Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

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

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

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Contents

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs[edit]

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus
and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP made this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick[edit]

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.
Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุ 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.
Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talkcontribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[1] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[2] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[3] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[4] In June SPACKlick wrote "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[5] He was recently warned again about NPA.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[7] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing[edit]

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
  • S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
  • S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
  • Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)
  • There are two things stopping me opening an ArbCom case. The first is that there's nothing blatant I can point to. There are lots of problems each of which is individually small but annoying, adding up to a great big annoying ball of sludge. I've got to say that the majority of editors from WP:MEDRS treat me like a POV-pushing industry shill to be closed down with the minimum effort, and I've been unable to make any substantive edits stick or to educate them in any article-building technique more advanced than "find a factlet in a reliable source, cite it and shove it in the article". The idea that competent editing involves removing text seems to be some kind of heresy... but what I can't do is provide diffs of the kind of smoking gun breach of the rules that'll solve it. The closest I can get is the inappropriate use of twinkle's anti-vandalism tools to deal with good faith edits by editors in good standing, inappropriate refusal to use the talk page, and some apparent language comprehension difficulties. I'm reluctant to go to Arbcom waving those diffs and demanding action.

    The second is the triviality of it all. I've been involved in much more complex and difficult disputes on Wikipedia that are about challenging real world issues. This is nothing. It's so petty and pathetic to get hung up on whether the statistics are in the lede or just in the body text... like I said above, if I opened an Arbcom case I'd feel like I was calling an ambulance for a hangnail. Can't a sysop just step in and tell it like it is?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • All of those are serious distortions of what happened, QuackGuru. However, even if they were accurate, it would still be inappropriate to bring details of the content dispute to AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it is accurate to come to the conclusion that editors disagreed with at least some of your proposals. For example, it appeared you proposed deleting well sourced content but editors disagreed. You also proposed moving the stats to the reference section. It is not an improvement moving the stats out of the frequency section. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25#Proposal to streamline. You claimed "It would be helpful QuackGuru if you could please be less obstructive."[13] Your said "Can I ask you, is English your native language?"[14] This is not focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've tried to have a moderating effect on some of these discussions (e.g. by going on hours-long sourcing sprees to see what the actual ground-truth is in the reliable sources, and cutting through this-side-vs-that-side invective, as at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol. While I have an opinion on the RM on that page, I have no other developed opinion on anything to do with e-cigs. I'm not familiar with every detail in this particular sub-dispute, above), but on the same talk page I just linked to (but now archived here, CFCF engaged in tendentious and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, irrational nonsense that is indicative of serious WP:COMPETENCE problems with regard to basics like what disambiguation hatnotes are for (hint: they are not "see also" sections), and a my-way-or-else attitude to conceptually tying e-cigarettes to tobacco smoke. On the other hand, his lead detractor SPACKlick is also exhibiting similar tendentiousness and ICANTHEARYOU patterns, as are several others, especially in persistent belief that WP:COMMONNAME topples all other possible concerns (even when the desired common-name topic is directly misleading and has POV problems because it is marketing language), and a similar position that WP:MEDRS cannot possibly apply to a nicotine delivery device simply because it's "recreational", even when the article is about the biochemical output of the device. In actually reality, it's entirely reasonable, as I believe QuackGuru has maintained, that MEDRS might apply to Electronic cigarette aerosol and to any med/bio-chem claims at Electronic cigarette and other subarticles, but not to other kinds of material in it/them, e.g. about "vaping" subculture, marketing, legislation, etc. Having no dog in the various fights about e-cigs and their great value or terrible effects or whatever, I find the level of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior bewildering and alarming.

    I do think these disputes, as a class, should go to WP:RFARB, because a) it's clear that that this is otherwise going to be a continual war between e-cig WP:ADVOCACY boosters and their WP:GREATWRONGS outlawing proponents; and b) even accidentally wandering into one of these morasses, as I did in responding to a routine WP:RM notice, is a terribly unpleasant, hostile experience for editors who are not thrilling in their part in the ongoing WP:FACTIONalized gladiatorial combat on this topic. When it comes to a three-with conflict between "e-cigs are great!", "e-cigs are a menace!", and "Wikipedia policies apply regardless of your stance on that", I think we know where consensus actually resides.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    PS: I note above SPACKlick making BIG ALL-CAPS POINTS to exclude material because it wasn't quite medical enough for his liking (and he was wrong about that point; particle size is entirely relevant in that context). Meanwhile, when it suits his aims and convenience, he argues in the face of all reason against applying MEDRS. Does not compute; more to the point, it smacks of WP:GAMING.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Earlier this year I made a 16,000 plus edit. Some editors did not like that. I continued to add a ton of new sources to the article. I created Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Electronic cigarette aerosol, and Vape shop. After I created the Electronic cigarette aerosol article things got a bit heated.
    • As for the hatnote I think I did help resolve the issue. I added to the lede "The e-cigarette vapor resembles cigarette smoke.[1]" See Electronic cigarette aerosol#cite ref-Cheng2014 1-1. User:SMcCandlish, this did go to arbcom previously. They tried to topic ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be pilloried over adding sources and sourced material (unless it's WP:BOLLOCKS which I don't detect in that big edit), nor about disagreements over which data is put where in the article, unless someone's being a flaming WP:JERKs about it. There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic. There's a countervailing campaign to demonize the topic, and to spin primary sourced, largely preliminary data and a studies from journals as if there were a uniform, secondary-sourced view, and it's original research to combine them all into a "why e-cigs are the devil" message that steers readers to a conclusion. Both of these – exclusion of and misuse of pertinent, reliable sources – are wrong under policy. One might think they'd kind of cancel each other out, but it's not happening, just turning into a perpetual flamewar.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: To reply to a couple of your points. My big all caps point on the article was when the article was titled and moving towards "List of chemicals in" and QuackGuru was adding nanoparticles in a statement as if they were an additional chemical. That would be outside the scope of the article. As for my stance on MEDRS, I don't believe there's no MEDRS relevance at the topic I just don't believe the whole topic falls under it. How e-cigs are constructed and the social aspects of their use don't require MEDRS level sourcing and some of the sub pages are of limited health or medical relevance. I don't believe the chemical components of something is a medical topic, especially when it's explicitly split off from the medical effects of those components into a separate article.

And as you bring up the content dispute about "Vapour is a marketing term" I have yet to see that claim sourced. It appears to be a claim that people believe for whatever reason but not one that can be justified, it's also a bit disingenuous to say I believe common name trumps all other concerns when I've addressed the other policies as well and so have others to show that, in our opinion, vapour is the name that follows policy. But I'll await that RFC's close to see the assessment of consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the source "Blu lets me enjoy smoking without it affecting the people around me, because it's vapour not tobacco smoke," says Stephen Dorff, the scruffy heartthrob star of The Immortals."[16] Big tobacco has been very successful in marketing e-cigarettes as simply "vapour".
User:SPACKlick, you seem to have a pattern of deleting well sourced text from the new article.
"metal nanoparticles" and "When propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it could produce propylene oxide."[17] deleted The text is sourced to Grana 2014. You criticised the review on your user page.
"copper"[18] deleted (I replaced it with another source)
The lede sentence was deleted twice.[19][20]
"4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and N-nitrosonornicotine"[21] deleted
"The nickel and chromium nanoparticles that was found in the vapor may have came from the e-cigarette heating element." and "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[22] deleted
"Aerosol"[23] deleted
"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[24] Please read the sources: When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71[25] Thermal degradation of propylene glycol can generate propylene oxide, which is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2B carcinogen.[26] The text is clearly sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS.
"The delivery of nicotine from the vapor is inconsistent among products."[27] deleted
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_at_Electronic_Cigarette_.28copied_to_WP:ANEW_by_SPACKlick.29 for the previous AN/I discussion.
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#SPACKlick_reported_by_QuackGuru_.28Result:_Editor_sanctioned.29 for previous 3RR report. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't intend to get into a content dispute on ANI, that's not the venue, however your list of deletions goes (Scope dispute, Scope dispute, Failed verification, style dispute, style dispute, scope dispute, verification/relevance dispute, style dispute, verification/relevance dispute, Don't know why I removed the last one), the verification/relevance disputes are the same fact, which several people disagreed with including because the source doesn't indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. Yes I got angry and edit warred at your assertion an image showed what was clearly not contained within it. Because it is frustrating to deal with your poor grasp of english, to deal with your ownership, to deal with you not allowing any improvement to the readability and formation of the article, for your shotgun approach to expanding the article by adding overly detailed repetetive sentences. You are an incredibly frustrating editor to work with Quack. Do you understand that? And when someone disagrees with you, or your methods, you claw back through the same complaints, bringing them up time and time again.SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, with a heavy heart, I'll accept SMcCandlish's recommendation and open an Arbcom case. I would suggest that this particular discussion has run its useful course and can be closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also agree with S Marshall's question and have asked it before, do we need to adapt how we communicate with you because of a difficulty with English. It appears you misunderstand words often and are blind at times to matters of context or subtlety and so the question becomes relevant. Do we need to adapt how we interact with you to overcome the difficulty of not sharing a first language? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential sock[edit]

I have reported a potential sock here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. I would not have done this unless the IP: 92.12.66.90 Contributions had made edits to two subjects which User:FergusM1970 is known to have engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy for. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles[edit]

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [28] [29]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [37] [38] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [39] [40]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [41] [42] [43].

