages. Ignore all rules cuts both ways; "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia ignore it" is sound policy, but it also means that if there's consensus that an editor or group of editors is generating more heat than light and disrupting the work of people who are actually doing something useful, it's within policy to take whatever action is necessary to shut them up, and clogging up ANI in the way this clique have been surely qualifies. (For whichever aggrieved editor wants to complain that this post is violating their Inalienable Wikipedia Right To Free Speech, arbcom is that way.) ‑ Iridescent 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a bullshit ad hominem argument. A person can participate anywhere whenever they feel like. I'm not advocating anything for anyone, just making a point having faced such arguments. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've sort of had enough of this, so if blocking me or a CBAN is in order, I bear no objection. If the community doesn't see me fit to edit, I'll do as they say. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm all up for a ceasefire, to stop the escalating drama. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just close this as withdrawn, but please consider it so. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"see if the grownups can claw back some amount of control." - We are all adults here. I'm pretty sure I'm older than most in this thread.  — Calvin999 08:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here, Calvin999. As far as a "ceasefire" - I refuse to refer to it as such because I've never considered any of this a "war". But, because at least two of us being referred to are adults, I'm fine saying I have no qualms being an adult by continuing to leave the stick on the ground (pretty sure I haven't had the stick in my hand for at least a week in this thread or the other one started by MF far above this one). Personally, I like Floquenbeam's idea: "declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be, either directly or on their friend's talk pages, no matter how many vandals they report or edits they make or friends they have, no matter how long they've been here, I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances". The only thing I disagree with is making it involuntary. I think there should be an opportunity for any/all involved to act on this voluntarily; if they do not, then make it involuntary for those not complying on a voluntary basis. I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to Floquenbeam's idea. I am fully aware of the fact that I am part of a community where most people are adults, and as such, I will behave in a mature manner and drop the stick. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

So just over 48 hours after saying he's declaring a "voluntary" truce, Winkelvi nominates an article created by MaranoFan for AFD. This comes after Calvin999 redirected the article, MaranoFan reverted it, and Calvin999 restored the redirect. This set of actions truly shows how we need "involuntary" restrictions placed on these parties. only (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this comment and diff is less than forthright: Please, anyone reading this, look at the actual AfD, the wording of the nom, the reasoning behind it and see if nominating it was the right or wrong thing to do based on policy. AfD link here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I followed the link. Standing alone, the nom is policy-compliant. Which is utterly beside the point. Because it doesn't stand alone. It repeats a disruptive, destructive pattern. There's no deadline here, so there's absolutely no reason this AfD needed to be filed now and, given all the sturm und drang, every reason in the world for a person with decent judgment and a regard for the community to refrain from filing it. It's a pointy stick. It clearly has not been dropped. Floquenbeam's proposal looks better and better all the time. David in DC (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

David in DC, no there is no deadline, however, the article's existence is a policy-vio, precisely why I filed the AfD. There's no repetition of any pattern, unless you consider that I nominate non-compliant articles when possible and necessary. Further, I have plenty of regard for the community - which really has nothing to do with anything: it's an appropriate, policy-driven AfD, not edit warring, and nothing else that harms the community. As far as my judgement, I'll be the first to admit that at times, due to my Asperger's, my judgement can be "off", but it's never anything but 'decent' and always with a good result and proper intentions in mind. Last, there was absolutely no pointiness or stick wielding. Please don't judge so harshly, as far as I'm aware, we don't know each other at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Look to longevity to find where we've interacted before. I draw my conclusions based on our interactions in the longevity suite of articles and then running across the various threads here at ANI.