While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ RobTalk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[44]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[45]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.
About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [46] [47]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [48]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [49], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [50]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [51], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [52] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [53]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [54]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [55] [56] [57] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [58], [59] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [60] [61], [62], [63], [64]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [65]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [66]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [67], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [68] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly you said that I haven't made any valuable contribution here.Then you mention "nationalism" ,Malbin210 and related cases.It is obvious now,the only problem for you is the fact that there are some Albanian editors contributing to Wikipedia.You don't want Albanain editors to contribute to Wikipedia.This is the only problem here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of edit-warring disruption and falsification of sources did you not understand? Don't try to use the ethnicity of editors as a red herring against me, especially when you yourself removed a fellow-Albanian editor's comments because he didn't agree with you. Resnjari, whose opinion you reverted because he didn't agree with you, is also Albanian and he has my respect. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and you know that very well. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI regarding Rolandi+ was initiated by me, but it apparently ended in no result. I don't think it's necessary for me to present the user's incorrectness – he's been warned countless times. It's strange that he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Alexikoua shows none of Rolandi+'s manners (has always been civil, etc.) and I fail to see why Alexikoua is mentioned as a subject in this ANI. --Zoupan 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari,I have talked to him.I deleted his comment because we weren't talking about chams in greece.Why don't you mention this fact?Zoupan says it's strange that I am allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.It's very strange in fact.Why doesn't Zoupan mention his falsification of sources as he did for example at Kosovo serbs?Why?How it's possible that these users undo all my edits (including Zoupan)?Why?Why do Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete all references that say the a X famous person or ethnic minority has albanian origin?How is it possible?Why don't you see their edit's history.Don't believe in our words...just go and control our edit's history.Alexikoua is very civil because after he deletes others' work and references ,he asks his collaborators for help.Before some days there was another ANI where I was involved.It was opened by Dr.K,while Athenean and Alexikoua commented against me.How is it possible that when I don't have the same ideas with Alexikoua,Athenean and Dr.K come and delete my work?How is it possible?It's unfair that the work of the Albanian editors is always undone by these three editors.How is it possible that all references introduced by Albanian editors(or by other editors who add the so-called pro albanian references)are "nationalism","unreliable","propaganda" and "manifesto"?It's unfair because Wikipedia has to be neutral.Look for example at Thomaeus article,I explained Alexikoua that he couldn't delete the well-established infos only to add the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do there is to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.If you can't control these users,why don't you delete all the Albanian related articles,so they will not be vandalised anymore? Rolandi+ (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see at the "Greater Albania" talk page.These users put a map showing the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries .Why don't they agree to put the map of "Greater Albania" there? Because they don't like it?Alexikoua says it is created by Albanian users?And what does it mean?Note the fact that Alexikoua uses greek politicans as references (for example at Souliotes)That article is about Greater Albania and not about the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries.Everyone knows that the Greater Albania map is the map introduced by League of Prizren.Actually ,this is RACISM.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete my references and edits .They say that my references are POV (Even when the reference is a non-Albanian/non-greek well-known scholar).On the other hand they use greek politicans as references. I can't even use the talk page,because the only thing they say is that my references are always "POV" and "manifesto".How is it possible that all my references are unreliable?Isn't this strange?Look at other Albanian editors.Their work is always undone by these three users because their references are always,but always "unraliable" and "POV".How is it possible?Rolandi+ (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[69]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[70]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did Athenean lie?He said that I falsified sources at "Baku spirit".My warning there was a mistake.Why don't you go and ask the warning editor?Also note he didn't warned me for falsification. Athenean said I had falsified the source at "Vlachs".Why don't you go at the Vlach's editing history and see the truth?Why don't you see what the book used as reference says in reality?Also Zoupan said there is a problem with me at "Vlachs".Which is the problem?Zoupan don't know how to lie! Athenean said I falsified the sources at "Illyrians".Where is the falsification there?My edit there said that according to some scholars Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians (this means that it's a theory,I didn't make it a fact). Athenean said that I falsified the source at the "Greater Albania".I explained him that we had to introduce both greek and italian figures to make the article neutral,why didn't he mention this fact?Because the only thing Athenean wants is to lie about me. As I said the use of the Talk page with these users is useless as the only thing that these three users say is that others' references are always,but always "nationalism","POV" ,"propaganda" and "manifesto".It's not my fault that these three users always say that my references are "propaganda" and "POV". Also,Alexikoua,why do you mention only the case of Wars of Alexander?Why don't you mention all the cases where you have undone others' edits claiming their references are "POV" and "nationalism" and "propaganda"?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy.There is so many edit warring between us because these three editors always,but always undo my edits .The talk page is useless because the only thing they do is to claim the others' references are always,but always "unacceptable","POV","nationalism","propaganda","manifesto","unreliable".I can't use the dispute noticeboards for hundreads articles,because it is ridiculous.The only thing to do is to prevent these three users from vandalizing Wikipedia,especially albania-related articles.I am sure that if these three users stop deleting other's edits and references only because they don't like them,there will not be any edit warring/problem at albanian related articles anymore.Also I suggest you to help editors about Balkans-related articles (for ex. if their references are reliable/POV etc).Rolandi+ (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua doesn't agree to put the map of the Greater Albania at the "Greater Albania" article.He firstly said the the current map is detailed,but it's not the map of Greater Albania (the original map is based on the map of the League of Prizren ).Then he claimed that these maps are the the same,but they aren't.He said that we can't put the map of the Greater Albania there because "I am eager to see a map that paints everything in red" (meaning that I am a nationalist and maybe I have irridenstist ideas) while the national colours of Albania are the red AND THE BLACK.He doesn't agree because he doesn't like the map,this is the problem with these editors,they don't agree with others only because they want to control Wikipedia.Note that the current map shows Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries,not the Greater Albania based on the maps of the League of Prizren.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[71]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[72]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua deleted many informations at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus,including the references that said that he Thomaeus might have been of Albanian origin,saying that "widely established international scholarship tend to disagree with what was written inside Albania during the People's Republic regime".Where did he learn that Thomaeus' albanian origin hypothesis is fabricated during the communist period in Albania?Also he deleted Jacque who isn't albanian.This is only racism and this is a big problem.Seriously this is ridiculous.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([73]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari.you said that western sources state that Thomaeus was greek.And Jacque,isn't he a western source?I am not saying that Thomaeus wasn't greek,I am saying that he might have been albanian (hypothesis).Also where did you learn that the Albanian hypothesis was fabricated by the Communist Albanians?The fact that many albanian scholars ideologically were driven and or forced by Enver Hoxha to produce material that has many problems doesn't mean that the albanian hypothesis was fabricated by them.See also sources like Jacque.Alexikoua deleted many infos that were there since a long time and added the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do is to include all hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,why don't you mention the fact that the discussion (and the problem) between us started because you changed (falsified) the citation at the reference.See here what the source says.Another user deleted your falsifications and explained everything.Why don't you mention this fact?Why?I agree that Balkans related articles are almost all problematic and vandalised but this doesn't mean you can LIE!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Rolandi just needs some more practice. One just needs to have a in depth discussion about things and too tone it down a bit. At the moment it seems i am the only one doing engaging with him without resorting to name calling and so on. I value Rolandi wanting to contribute; it’s just he has to be more cautious about certain sources or how the source is used in general. There are few Albanian editors these days on Wikipedia. Things have become dormant and some editors of non-Albanian heritage have taken it upon themselves to do for example article name changes (like the Vjosa example i cited) without community consultation or to call POV anything a editor might want to undertake in adding to an article (even when the source/s is peer reviewed and very credible) (see: Talk:Cham Albanians). I have had these issues multiple times now (in the end my edits have gone through almost in their entirety) but it has taken too much time, energy and effort which though was done in good faith. There were cases were even my cognitive abilities where questioned which was quite offensive. (See article Talk:Greek Muslims). What you might call "quarreling" i have an issue because not all editors are equal. Some who have privileges are editors from a background who may have less than polite views regarding people of Albanian heritage. There should be non-Balkan editors adjudicating certain articles so those who have those privileges don't abuse them or intimidate editors who insist on change (the later must make their case though). Merit and content based on Wikipedia policy should be the outcome everyone conducts themselves upon. More oversight is needed or absent that the removal of privileges (auto patrol etc) of some editors for those engaging in such behavior so as to make it a level playing field. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, it should not be a place where Greek editors have privileges over Albanian ones or vice versa.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user makes up his own rules, again, and again.--Zoupan 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the fact that there is a consensus at the talk page?Why?Why do you want to delete informations +add others without consensus?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talkcontribs) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see a concensus in the talkpage. Can't understand what you really mean.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no concensus about our recent edits,so they have to all to be deleted until a consensus.I said that at talk page,you commented but you did't said no.Zoupan and Alexikoua agree with the fact that my edits (and others made by other non-albanian editors) have to be deleted until consesnus (note that the edits of some other non-albanian editors have been there since a long time but you deleted them because you don't like them).But you don't agree with the fact that your recent edits have to be deleted until a consesnus too (as some of them are clear vandalism). You always,but always (just see your editing's history) delete others' edits and references.Strange.You always delete albanian's editors edits but you don't know what to say.Alexikoua deleted my edits at "Kara Mahmud Pasha" saying "rv poorly cited (you have been advised how to do that properly without false ISBNs)".Actually there wasn't any ISBN there.He LIED. This is what some specific users :Alexikoua,Zoupan,Dr.K ,Athenean do,they just destroy others' work,especially the work of Albanian editors. Note:It's the second time that unregistred users delete my work.After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The real fun is that you claim that people that doesn't have the same ideas with you are socks.Why don't you go and see how many contributions you have deleted by claiming that others are sock...hundreads...thousands.How is possible that you edit at the same article at the same time?Rolandi+ (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Block Rolandi+ and move on I'm amazed at the lack of action and long discussions. This in an incredibly simple matter that does not need to take up anyone's time. Rolandi+ is definitely guilty of multiple policy violations as clearly demonstrated in the discussion. No other user appears to have done anything wrong. I suggest an admin just closes this discussion with a suitable block for Rolandi+. When a situation is this clear, there is no need for all the drama currently taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Edit warring on Albanians[edit]

There is now an edit war going on at this article between User:Rolandi+ and User:SilentResident. See article history. I've notified SilentResident. Rolandi+ is already party to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ RobTalk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ RobTalk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.
We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────He was engaging in behavior that could easily lead to a report to WP:AN3 if it continued. Had that occurred, an admin would have almost certainly brought up the discretionary sanctions (if only to mention them). I'm of the opinion that an editor should not first hear about discretionary sanctions when they're being talked about on a noticeboard. They should know what they're getting into before they engage in any behavior that is borderline, as they may choose not to engage in that behavior if they're aware of the discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind that, on the flip side, an editor that is editing positively in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions will want to know about them so they can respond appropriately to disruptive editors if necessary. Knowledge is power, etc etc ~ RobTalk 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).
While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+[edit]

Just a few days ago, Rolandi posted this, saying (and I quote) "As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.". Yet today he racked up 3 reverts at Albanians, no problem. Is there anyone here who still believes a word this user says? He has lost all credibility in my opinion. Any more warnings are a waste of time, he will make all the right noises to avoid punishment and then as soon as he thinks no one is looking he will revert to form (no pun intended). I am thus proposing that he be topic banned from Balkan related articles, broadly construed. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .
Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Rolandi+ has shown beyond any doubt they are WP:NOTHERE, and continues to violate several policies. The continued comments by Rolandi+ inthis thread further show the user is unwilling to hear and continues to insist the problem is everybody else. Broad topic ban only solution.Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.if neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • To be frank, Rolandi+ has made no contribution (or "work"). A topic ban would possibly stop his disruptive editing if he decides to change his ways, and give him a chance to contribute. If he then continues his behaviour which we've seen thus far, definitely block as per WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,you said I have made no contribution....where did you learn that?Go see my editing history (all my editings at balkans ralated articles and balkans non-related articles ) and then come and talk here. As I said: This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.If neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos not added by me (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem the at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan i am very concerned that you have inferred that Rolandi "has made no contribution (or "work")". He has contributed to many other non-Balkan articles and his edits have stayed. Only an administrator can make that call. The issue is with Balkan related material. My advice to you Rolandi is use google books and scholar if you do not have access to a university database of journal articles and academic books. Believe me you will save yourself a lot of trouble. Look for Western peer reviewed material that has done work in the field and do google the author to make sure their work does not have creditability issues or they as a academic. Then do as you will. I have been going through your Balkan related edits and they have been challenged on a variety of matters, a sizable amount with due reason. I understand where you are coming from as an Albanian. But be cautious. I do not want you to get banned. Going through the archive of some of the articles and their talk pages just very recently, a picture is emerging that it is a select few who have engaged in making editing for Albanian editors quite difficult. Nothing has been done about that, yet you are making yourself the focus of attention and giving them the justification to continue with such forms of intimidation while making them getting away with it. There are editors in here who have abused their privileges. The focus needs to be upon them, not you. I urge you most emphatically as one Albanian to another or as a brother to brother to reflect carefully and take into consideration what i have written and how to go about editing controversial topics. There are few Albanian editors and their numbers have shrunk here already and continues to do so. Don't allow yourself to be another in that line. Be aware its difficult for us like editors of other backgrounds like the Palestinians, Turks, African Americans and so on who also have low numbers contributing and have issues in having their voice heard. Its harder for us because this is after all a Western platform. Don't forget that. Take care Rolandi. Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari's advice for me,I totally agree and I will be more carefull in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Like i have said in the past, an in depth discussion free of diatribe with Rolandi will go a long way to solving these issues. How is it that after i have engaged with Rolandi that he has desisted regarding certain articles, while the rest of you continue with the path you have taken regarding him ? It has created a situation where all positions have hardened and no progress has occurred. I never said anything about Rolandi’s behavior affecting Albanian editors. But I definitely want him around. There are so few Albanian editors around and he has a passion for doing the editing task and patrolling pages. It’s just how he has gone about it that is the issue and needs refinement. You say you have had a unpleasant encounter with Rolandi, I have more than a few more than a few with Athenean who has even questioned my cognitive abilities (what the heck does that have to do with editing the article!) and called my peer reviewed edits and proposed changes better suited to a “blog” and even called changes regarding articles relating to Albanians “irrelevant”. And yet I have extended in a spirit of good will to him even after all of that to only engage with the material (and to do no personal attacks) and all he has done is repeatedly continued with such mannerisms. Alexikoua on the other hand (part from saying POV, POV, POV to my proposed edits based on peer reviewed sources in the talk page as a first reaction) has even made up Wikipedia policy in order in an attempt to restrict peer reviewed sources from going into a article (like the Albanian name of the Souliots) saying that a “10% threshold” was needed without providing any proof (It went through in the end, but not without much problems by other editors also). What am I to make of that then especially, for example, when Alexikoua has numerous privileges and undoing edits? All my edits are based on sources of the highest quality. I can vouch for all and albeit one (due to “original research reasons”), all have gone through. But how much stuff did I have to write to argue for the inclusion of those edits in the talk page because I was accused of POV pushing – and these are for edits I have proposed in the talk page. I have not edited them even into the article yet!) It has become an absurdity frankly! Also if did place these issues on the Administrator notice board who would act upon it anyway? It would be me pitted against people who have privileges. The system is not balanced and is currently two tiered. Because of this, my trust in the system is very minimal at the moment. It is on this basis also that I distrust this campaign against Rolandi. Yes Rolandi needs to clean up his act, but it’s a no to any form of a ban.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose:(see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulmuesi, user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppetAlexikoua (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)) I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (blocked sock struck Swarm we ♥ our hive 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC))
Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (blocked sock struck Swarm we ♥ our hive 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC))
Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [74]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts". Yep so then why does such an editor then try to make up Wikipedia policy. A selective "moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before". That is open to interpretation. Not all would agree. Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support Rolandi+ is a combative, edit-warring POV-pusher who has triggered all the POV-push alarm bells in this area of the Balkans. His edit-warring and POV edits align closely to the edits of countless socks which have plagued this area for years. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I Strongly Oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (indeffed sock struck --Swarm we ♥ our hive 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC))
Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.
I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.
Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.
Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.
Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.
I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.
Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[75]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes he has been warned. As i am not aware previously as to who could give out such warnings (i thought it was only the administrators who could), Rolandi got caught out, while these other editors have been getting away with such behavior. All should get a warning and be reminded that they solely stick to examining the material and editing and not focus on the person. The others are in need of a warning by the administrators also. One cannot defend Alexikoua's making up policy regarding that "a 10% threshold" was need so a peer reviewed source could go into an article. Or in another article that if certain peer reviewed edits are sought for there, that other previously peer reviewed material (agreed to also by Alexikoua) would be subject to deletion. Zoupan how is that defensible, especially since Alexikoua has many privileges that other editors don't ? I have also outlined Athenean's behavior which is consistent and has bordered on and been sometimes outright offensive. No ban, only a final warning for Rolandi. If Rolandi gets a topic ban or whatever the others too + warnings. Administrators need to take these serious issues that i have outlined into account. Wikipedia is a place meant to be one free of intimidation or bullying and that goes for all. Stick to the policy and peer reviewed material ! Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The discussion has been going on for almost ten days, and it takes up half of the entire ANI-board. One way or another it should be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
He is still not ready.--Zoupan 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Really Zoupan?Why don't you go to the talk page and see?In addition,I have been busy today,but in the coming days I will give new arguments to you.In fact ,if someone calls Losha an Albanian tribe,it means they are Albanians.I don't delete your references Zoupan,but strangely you delete all my references.You don't give any explanation.However,don't worry,maybe the next ANI will be for your latest edits and your lack of neutrality,especially when talking about Albanian-related articles.

Why don't you go and see how you delete my edits and reference without saying sth?Why?

In fact,you don't have any moral right to talk against me for the only reason that I have accused you in the past for several things and many other editors know that fact.Also we have had many conflicts in the past and now you came here as you don't like my edits.Why don't you go and explain me when deleting my work in the future,as I am sure you will delete my work and references in the future!

Also,after I added the version that says he was Albanian,I deleted the part that said "Albanian historians consider him Albanian" because then it was irrelevant (after saying that he was Albanian).I explained this ,but you don't mention this fact.Why?In fact,it's not the first time that you delete references that say that a notable person born/living in Albania is Albanian,only saying that it is a demonym.Why?Because you don't know what the neutrality is.

Also this user deleted my referenced edits here [76] without any clear explanation.Why?Because it says that Malakas might have been an Albanian tribe.

Also he deleted my edits here [77] without any explanation.Why?Because it gave the birth name of St.Angelina,which is an Albanian name. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, even if we were to dismiss doubts as to Rolandi+'s good faith, the user lacks WP:COMPETENCE. This thread is going to be archived while s/he is making messes of articles. Any English language text that is grammatically correct is being recognised almost immediately as being WP:COPYVIO... and that's only including articles that are being watched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
In fact I am working with it.Also,how can you Irina Harpy talk about WP:COMPETENCE,when you modified the source at Vlachs and then sent me a warning?I said you that I would report you and then you came here and voted pro my block!In fact, I found it difficult to adjust with Wikipedia's rules,but now I am in the right way.Also,I would like to thank T*U who adviced me about some easily adjustable problems!
I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).
I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to make this clear, Rolandi+: you're stating that you're ok with being banned if you ever edit war again on any article? Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeppiz,I have been involved in edit warring in the past,but I have realised that edit warring isn't the best solution.In fact,it's not a solution.As I said,ban me if I edit war again.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps the closing admin (if there ever is one) can take this into account and note that any edit warring by Rolandi+ in the future will leave to a permanent and immediate ban. Jeppiz (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You stated "give me my last chance" earlier, but obviously do not understand the opportunity you are given here, having in the meantime continued unconstructive editing and still trying to blame others for your own mistakes.--Zoupan 08:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?Everyone can see that I am in the right way finally.Also, you need to have an explanation before deleting other's referenced work in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi, your Malakasi reference is ok. you need to read up on doing Wikipedia citations though. John Fines book (1994) does come after Hammond's and Ducellier's and they are not the only medaevil expert's regarding the Balkans. Fine does refer to the Malakasi as Albanians. Various Western scholars have different views on the Malakasi's ethnic heritage so all should be covered. As for the Angelina Arianti matter, though yes she is Albanian, her Albanian name is covered in the footnote. She is a eminent figure for the Serbs and not Albanians in general, so having the name in the lead is not needed. Zoupan, Roland's edits are improving and were done in good faith. The sources he used were good this time. All i can say to Rolandi though is to look at the citation manual on wikipedia. Though the relevant information is covered, they can be done a bit better (no pg instead p and pp for page/s etc). Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hammond clearly explains in several pages that the "Albanian" migrations into Greece in the 14th century included Albanians and Vlachs (They were called "Albanians" by Cantacuzenus, because they had come in a geographical sense from the area which he called "Albania"). He is cherrypicking one word and, deliberately or not, refuses to understand context, despite several replies which explain this. Removal of "Vlachs" at Spata family (comment: pg.59 says albanians overran...... without mentioning vlachs), he thus insists that only the sentence in p. 59 should be taken literally, which actually is Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus (In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and ...); comment at Malakasi "Yes,now you are claiming that I am doing cherry-picking.In fact no.It will be added as it is what the reference says.". The user has now spread one matter over three article talk pages, saying that "it will be" as he wants. This comment speaks for itself.--Zoupan 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Zoupan don't call me "ignorant" anymore.Secondly,why don't you mention the fact that you continue deleting my edits without any clear explanation? In fact,I don't have said "it will be" as I want.We have talked at the talk page!As I said,the fact that Cantacuzenus called Vlachs "Albanians" doesn't mean that all Albanians in Epirus are or may be Vlachs as you claim.Hammond says that "In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and established two principalities under their leaders, John Spatas (shpate in Albanian meaning a sword) and Peter Leosas (/fos in Albanian meaning a pockmark)".Why doesn't he says "Albanians and Vlachs"?When Hammond cites Cantacuzenis about Vlachs,he clearly says "Vlachs" and not "Albanians".You are saying that saying "Vlach" (Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus) Hammond means Vlachs,while saying "Albanian" he means Albanians and Vlachs together.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I seriously have no interest in explaining basics to this user again and again. He simply doesn't grasp English to the needed extent for understanding scholarly material and context, and my very clear explanations.--Zoupan 17:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that we don't have the same idea doesn't mean that I don't grasp English.In fact,if someone takes a look at Zoupan's history,realises that this is what he says to the majority of editors.Zoupan thinks that he is the only one who grasps English.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly.--Zoupan 18:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To all please refrain from name calling or questioning a person's cognitive faculties. As for the Vlach/Albanian matter regarding the Malakasi, Hammond is one medieval expert and he wrote his book in 1967. John Fine, another medieval expert who refers to the Malakasi as Albanians wrote his book in the 1980s/early 1990s. Both views should be in the article as the issue of the Malakasi origins are not agreed to even by eminent medieval experts in the Western world. Wikiepdia policy on neutrality states that all scholarly views should be covered, especially when credible academics themselves are at odds with each other.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a thread about an editor that has proven himself to be problematic, and it surely should include questioning about qualities. You have not read Talk:Malakasi, nor what these experts (and their respective expertise) actually say. You have presented no proof there of any "at odds".--Zoupan 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,my problematic past doesn't mean that Wikipedia will be a non-neutral place.Also,if you have sth against my arguments,use the aricle's talk page,not ANI.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Past? What about this and this? The ANI thread's subject is your behaviour.--Zoupan 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have sth against my arguments,use the aricle's talk page,not ANI.Those edits are based on well-known facts and everyone can find thousands of references that support my edits.If someone doesn't agree with my edits I use the talk page now,while you continue deleting others' work without any explanation.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The first edit is ok. The Koprulu’s were of Albanian origin and that has been attested in peer reviewed literature. And the town of Veles did bear their family name for many centuries. The second will need more explanation and defiantly an inline citation (you need to provide this Rolandi, due to the nature of the topic), due to medieval matters having contested viewpoints even among Western medieval academics. It’s all very simple to resolve.Resnjari (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence and civility issues with Koala15[edit]

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [78] and was blankly reverted on sight [79]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [80] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [81]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [82] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [83], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [84], User talk:Koala15#No [85], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [86]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [87]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [88] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After some edits to it I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala reverts with a derisory summary. I restore days later due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns and post on his talkpage: Koala responds dismissively and immediately undoes my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved does he finally visit the Talk page.

He engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We assume good faith and spend time explaining. Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15[edit]

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

  • Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [89], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [90]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
arbitrary section break

Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) (formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why EauZenC initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk)(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by GregJackP[edit]

GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Background

I've had relatively little interaction with GregJackP until about the last month. I recently made an edit at an article which GregJackP reverted. I generally edit agricultural topics and have been watching the article for awhile now. Prior to this, I only had two previous interactions with this editor here, and here while I stayed out of the content dispute at this same page because of the incivility I saw towards another editor in a past content dispute. This current discussion originally should have been a straightforward mundane content discussion (should a picture be included or not). Instead, the issues with GregJackP's behavior can be mainly seen at the relatively short talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Picture_of_justice. I started off very civil (and throughout the conversation) asking why GregJackP thought the image should remain. Instead, I was met with refusal to engage in basic dialogue about the content (what purpose is the picture serving?), immediately calling my edit harassment in the edit summary, and some strange ownership behavior all summarized pretty well in this diff. Trying to ask for at least some dialogue just resulted in a dismissive, "Get consensus if you want it removed." [91]

Hounding and vandalism

So, we've got some really prickly and uncivil behavior from GregJackP, but what they said and did next is what brings me here because of purposeful disruption: "When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo. . ."[92] Not much later, they followed me to a insect GA nominee I've been responding to suggested edits on and did exactly that.[93]. GregJackP has never edited the page and it is not in their normal topic area at all. This coupled with their previous statement demonstrates obvious WP:HOUNDING. GregJackP's edits summaries in the first hounding diff and a repeat [94] are very closely paraphrased from my own comments from attempted discussion[95] for further pointiness. This also amounts to vandalism of a page and WP:POINTY behavior by trying to disrupt a page to prove a point.

Always being met with incivility by this user when I always approach them civilly coupled with blatant hounding seems to show their behavior isn't going to be better on its own. GregJackP was blocked by GorillaWarfare for continued harassment and personal attacks back in January (unblock appeal by Quadell)[96]. A temp block might be suitable until it's clear this won't continue to be a problem. However, I'm fine with someone just getting the point across to them that the behavior is not acceptable as long as the immediate incivility stops on pages where our interests overlap (apparently patents relating to agriculture) and pointy hounding stops on pages where they do not. I don't think an interaction ban should be necessary quite yet.

It would also be nice if someone undid the hounding edit on the emerald ash borer page since my removals are reverted each time. All this because I wanted to talk about if a picture of a judge was really needed. . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should also stress that GregJackP claimed I was trying to derail the GA process at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article (I firmly rejected that attempt at bad faith [97]). Now after purposely following me to the emerald ash borer article, GregJackP has managed to partially cause the GA review to fail due to instability. [98]. Action is needed from the community when disruptive editing to this degree is occurring as I've never seen anything this blatant before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I protected emerald ash borer for 24 hours due to edit warring before realising that this issue had been brought here (and closed my good article review of the article). Any administrator has my permission to remove, extend or shorten this protection as appropriate. I have no opinion on the claims of hounding at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah this doesn't look good. Kingofaces43 was bold and removed a pic on the Bowman article. GregJackP reverted and then discussion happened (and continues to happen). GregJackP went to the EAB article was bold and removed three pics (and started discussion). Kingofaces43 reverted and GregJackP reverted again. It doesn't look good when you head to another article you've never edited and initate conflict there with someone you are in conflict with elsewhere. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for summarizing that nicely. I don't think I'd describe GregJackP's edit on the ash borer page exactly as bold though as that insinuates a good-faith edit. The context here shows a more disruptive intent as vandalism, not to mention one of the edit summaries saying he removed a picture because he claims the picture was of an elm tree and not an ash. That's original research at best, but context from the Bowman article doesn't really show this as a best case scenario. WP:SNEAKY describes this vandalism best in addition to WP:POINTY.Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like your unwarranted removal of an image at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article precipitated this little kerfluffle.[99] Further, it looks like you and Jytdog are both harassing GregJackP (and by extension another user named PraeceptorIP) on the article talk page for no reason other than because "Monsanto" is part of the article name. Because you and Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics? Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, Could you please provide some diffs showing us how they harrased GregJackP?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talkcontribs) 21:28, 24 July 2015‎
This has already been discussed here. Jytdog agreed to drop the stick and move on. However, Kingofaces43 showed up just less than a month later to start up the hounding again. Anyone can look at the stats and see what's going on here. The problem is not GregJackP. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we're in Australia again... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is boomerang relevant to Viridtas' comment? It's very apparent they are blowing hot air here if one reads the actual diffs I provided. Are you suggesting a boomerang for Viriditas instead? It's not entirely clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was never involved in the ANI you just mentioned. I also wasn't involved in whatever dispute Jytdog and GregJackP were involved in, and only had a few notes of caution as things were pretty much wrapped up by the time I got back from vacation and was catching up [100]. I know you are not fond of Jytdog, but this is not a soapbox for that as we had next to no interaction in this instance. Anyone who reads the diffs and links to conversations I provided should be able to see pretty clearly that I was being civil in response to some pretty poor behavior, and the various claims Viriditas has made so far are readily dismissed by reading the various links I originally provided. They actually document all of my interactions with GregJackP, which shows just how quickly they resorted to this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am seeing roughly equal levels of unconstructive behavior from GregJackP, Jytdog, and Kingofaces43. It is evident that after the July 12/13 ANI Viriditas linked to above the stick was not totally dropped and that Kingofaces is now playing ball as well.
Kingofaces43, you are not "being pretty civil in response to some pretty poor behavior". That's what Viriditas and Erpert were suggesting. One can argue "But he's being worse!" back and forth a bunch, but the nature and extent on all three parties are similar.
I am simultaneously concerned about multiway multiparty novel synthesis and you and Jytdog apparently deciding to ignore an informal style standard for court cases despite being told repeatedly.
When you come to ANI with unclean hands they're going to get looked at. GregJackP, you clearly need to tone it down as well, but Jytdog and Kingofaces43, you have brought attention to yourselves here and it's not looking all that good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, you're right, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I had not gone back to GMO-type articles and if you look at my last 500 edits, they are almost all in the legal article arena (with a few outliers). I guess I just got frustrated with Jytdog coming back to WT:LAW to argue on citation style (and then OR/Synth) when all of the seasoned editors in that field are telling him that he is wrong. Then, to top it off, Kingofaces43 shows up at an article where he has never made a single edit, where the page has been nominated for GA (over a month ago), when the last substantive edit had been over a month ago, and when the photo in question had been in the article since late June ([101]). It looked to me that he was intentionally trying to screw up the GA nomination, especially after he ignored my comment that all of the SCOTUS FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs have pictures of the justice who wrote the majority opinion. So I let him bait me and I shouldn't have.
Look, all I want to do is to work on my legal articles. I create good content and I've tried to stay out of the hot areas like Climate Change and the like. I like PraeceptorIP, and am in awe of his knowledge and expertise, so I try to help him out on articles he's working on (formatting, he doesn't need help on the material itself). If they would just go back to their GMO area and leave me alone on legal articles, everything would be great.
I shouldn't have let him get to me, shouldn't have let the baiting work, but I can't change the past, just try to do better in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The bad-faith assumptions you're expounding here explain a lot of the improper behavior. Baiting is a serious accusation, but one you've entirely manufactured yourself. This is all based on one single edit that I thought a picture wasn't need in an article and you went off the deep end attacking me for suggesting it. There should have been no assumption of baiting in that whatsoever. Engaging in such conspiracies when one is trying to engage in WP:BRD in good faith with you is what was disruptive here. If that can stop, any interaction we have in the future should be civil. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, could you specifically link to what you're seeing as unconstructive on my part? I summarized my interactions with Greg in a recent comment below which should show that I had been been approaching them extremely civilly throughout. The diffs and overall talk sections should speak for themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for a two-way interaction ban and/or some carefully targeted topic bans? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone really wanted to impose an interaction-ban, there can be evidence for a one-way interaction ban against GregJackP (though I wouldn't intend to interact directly with them anyways). If someone actually reads the diffs on 'my interactions with this user, there is no evidence for an interaction ban. I've been extremely civil responding to the various attacks, so it seems sort of silly to impose a two-way ban. Others are trying to interject some larger and separate dispute into this with another editor as a proxy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there's been some confusion and people bringing up an entirely different dispute between other editors, here's a timeline of my actual interactions with GregJackP:

  1. I had the Bowman page on my watchlist and had been catching up on various content disputes occurring there. I noticed GregJackP had been edit warring that day, so I left them a friendly reminder about 3RR so they didn't cross it.[102] Some discussion occurred over how many reverts actually occurred, but the the goal was just to caution them in good faith, not some sort of punishment.
  2. I later went to leave a note at a talk page of another editor on the page about expert editors. Another editor which GregJackP has been heavily involved with, Jytdog, had already posted a very similar note, so I left my comment in that section.[103] That was as close as I ever came to interacting with Jytdog there. GregJackP attacked me there too even though I made it very clear I wanted no part in whatever dispute they were having at the time. [104][105]
  3. I had no interaction with the page or users there for about a month. An ANI apparently occurred where GregJackP and Jytdog came up, which is what other editors commenting here have been mentioning, and some are trying to create the idea I was involved in all that drama.
  4. I'm looking over the Bowman article a few days ago and think a picture isn't needed. It seemed uncontroversial, so I deleted it per WP:BRD expecting someone to revert and discuss if they felt strongly about it.[106]
  5. GregJackP went of the rails pretty quickly in the discussion (calling my edit harassment in one edit summary)as I tried to ask him what purpose the picture was serving. [107]. I kept trying to redirect him to be civil and simply answer my question so we could resolve it, but they just kept resorting to some conspiracy of being attacked.
  6. It took another editor to actually address my question at the end of the section to actually reach the purpose of the discussion, while GregJackP resorted to sniping in it.