MF created the page. The page has no attributes requiring quick action. Gazillions of electrons across the wiki (and multiple-gazillion volunteer person-hours) are being expended trying to quell the unpleasant interactions between the two of you. Shortly after announcing that you'll voluntarily refrain from interacting with MF, you nominate the page he created for deletion. Prudence and a decent regard for the community dictate that you wait and let someone else nominate the article for deletion, in the fullness of time. I'm coming up empty in trying to imagine a countervailing reason that demands immediate action by you, other than the continued wielding of a pointy stick. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my old brain and memory, I don't recall interacting with you previously. As already stated, I freely admit that my judgement at times may be off due to how my neurology works as a result of being on the autism spectrum. That said, I cannot understand why you would need to come up with any countervailing reason at all since you already have my honest explanation above. It wasn't stick wielding or pointiness. And that's the simple, complete truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Last try. After this, please feel free to have the last word, because I'll be done. Nominating an article for deletion requires notifying the article creator that you're making a nomination. Notifying the creator is interaction. So, if there's no urgency to deleting the article (no BLP issues, no libel, no danger to children, etc.) there's no good reason to make the nomination. And plenty of good reason to leave the task to someone else. David in DC (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully support Floquenbeam's plan of declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be... I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances. Until they're all blocked, or until they all stop it. I'm so tired of all the stupid bickering, hounding, and drama amongst the core group of Winkelvi, Calvin, Ches, and MaranoFan. It's beyond ridiculous that we're still discussing their dysfunction right after a massive multi-week discussion about them. And its ridiculous that right after an iban was put in place, Winkelvi nominated Marano's article for deletion. (A valid nomination, but it was not Winkelvi's to make, nor was it an urgent situation. It's a random song article, not an attack page or BLP violation.) These four clearly are unwilling or unable to control themselves, so its time an Admin does for them. Please do this, Floquenbeam. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, you are wrong. I did NOT put up that AfD after the IBAN was put in place. Please correct/retract your claim. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I misread Only's comment above. I thought it had meant that you had agreed to the iban, and then you went and broke it almost instantly, but it seems it was merely you breaking your own commitment to stopping all this. That explains why you were you weren't blocked on the spot at least. But it still shows a complete lack of self-control or ability to stop this without intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: based on this thread, I've decided instead to put together an ArbCom case request in the next week or two, with the goal of getting them all sitebanned. No amount of cajoling has worked, and the 10,000 ANI threads is an indication the community can't handle it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm compleyely confused by your stated intentions, Floquenbeam. You all have the iban you desperately desired, what is the logic and policy behind a siteban since the iban is in place? Please don't just ignore my question like you did at your talk page. If you are talking about editors being banished forever from Wikipedia, an explanation to one of those you wish to see gone is not an unreasonable request. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with this kind of drastic baby/bathwater plan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'll gladly comment when you end up doing that. I think it would be less of a time sink if you handled it yourself with your "1 month block plan", but I don't object to either approach. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Update

Winkelvi has agreed to stop posting on ANI except to provide direct answers to any questions an administrator may pose about their behavior, and that they will totally avoid all interaction with MaranoFan and anyone else they've getting crossed up with up. (I haven't been paying close enough attention to know who that is, exactly. Suggestions? Discussion is on their talk page. NE Ent 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to remind him that the 1RR restriction is under is still in effect until May 1. only (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, that's good, but I don't think this should stop any of Floq's proposals above. Winkelvi's not really "choosing" some of this, considering there's a formal Iban between Winkelvi and Maranofan now. And didn't Winkelvi already voluntarily agree to stop, only then to go straight into nominating MaranoFan's article for deletion? And this doesn't address the constant troubles Calvin and Ches, who are the ones who started this particular thread. I feel like a lot is left unresolved still. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and they've agreed not to do that again. If the purpose of this process is truly to minimize disruption so folks can focus on encyclopedia building, we're not going to worry about whether Winkelivi's withdraw from counterproductive interaction is voluntary, semi-voluntary, mandatory, under a cloud or what have you, right? I'm going WP:AGF that Winkelevi is going to follow through with their commitment, and it wouldn't hurt the rest of the community to assume the same until I'm proven wrong. NE Ent 03:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As I have previously said, I am in agreement with the ceasefire proposal. If it is within the best interest of the community, and it is acceptable for me to do so, I shall withdraw this complaint. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.