Those are all my interactions with GregJackP up to the hounding at the ash borer page. There's no reason for GregJackP to react as he did to my edit or initial question. The hounding aspect is described in my original post above of deleting pictures with a disruptive purpose at an article I was putting under GA review. Claims that I'm resorting to the same behavior as GregJackP are unsubstantiated in my interactions listed above. I encourage folks to actually look at my edits and interactions before jumping to claims that I've been embroiled in some larger dispute with GregJackP that resulted in this incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And this[108] appears to be the start of where things really went off the rails. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
To expand a bit on the above, I think Jytdog has been trying to pick a fight with GregJackP for a long time, On reflection, I haven't seen enough evidence to support this conclusion --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC) that GregJackP 's responses to Jytdog haven't been perfect but neither are they over the top, that Kingofaces jumped in a started behaving the same way Jytdog was acting, and in particular jumping into a legal artice (GregJackP's main area of interest) and picking a fight, and that suddenly GregJackP and Kingofaces found themselves in a nasty dispute in an area where Kingofaces considers himself to be an expert. That last bit is only a small part of the overall problem, and by no means the start of it, but in my opinion it is where things really went off the rails.
So far the consensus at ANI seems to be that all three of these editors have been part of the problem. It seems to me that GregJackP's contribution to the problem is smaller, but I may be biased because I have a favorable view towards him. The key here is that GregJackP admits that he reacted poorly and was wrong to do so, while Jytdog appears to be dedicated to continuing to battle. I am not sure about Kingofaces; I suspect that he is a good-faith editor who allowed himself to get sucked into a fight. I am hoping that he too will admit that he behaved poorly and that he and GregJackP can shakes hands. apologize, and try to avoid this sort of conflict in the future.
On a related note, I think someone with more knowledge on the topic than I have should look into possible problems in articles relating to Monsanto. I have no idea if anyone is misbehaving, but some of the comments are troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon, some of the troubling comments are coming from a set of editors casting aspersions about me without evidence backing the claims up. It's extremely difficult to take claims at face value others have been making about my intent at least because of that. Jytdog isn't even involved in this particular dispute at all, so why he keeps being brought up is beyond me unless others are just trying to perpetuate whatever dispute was happening there. This is amounting to a witch hunt because I made an edit GregJackP disagreed with and I also happen to overlap with Jytdog in agricultural topics we both independently follow. With all that in mind, and since I've known you to be pretty even handed in comments in the past, could you tell me what specific comments caused you to say I was "behaving the same way Jytdog" or anything else that was interpreted as problematic? I included diffs or links to series of comments for all my interactions in this case because they should show very clearly there was no misbehavior on my part all when read in context. I'm quite happy to respond to critiques of my comments in a pointed manner for clarification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bigger picture[edit]

There's much more to this than Kingofaces43 is disclosing, and there's a reason other editors have linked his behavior with disputes involving Jytdog.

Here is what took place on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co.:

June 20 - June 22
  • Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV info that was not supported by his source: [109] [110], [111].
June 21
  • During the course of a major rewrite of the article, GregJackP added the uncontroversial picture of Justice Kagan to the article: [112]
June 22
  • Kingofaces43 templates GregJackP on his talk page for edit warring on the Bowman article [113], even though GregJackP had only 2 reverts while Jytdog had 3 (see above). Kingofaces43 had never edited on either the article or the article's talk page. Note that the picture of Justice Kagan was already in the article, and Kingofaces43 did not raise any question or objection to it.
  • Jytdog chastises PraeceptorIP about his edits on Bowman, and continues to push his POV to support his continuous reverting to include faulty info. [114]. Within 6 minutes, Kingofaces43 shows up on Praeceptor's talk page to support Jytdog, even though Kingofaces43 had never edited the article or engaged in discussion on the talk page: [115]
  • Jytdog says he's dropping the issue on the talk page: [116]
  • GregJackP nominates Bowman for GA [117].
June 23-July 23
  • There are no substantive edits on Bowman and the article becomes stable, awaiting GA review [118].
July 23
  • Kingofaces43 removes the picture of Justice Kagan from the article, having never before edited the article or its talk page, and after a month without any substantive edits to Bowman.[119]
  • GregJackP explained the inclusion of the picture as soon as he reverted the removal in a civil manner: [120]. Another editor joined the discussion as well supporting Greg's position [121], yet Kingofaces43 tenaciously continued to argue and would not accept reasoned discussion [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]
  • It is interesting to note that King's removal of the uncontroversial picture came right on the heels of another of Jytdog's unwarranted and failed content disputes with GregJackP and Praeceptor here [127] and here [128],

This is not the first time editors have had problems with Jytdog and Kingofaces43 being acting in tandem in what appears to be bullying and canvassing, all the while claiming to be acting civilly: [129], [130],[131], [132]

GregJackP, no doubt, engaged in some uncivil dialogue in the course of these disputes, and he has acknowledged his inappropriate response to Kingofaces43. But if you consider the bigger picture, it does look like Kingofaces' removal of the picture on Greg's GAN was not innocent - it does look like Kingofaces was making a deliberately controversial edit to retaliate for a past dispute (i.e. Kingofaces was baiting GregJackP).Minor4th 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No one else did, so I left a notification at Jytdog's user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't yet had time to look through all the history of this, but I've previously edited with Jytdog and Kingofaces on some content disputes involving Monsanto, and my past experience has been that Jytdog, in particular, has been pretty scrupulous about WP:NPOV with respect to content in this subject area, and that anything having to do with Monsanto tends to be a magnet for "Monsanto-is-evil" POV-pushing. I hasten to add that I do not know whether there was such pushing in this case, nor do I know about the level of civility in the present dispute, but when I see "Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV", my immediate reaction is to want to hear the other side of the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What User:Tryptofish, who is not an administrator but should be one, says, is absolutely correct. There are a few subjects on which rational discourse is not possible, because there is an already established point of view that will stop at nothing. There are a few editors who are so certain that Monsanto is evil that they know, beyond knowledge, that no editor can agree with an edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" content on policy grounds, and that any removal of "anti-Monsanto" edits must be based on ownership of Monsanto stock. Some editors really do assume bad faith by any editor who will make any edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" edits on grounds of conflict of interest. Can we really agree not to make idle accusations of COI, and just talk about Monsanto? If so, good. If not, you have about two months to do your name-calling before the Arbcom kicks in discretionary sanctions. Anyway, please try to be civil, even though I know that all of you, on both sides, will be uncivil and will engage in pointless complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The edits in question were not really a Monsanto / anti-Monsanto issue, but dealt with the issue of patent law on the issue of "making" and whether the information appeared in a law review article to support it. The information wasn't in the article, and multiple legal editors pointed that out. I don't think that any POV on the good-Monsanto or evil-Monsanto was involved, on either side of the dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to comment on this thread, as I have been trying to steer clear of GregJackP per Tryptofish's useful advice to both of us. I will say the following two things. 1) I don't know what motivated Kingofaces to remove the picture from the Bowman article: I have not participated in that discussion as I don't care if the picture of the judge is there or not. 2) Regardless of what motivated Kingofaces' removal, it is very clear that GregJackP's interference on the Emerald Ash Borer article was just ugly retaliatory behavior, and all the counterattacking distraction doesn't change that. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just an observation. Showing up at WT:LAW to raise issues on Bluebook and issues already settled at the talkpage of In re Alappat sure seems to be a sign that he's not "trying to steer clear" of me. I haven't gone to WP:COIN, GMO, or any of the areas that I know Jytdog edits in, and would have thought that if he was trying to steer clear, he would have done the same for my preferred subject areas. And I've already stated that I should not have responded to the obvious baiting of Kingofaces43. I'll not comment on the remarkable coincidence that Minor4h pointed out, that Kingofaces43 seems to act in tandem with Jytdog. GregJackP Boomer! 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Bringing it to WP:LAW was exactly an effort to steer clear of you; you are not identical with articles related to law nor with issues I deal with regularly. I won't be responding further to you here, as I would prefer to keep steering clear of you. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Bringing it to WP:LAW would be like me camping out on WP:COIN - a surefire way to come into contact. You know that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been editing articles about IP law for a long time. As far as I can GregJackP had almost no interest in IP law before his fixation on me. As near as I can tell, he is the one sticking to me; I am not following him around. I would just as soon never cross paths with the guy again. And I have not seen GregJackP show an iota of interest in COI so his showing up at COIN and other COI matters would be yet more following me around. I deeply regret ever getting involved in the Black Elk article, which I landed on via a posting at RSN. Can't turn back time but I can turn away - and have turned away - from a bad relationship. The question is, can GregJackP? Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Minor4th, you just made some very serious WP:ASPERSIONS about me, please do not misrepresent my comments. I very clearly stated here when I first commented on anything related to the Bowman article that I came there independently[133] and did was not interested in whatever was going on with Jytdog and GregJackP.[134] For anyone actually reading my comments, that should have completely skewered any conspiracy theory that I'm somehow involved in whatever happened with Jytdog. I wasn't there for the bulk of content disputes, and I haven't even read the recent ANIs or other disputes you mentioned involving the two editors. I came to the article as a completely uninvolved editor, and editors trying to continue whatever spat was going on with Jytdog by attacking me simply because I piggybacked on a comment when I said I was already planning to make it separately at first is highly inappropriate. Trying here to drag me into whatever larger dispute was going on involving Jytdog is even worse.
This still boils down to me checking back on the article after the disputes settled down and thinking a picture wasn't needed. GregJackP reverted it, I tried to ask what purpose it was serving for the article, and he blew up. There is no reasonable way to claim I was misbehaving there and there is no way to paint it as me retaliating for some set of disputes I wasn't even aware of until you posted them. That was far from a controversial edit or comments on my part if you look at the actual sequence of events.[135][136][137] Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

While all of this has been tremendous fun, can we get someone to close this? I would rather be working on creating, expanding, or improving articles. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit premature considering we don't have any resolution on your behavior, even with your comment above saying you shouldn't have done what you did while going on to cast aspersions saying I was baiting you. That bad-faith attitude is a huge problem and disruption. The hounding wasn't excusable even if you mistakenly thought I was part of some secret cabal and completely missed comments that should have dispelled that for you ages ago. Is that all going to stop if I interact with you in the future? I've been approaching you civilly from day one. I only expect civility in return and have always tried to respond civilly to you even when you weren't to me. I can understand to a degree if you let frustration from other separate editor interactions bleed over into the brief interactions we've had, but I'd really recommend trying harder to keep such things separate in the future. I did not come here for a block or ban even though you partially derailed a GA review as you mistakenly claimed I was trying to do. I was just here to get that behavior to stop. If you can agree to stop that problematic behavior in the future, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If you'll just agree to stop baiting people on articles that you have never edited, along with agreeing to stop acting in concert with Jytdog, I think we can resolve this. Or we can continue and go into more depth about your problematic behavior. Do you really want to do that? Several here have already indicated that they want to apply a WP:BOOMERANG to your report, your actions, etc. I, on the other hand, would rather get back to editing. Why don't we just do that? GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a precarious way to handle an olive branch, but sure. Considering though that I never baited you or worked in concert with Jytdog at the article, I have no problem assuring that I also have no intention of doing so in the future either. I don't bait people and I work independently even when editors frequent similar topics as myself. You do appear to think I did, but that's part of the assuming bad-faith issue I was asking you address. Ignoring the misstep above, can I expect what I asked of you? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, I fully support Minor4th's interpretation of the diffs. That multiple people who have little to no contact with each other interpret the data in the same way and come to the same conclusions should tell you something. From where I stand, you continued disrupting the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article in the wake of Jytdog's departure. Given the connecting evidence offered by Minor4th linking you with Jytdog, this appears open and shut. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Our previous interactions have been rocky at best Viriditas, but this insistence is amounting to lying about an editors comments in clear violation of WP:NPA. Please refrain from that. I made it abundantly clear in the diffs and straight from the horse's mouth what my intentions were. The diff Minor4th included even show I stated I came there independently and wasn't interested in the drama between Jytdog and GregJackP if one actually reads my comment. If I had put my comment to PraceptorIP in it's own section as I originally intended before I saw a similar section already open or even posted my comment earlier in the day (should've cut my vacation short by another hour apparently), there would have been absolutely no question. That's as close as I ever got to interacting with Jytdog. As for the actual issue at hand this was far from a controversial or disruptive edit, especially when one is assuming good faith. I know I was when I made that edit at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog. Note that there are 42 edits on the same pages that are within 15 minutes of each other, and 79 within 2 hours of the other. If you look at the edits, on the very first page (Monsanto) you are supporting Jytdog's position on archiving [138] even though you had not participated in the discussion. That pretty much matches what Viriditas said earlier. Jytdog makes a proposal on HFCS and 6 minutes later you are there with a support [139]. At Organic Food, it took a whole 11 minutes for you to show support for Jytdog's proposal [140]. I could go on and on. So for you to claim that you don't interact with Jytdog is just false. Drop the stick, let's go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As stated previsouly, our topic areas overlap in agriculture. Considering that I often get short breaks in the day where I'll hop on Wikipedia, of course there are going to be a few times when I see a very recent update on my watchlist I respond to that happens to be his. I react quickly to other editors too when I have a bit of time. It's called having articles on your watchlist, so again, please refrain from casting aspersions. As I've mentioned, I don't care what your obsession is over Jytdog here, but leave me out of it and stop trying to pull me into that larger dispute. I've already pointed out to you that one post coincided at the same time as one of his, but there was no interaction going on at Bowman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A note for those claiming I somehow came to the Bowman article due to Jytdog (which is still completely tangential here). I clearly summarized in one of my first interactions with the topic on a user's talk page that I came there independently, "I was actually going to pop over here to say the same thing. I'm just catching up on my watchlist after some time away."[141] GregJackP was already alerted to this [142] well before this current dispute and that I wanted nothing to do with whatever spat GregJackP and Jytdog were having.[143] I've iterated this a few times here already, but since this is clearly from the horse's mouth both now and in my original interactions, can we at least cease with the distraction from whatever other disputes GregJackP has been in? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that people don't believe you, based on the evidence in the diffs and your history of showing up to support Jytdog. Again, I encourage you to drop this and let's all get back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As I've asked you, please drop the stick on continuing these false accusations. You're only continuing the cycle every time I've civilly asked you to stop. In this venue especially, I'm going to set the record straight if someone is misrepresenting me. The diffs clearly show my intent in the series of edits as I explained it, that I was there independently, and that there wasn't wrongdoing on my part if one actually reads my comments thoroughly. I even stated all that outright well before this ANI even started. If after all that someone chooses to assume bad faith, we might as well delete WP:AGF and let everyone assume bad faith for whatever dispute they want. As I've asked before, please just stop the attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Kingofaces43, you claim that this has nothing to do with Jytdog, but you placed a warning about edit warring on GregJackP's talk page (but not Jytdog's) concerning a page on which GregJackP and Jytdog were interacting.[144][145] Two days later you removed a picture of supreme court justice Elena Kagan from that page -- a page you had never edited before.[146][147] This was followed by GregJackP removing some pictures from Emerald ash borer, the two of you edit warring, and the page being protected. [148][149][150][151][152][153]

Concerning the merits of the warning, my count on that page is

  • [154] GregJackP: original edit.
  • [155] Jytdog reverts: 1RR
  • [156] GregJackP reverts: 1RR
  • [157] Jytdog reverts: 2RR
  • [158] Minor4th reverts" 1RR

So you gave a warning for edit warring to an editor who was at 1RR, didn't give it to the editor who was at 2RR, and a couple of days later engaged in a real edit war on another page. I don't consider that to be helpful.

Nor do I consider GregJackP's behavior to be helpful. He edit warred on Emerald ash borer too. Also, after you removed the picture from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in a clear case of hounding, he removed several pictures from Emerald ash borer in a clear case of hounding you right back. The only question is who is going to admit that they lost their cool and behaved poorly and who will ignore the first rule of holes and claim innocence. GregJackP has alreasdy admitted that he behaved poorly and made a commitment to not do it again. Your responses sound like you believe that your behavior was correct and that you would do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll have to say a lot of those comments about me are way off base. Let's start with the edit waring template. If you actually read what I wrote in that overall conversation [159], I did not place a template on Jytdog's page because they had previously stated they were done at the page. A warning would have served no purpose unless they started editing again, in which case I would have left a warning there myself just the same (I almost did until I saw his comment saying he was leaving). I count the original edit as a revert too (there is some variation in what people think on that), but I made it clear I posted it, "as a good faith reminder"[160] and not as some sort of punishment. I generally welcome such reminders [161] and make my intent clear for others when I post them. It also looks like only looked at edits on June 22 instead of edits in the 24 hours period going into June 21. Edit warring was occurring regardless of how one counts reverts and that was the take home message to be wary about since things were looking precarious from an uninvolved editor just starting to catch up on edits I'd missed. The breakdown of different ways people consider "reverts" is also in the edit warring talk page discussion where I made it clear I wasn't trying to pin GregJackP down for a certain number of reverts, but just as a previously uninvolved editor asking for caution about edit warring.
  • I'm not sure where you get the idea that I removed the picture two days later. The edit warring template was a full month before I made the picture edit, not two days (June vs. July confusion maybe). Part of the reason I didn't even look at the article during the in-between time was because I didn't want to be involved in whatever tussle was going on at the time after seeing how GregJackP came after me, so I came back at a later date instead when things had settled looking at what I myself thought of the article for improvements. That some have manufactured this idea that I had other intents is problematic, but when I reiterated time and again what my actual intentions were, that point should have been a closed book as far as any scrutiny on why I was editing the article.
  • Again, there's no case for claiming I was ever hounding GregJackP. It's clear now he does not react well to my presence there (and I hope that changes in the future), but that's quite opposite to me hounding someone. When I edited the article a full month after my brief interaction with him, I approached the article edit and conversation civilly. It's starting to be clear from this his responses here that bad faith was assumed (i.e., baiting) when I've explicitly stated I was approaching the whole thing with good faith.
  • My edits on the emerald ash borer page were removal of vandalism and do not count as edit warring as they are not reverts per WP:NOT3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. There's no question hounding was occurring there in order to deliberately disrupt an article to prove a point. That very squarely fits the definition of WP:VANDAL. That can be discussed more if you want since that's why I originally came here in the first place. I stopped removing it when it was apparent the hounding was going to continue, and came here instead.
  • As for GregJackP, they have continued to make baiting accusations even though they have been told I never intended any such thing, so that commitment was chopped up pretty quickly. I've still been civilly extending that olive branch to them in this conversation and simply asking for the bad-faith attitude to stop. That's never been rescinded either. I'm commenting on my behavior because people are making accusations about my intent that I have shown to be completely false straight from the horses mouth. It's a simple case of bad faith being and ignoring my comments stating what my actual intent was, and I'm just asking for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Break for convenience[edit]

Sigh. I would much rather just get back to editing. I've admitted that I overreacted to what appeared to be baiting by you and you said that you are not interested in sanctions. So what is the purpose in this anymore? Unless you are lying about the desire for sanctions, why not just close this and go back to editing. Instead, we're still here. OK, as to your latest misinformation.

  • Jytdog stated that he was leaving the page and leaving it alone - so why was there a need to place an EW template? And to misstate the number of reverts as four, instead of two? It seems as if this was acting in concert with Jytdog, especially since you did not (and have never) templated him.
  • I'm sure Guy Macon just misread June & July, it happens, but it does not negate the fact that you removed a photo from an article that you had never edited or commented on while it was nominated for GA. This, as I'm sure Guy remembers, is oddly reminiscent of what Jytdog did in the discussion on Bad Elk v. United States, by filing for a GA reassessment as a way to force his view on the other editors. So we have a pattern of interfering with good articles, first by Jytdog, then by Kingofaces43.
  • You did not approach the discussion civilly, but with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. When I reverted, I explained, civilly, that in the legal article field (and an article about a SCOTUS case is first and foremost a legal article), all of the FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs had pictures of the SCOTUS justice who wrote the opinion. Instead of accepting that, you brought up WP:WEIGHT, which doesn't even apply to the issue, and continued to argue. This shows very clearly that you appeared to be baiting and interfering with the GA nomination process.
  • You keep bringing up that you have said that you did everything correctly, that people should take your word over the evidence provided by others in the form of diffs, etc. I'm sorry, but it's clear that a majority of the commenters here do not believe what you are saying. They see the same pattern that I see. If you don't want people to believe that you and Jytdog act in concert, then don't act in concert with him.
  • At this point, it is equally troubling that you can't understand why all of these editors are coming to same the conclusion, that it looks like you were baiting or acting in concert with Jytdog, even if you were not. The actions have that appearance that you and Jytdog were acting in concert and even if it is an astronomical coincidence, you can't seem to acknowledge how reasonable editors can view the evidence in that light. At this point, you may want to consider reading WP:1AM, it has good advice in it.

Finally, you say that you want this to stop—that's in your control. I have said repeatedly that I want to get past my overreaction to what looked like baiting, forget about this, and go back to editing. In other words, for this to stop and this thread to be closed. All it will take for that to happen is for you to drop the WP:STICK, we know how you feel already. Just drop it and go back to editing insect articles, and let me work on legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I indicated sanctions likely would not be needed because I was hoping you would stop these issues related to your assumption of bad faith. That appears to still be occurring in your post above, which is only spurring this on further. You're still at this point misrepresenting my comments considering your assertions should have been completely dispelled before this ANI even started by simply reading my comments. At the end of the day, consensus is not determined by votes, but the substance of what's behind them. Considering the diffs explicitly dispel the various assertions about me pretty handily, those aspersions are not going to stick. What I am concerned about is that you are ignoring comments that should have completely separated me from whatever spat you had with Jytdog or even an independent thought of bad-faith. It's the bad-faith I want to see stop if I run across you in crop patent related articles in the future as we both can be considered WP:EXPERTS there.
I'm not going to try to further the content dispute, but I will address the mischaracterizations (again) of my comments you bulleted. I said on your talk page that the number of reverts you had could be considered 4, but I considered 3 to be pretty solid, but not really 2. That wasn't the take home message though as you had already been made aware there. As I stated before, I have no idea what other disputes you've been in with Jytdog, and you've been made aware of that already. With that, you already should have known that my removal of the picture had nothing to do with whatever those disputes were considering I have my reasoning for it. When you refused to address the reason why I thought it should be removed and instead made a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I civilly kept asking you what purpose the image actually served with no response on that front. You only needed to give actual reasons for including it happened with another editor here. I may not have agreed with that example entirely, but it easily could have been discussed civilly.
So, we're at the point that even though you're saying you acted poorly, you're still continuing some of these bad-faith assumptions. Only when one assumes bad-faith can one get a different read on my comments initially, which is why I was very careful to make sure my comments were crafted to avoid such thoughts. I acknowledge you thought I was baiting you even with all the comments I made that should have told you otherwise. That was one of the problems I wanted addressed here though. Will bad-faith assumptions and focusing on the contributor so much rather than content not occur if I interact with you in the future? If that is a yes without any sniping, then there's no need to continue the conversation here any further as all my concerns would be alleviated at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, I thought I have been clear, but apparently not. I do not believe you. I believe what the diffs and behavioral evidence show, which is also what a number of other editors think, and that is that you were baiting. I believe that the removal of the picture was intended to bait. I reacted poorly to your baiting. Now, unless you are lying about seeking sanctions, as it seems more and more that you dragging this out to get sanctions, it would be better to move on and go back to editing.
I will also note that the "content not the contributor" line is one we hear from Jytdog on a regular basis too. Yet you drug us here over a contributor issue. You don't get to bring someone to ANI, talk about all of their issues, and not have your own issues addressed in return.
Finally, I really don't care what you want addressed. I admitted that I overreacted to your baiting. Unless you are lying about sanctions, drop the stick and go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm dubious of the suggestion that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do, as opposed to having overlapping content interests. I've looked a bit more at some links that Guy Macon provided earlier in this discussion, and I'd like to repeat two of them here: [162] and [163]. A feature of the analyser is that it shows, in blue, which editor was editing a given page first, and the two links seem to me to show rather clearly that the trend has been that GregJackP has arrived at most of these pages after either Jytdog or Kingofaces43, not the other way around. But more specifically at the Bowman v. Monsanto page and talk page, the sequence is Jytdog first, GregJackP second, and Kingofaces43 third. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I showed up to Bowman after Jytdog. If you look at this analysis of Bowman v. Monsanto, Jytdog removed an edit by PraeceptorIP, an acknowledged expert in the field of intellectual property law. Praeceptor asked me to look at the article here, because Jytdog was harassing him over COI editing (where there was none), and did not understand that explanatory notes can be included in reference footnotes (this has subsequently been cleared up with Jytdog). After looking at the article, the case opinion, and the secondary sources, it was clear that the article could be improved to a good article, and I made extensive edits to the article. In addition, five different editors agreed on the legal material included in the article, and Jytdog accepted the consensus on June 22, here.
If you look at the history in the analyzer between the three of us, you'll see that Praeceptor made the first edit to In re Alappat and Jytdog followed him there to harass him on non-existant COI. The same thing happened at In re Bilski.
The actual first contact I ever had with Jytdog however was on Plummer v. State (analyser) and Bad Elk v. United States (analyser). Both of these articles were firmly in the legal area and not in the area that Jytdog typically edits in.
I hope that explains the timeline a little better for you. It was after some of the harassment of Praeceptor by Jytdog that you advised him about Javert. It was after we both agreed to step away that he shows up at WP:LAW. Both of us have areas that we could have done better, but it is incorrect to state that I followed him around. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tryptofish. It's been mentioned before, but just to reiterate on my being the third editor, the article had already been on my watchlist before GregJackP started editing there, and I likely would have made a comment or two of my own volition in previous discussions if I hadn't been generally offline and not not really paying attention to articles on my watchlist as much. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I too am dubious that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do. I don't think Jytdog would stand for it. In my opinion, Jytdog is a fighter -- sometimes too much of a fighter -- but not the kind of person who sneakily breaks the rules. Whether you agree with him or not, he is open about his actions and motives, and I think he want's what is best for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I am dubious about the two of them just having overlapping content interests. I think the examples of Kingofaces43 supporting Jytdog are too big of a coincidence. If i had to guess, I would guess that Kingofaces43 is supporting Jytdog without Jytdog's prior knowledge or approval (although, like anyone, he naturally welcomes any support). I just don't see any evidence against Jytdog here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I can understand that doubt, I would have it myself if not for way too many coincidences in their history:
  • Jytdog adds a source (a press release from Elsevier, which is odd considering how Jytdog talks about WP:RS) to an article here. Seven minutes later, Kingofaces43 adds the exact same press release to the article, here. Both of them got the release at the same time and decided to add it to the same article? Without any sort of coordination?
  • Going through Kingofaces43's contributions, there does not appear to be another instance in two years where he has removed a photo from an article, yet he decides to remove a photo from a GA nominated article? And as you know, one of Jytdog's first moves in the Bad Elk dispute was to call for a GA review on the article. Coincidence?
  • Kingofaces43 has a history of issuing warnings only on one side of a dispute, always the side that is opposed to Jytdog's position. See [164] (no warning to other party, who had 3RR); [165] (no warning to other parties, who had just as many reverts); [166] (no warning to Jytdog, who had more reverts), and so on. It just happens that Kingofaces issues warnings to people who oppose Jytdog? Really?
  • Kingofaces43 is telling people not to "cast aspersions" on Jytdog's talk page [167].
Guy, I could go on and on with examples, but I believe that I have good reason to believe that they are coordinating this. Even if they are not, I am still convinced that this was baiting, perhaps as you opine, just from Kingofaces43 desire to support Jytdog. In any event, this has gone on long enough. Someone needs to close it and we can go back to creating articles. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP you are not steering clear of me but instead are steering harder into me. As I said I have no idea why Kingofaces removed the picture and i don't care. Arguments about images are generally preference-based and lead to emotional arguments and I just don't care. But removing the picture doesn't "support me". I have no war with you for Kingofaces to be my ally in. The BATTLEGROUND is all in your head - you are pursuing me - I don't want to be anywhere near you in WP. The fantasy of "allies" and "sides" goes along with the BATTLEGROUND mentality; I ~could~ make the same arguments you are making about you and Minor4h, and stronger ones. I have no desire to do that nor to interact with you at all
I will say here, that I think that Kingofaces used bad judgement in removing the picture, especially as he was aware of the charged context. It wasn't worth arguing about and I am sure that in retrospect he realizes that a shitstorm was likely to ensue and it wasn't worth whatever improvement he thought removing it might create in the poisoned atmosphere. That is the reality of WP. Both GregJackP and Kingofaces used poor judgement and everybody seems to agree on that; GregJackP's behavior was arguably worse for being clearly retaliatory - Kingofaces at least had some reason for what he did as he described at the Talk page (a weak, preference-based reason, as most arguments about images are), but it was still, in my view, bad judgement and not worth it. And an RfC probably would have gone GregJackP's way, as pictures of justices who write opinions are common in articles about decisions.
Guy Macon, your comment here is wrong. I have no desire to pick fights with GregJackP. The interaction at Black Elk/Plummer started at RSN and I had no experience with the editors involved before that. That did go badly but the articles were improved at the end of the day. I acknowledged my part in that going badly, and I have moved on. GregJackP has done neither. Much later, he then started pursuing me over issues around PraeceptorIP's editing. And now this which is essentially a continuation of his grudge against me by proxy. I do not pursue him nor pick fights with him. As I wrote above, I am unhappy to have ever encountered GregJackP and I do not seek him out. He is fixed on me. Not vice versa. I am not seeking action on this, at this time, as I am hoping that GregJackP will just heed Tryptofish's advice and steer clear of me, finally, as I have been him.
And the source GregJackP characterizes as a "press release" was indeed a press release - from a journal announcing retraction of a paper which was a huge event in the Seralini affair and the content it was used to support was closely based on it. Not PROMO. Nobody involved in those articles, which were highly contested, objected to its inclusion and his bringing that up as he did, is just more ugly cherry-picking battleground crap.
Really GregJackP your grudge against me is taking you way too far and you are digging yourself a nasty little hole. For pete's sake. Let go of the grudge already.
And the way to end this thread is to just stop posting here already. But based on your history, you need to have WP:THELASTWORD and will continue making arguments, and then beg for a close, yet again. Prove me wrong. The same advice to you Kingofaces - GregJackP has acknowledged he acted badly and nobody thinks your edit on the Bowman article was good judgement. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the following three facts: [1] I have carefully researched the interactions between Kingofaces43 and GregJackP but have only briefly glanced at the interactions between Jytdog and GregJackP, [2] I have a high opinion of Jytdog in general -- even where we have disagreed about content or his behavior I can see that he does good work and wants what is best for the encyclopedia, and [3] Jytdog's reasoned argument that I was wrong in my evaluation, I am going to retract and ammend what I said earlier about Jytdog as follows:
I retract my earlier comment about picking fights. I see no evidence from this thread that Jytdog misbehaved in any way, and I specifically reject the assertion that he colluded with another editor. I am going to strike certain comments of mine after I post this. While I do think that the evidence shows Kingofaces supporting Jytdog, I don't believe that Jytdog did anything other than treat said support the way any Wikipedia editor would treat someone who supports his position. If anyone thinks Jytdog misbehaved, they are free to open up an ANI case with specific diffs showing the alleged misbehavior, and I will be happy to analyses the evidence at that time. To Jytdog, I am sorry that I came to a hasty conclusion that, as I look back on it, was not based upon the evidence. I apologize for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That was amazingly gracious and nuanced, Guy - rare qualities to find at ANI. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I've gone carefully through all of the replies since my last comment, above. I agree with what Guy Macon said just above me here. And I've looked carefully at the evidence that GregJackP provided in response to what I said. As for the edit interactions at Bowman between Jytdog and PraeceptorIP, what I'm seeing is Jytdog taking an interest in Monsanto-related controversies, an area where he has long been interested (and helpful), and his objections to PraeceptorIP's edits seem to center on the latter's additions of footnotes to the page, in which the footnotes express subjective views about the page content. It's something where reasonable editors can disagree, but Jytdog's preference against the footnotes does not seem out of line to me. (GregJackP also seems to indicate that Jytdog did not push for some of this, when talk page discussion did not agree with him, something that is not consistent with fighting over a POV.) The edits at Bad Elk and at Plummer seem to me to be following related content through related pages, rather than following any editor. As for the Elsevier press release at the Seralini page (a page that I, too, have edited, and has been a page where Jytdog has contributed a lot), the first edit, by Jytdog, does not include a "page name" parameter in the citation, but the next edit, right after, by Kingofaces43, does include "a page name=". That shows me that Kingofaces43 did not copy it from Jytdog, but did copy it from somewhere else on Wikipedia. I think I'm seeing what may be some sloppiness on Kingofaces43's part, and I think I'm seeing GregJackP appear to attribute bad motives to edits that may not really have had such motives. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I’ll agree in an ambivalent fashion that I could be considered sloppy in the actual part of the dispute I’ve been involved in. On one end, I’m pretty adamant about assuming good-faith on my part. That good faith leads into assuming other editors are doing the same. That appears to be what caught me off guard about GregJackP’s actions. On the other end, I apparently set off some drama with GregJackP because of their previous disputes that I had not followed at all at other articles, ANI, etc. I came in unassuming, but it’s looking like I maybe should have followed the drama more instead. When it comes to the ideal of good-faith, we shouldn’t have to be worried that, but just simply focus on content. That apparently did not work in this situation, which I think is part of a larger systematic problem here that really concerns me. I guess reality dictates otherwise though.
As I’ve mentioned before though, I’m really just looking for the bad-faith attitude to stop as well as the hounding that occurred. That’s why I don’t think sanctions are needed if it’s made clear it will stop. The bad-faith is still occurring though looking at recent comments (still claiming baiting), so it looks like it’s not getting through. No one has proposed the need for sanctions at this point either, so I’m willing to let this incident be with the warning that sanctions will need to be considered if this continues to be a problem in future interactions. Does that sound like a decent resolution to everyone? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds reasonable to me, pending what others here might have to say, and I thank you for offering a peaceful resolution. In case it wasn't clear enough from my previous remark, please let me make it clear that "sloppiness" is not in any way an ANI matter, just a matter for fixing with subsequent edits. I hope that, next, we can hear that that the bad-faith assumptions will stop. This entire dispute strikes me as one that does not require sanctions against anyone, but just a return to editing with less perception of adversary camps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────SMH, I guess the proposals that we move on and go back to editing earlier didn't constitute a "peaceful resolution" even though I called for it no less than eight times in the discussion above. But when Kingofaces43 finally accepts that idea, it's a "peaceful resolution?" I'm done with the hypocrisy here. I'm going back to working on articles and if you want to continue to discuss it, do it without me. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Request for close - this seems like a good place to close, with the two parties GregJackP and Kingofaces43 having, more or less, acknowledged their parts in the dispute and an indication that they intend not to repeat the behavior. Minor4th 15:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
As with my last comment here, I'm perfectly fine with this being closed whenever someone gets to it. I've been willing to give another chance for a future interaction to occur in good-faith, but acknowledgement here that jumping to bad-faith will stop isn't absolutely needed. I'll just see what the future holds instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP, did you call me a hypocrite? If so, it lends credence to Kingofaces43's concerns. The reason that I felt that we had a resolution now, moreso than before, is that Kingofaces is the editor who opened this complaint, so when the opening poster expresses the opinion that the original concerns have been addressed as much as they are going to be, that's a reason to conclude the process. In any case, I agree with Minor4th and Kingofaces that it's time to close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's been a lot of nice words said up above, but at the end of the day it's the behavior that counts. Unfortunately, it looks like the hounding is continuing from Jytdog, as he has now followed the relevant parties to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.[168] As you can see from that diff, Jytdog's first edit was to slap a citation needed tag on the article without discussion on 29 July. GregJackP had edited the article the previous day.[169] So contrary to the words exchanged above, Jytdog is still stalking GregJackP. Kingofaces43 and Jytdog continue to claim that they are trying to avoid GregJackP, but the diffs show a different story. Behavior is what counts here, not words. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's apparently OK for them to follow people, or propose closure at ANI, but not for others. BTW, Jytdog had never edited the article prior to placing a {{cn}} tag on the article, the same as Kingofaces43 had never edited Bowman prior to removing the photo either. PraeceptorIP even asked why Jytdog is following him from article to article, here. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The collusion between KingofAces and Jytdog is nothing new. Binksternet questioned it here with regard to Syngenta. petrarchan47คุ 03:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up. I provided diffs above for several other instances where their collusion was discussed. Minor4th 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan is fully aware that was nothing more than an aspersion from an editor given the context of my response in rest of the section that was omitted in that diff [170]. It takes some strong confirmation bias to call that "evidence" with the full context. People can go on witchunts for editors that comment on their watch list articles for the first time, but I'm sure not going to go around to all of them making dummy "I was here first." posts to prevent that claim. The editor in this case seemed to figure out what the actual situation was with my presence at the article as I recall and dropped it. People jumping to wild conspiracy theories is a huge problem when controversies arise, but I prefer to just ignore it as I did there unless the behavior issue causes wider problems than just wild accusations.
That being said, I've said a few times I consider the particular incident settled for the purposes of this ANI even though GregJackP is still not able to let go in recent comments after my last post. If someone wants to discuss my involvement in agricultural topics beyond the kind of cherry picking that's occurred here about articles I edit or watch, they are more than welcome to open a separate section to focus on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This thread shows multiple editors, some of whom have little to no connection with each other, all coming to similar, reasonable conclusions about editorial patterns which show 1) close editing between two users, 2) on similar topics, leading to 3) stalking or hounding behavior on other editors who have contrary viewpoints. Please don't call editors who observe this demonstrable pattern "conspiracy theorists" or accuse them of witch hunts. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
1 and 2 are non-issues as its already clear we both edit agriculture topics. Of course we're going to come across some of the same articles and interact, especially when it comes to watch lists. 3 is where the conspiracy theory starts because there is no evidence directly supporting it on my part, and there is plenty of evidence directly refuting it describing my intent at the articles before any of this started. I know I've never followed anyone around and have said that on many occasions, so those trying to engage in bad-faith assumptions to say otherwise are not exactly on solid ground here. Time to drop this stick you've been carrying in our various interactions as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on MOSNUM[edit]

Can we get an admin to poke their head in at WP:MOSNUM? (Disclosure: I made a single revert.) Involved users include @Fnagaton, EEng, Glider87, Dondervogel 2, and Arthur Rubin:. I'll make the talk page round shortly. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I only made one revert also. I agree there is a problem. As I see it, the question revolves around the text "are rarely used, even in technical articles", referring to IEC prefixes. EEng and Dondervogel want it removed, and Fnagaton and Glider87 want it retained. I don't think it necessary in the guideline (as long as it is recognized as consensus at the time), but I don't yet see consensus for its removal. In addition, Dondervogel is accusing Glider87 of being a sock. Of whom, I have no idea.
The other 4 parties named all have 3 reverts within a 12 hour period, although I think they have all avoided violating 3RR. I was going to make an ANI AN3 report, but I haven't figured out how to paste the diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Re-proposing_removal. All editors who had participated in the thread were pinged for the final proposal of removing this text; after four days, three editors (counting me) agreed to the change and none made any argument in opposition it, so the change was made. Considering that (as established during the discussion) the text proposed for removal was originally added with no discussion at all, that certainly seems like adequate consensus to me. Two days later Glider (who literally hadn't edited in two years) showed up to disagree, and Fnagaton showed up again after a week's silence, and since then they've been crying "no consensus" instead of starting a new discussion, if they care to. EEng (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
How is this an AN/I matter, if everyone's avoided 3RR (and if they hadn't EWN would be the proper venue)? Looks like a policy dispute, which should be discussed on the policy talk page, and nobody should "make the rounds" WP:canvassing people? Or am I missing something? BMK (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:EW is enforceable against persons who have made less than 3 reverts in 24 hours if they are, well, edit warring. Which is plainly what's occurring (in tag teams, no less!). Especially, I imagine, in an area with WP:DS. I agree it's a policy dispute, but it seems to have destabilized the guideline-proper. Either some protection or some trouts (or stronger) are needed. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
As for whether this should be here or at EWN, I picked this one simply because it came to mind first. I'm happy to move the post around, but that seems bureaucratic at this time. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You need to watch exactly what you're saying. A group of editors who hold the same opinion is only a "tag team" if they are coordinating their efforts. If you have some evidence of this, you should present it here. If not, you should withdraw that quite serious accusation. My suggestion is that the page be fully protected until a consensus can be reached on the talk page. BMK (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Shrug. It's not worth arguing with you when I've achieved my goal here. So stricken. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like edit warring to me. I'd say full protection for 24–48 hours couldn't hurt... --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Fully protected for 24 hours - involved editors need to resolve the issue on the talk page.  Philg88 talk 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to start topic banning editors who edit war on MOS pages. It is a perennial source of weapons-grade lameness. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The MOS is under under discretionary sanctions, but I don't know if anyone alerted the people in the edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not, at least, alert any of the set (where I could have since I am the one that made the rounds) as I did not want to verify prior whether any had previously been alerted (and subsequently putting me in the position to request actual DS against the particular users previously alerted). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Totally unaware of this discussion, I got tired of the pointless fighting over how to editorialize, and just removed the editorializing. There is no need for MOS to make any claims about frequency of use, much less in specific fields, especially when whether the "even in technical fields" part is a moving target and of indeterminate accuracy over time. We have a "rule", and the consensus for it is documented in miles of talk page archives about this perennial "should be use 'gibibytes'" debate (in which I'm neutral). That's sufficient, without extraneous rationalizing. MOS is a guideline, not a book on changing language usage in technical writing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Foreign relations of South Korea[edit]

Can someone check the edits of User:Scottish12345678 to the above article. This user is continually changing countries listed as Asian (e.g. Turkemnistan) and placing them in the Europe section. Denisarona (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Scottish12345678 looks to me like an SPA with singular focus on "Foreign relations of [country]" articles – several Talk page warnings this month on various "Foreign relations of [country]" articles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Looks to me as if Scottish12345678 is editing in good faith but perhaps as a relatively new user is a little unsure what they're doing. Talk page dialogue is probably the best way to resolve this, but Scottish12345678 needs to engage with the community.  Philg88 talk 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Similar edits are also being made by User:Irish12345678. Denisarona (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Same type of editing going on by 180.189.88.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went all over Wikipedia editing the foreign relations of other countries (some with useless copyvio) about South Korea from news articles on the Korean MOFA. I had to clean up several of their edits. This seems like it could possibly be COI editing. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Examples of useless copyvio: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. I'm not sure if this would qualify as copyvio but the content is copy-pasted word for word from the references he provides. The editing is virtually identical to the two other users. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've raised my concerns about this user, and Irish12345678, on this page (see below), regarding their edits on Foreign relations of South Korea. Sorry, didn't realise that this discussion was already on-going. Basically they're inserting massive overlinking, grammatical nonsense, reverting any attempt to fix, and ignoring any attempts to communicate. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor Irish12345678 / Scottish12345678‎ and overlinking[edit]

The editors Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are heavily editing the Foreign relations of South Korea article. While the substance of these edits are positive, there are a number of problems.

  • Massive overlinking. This article now has links on every mention of every country, including through redirects. Other common terms are linked on every mention. The weight of these make editing the article increasingly difficult.
  • Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are possibly not native speakers. Some sentences don't make any grammatical sense.
  • No edit summaries on any edits.
  • I suspect Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are the same editor. Same articles, exact same edits.
  • I have attempted to fix issues with the article, only to have them reverted.
  • Any attempt to communicate with the editor(s) about their edits are ignored.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a duplicate of a section above, also complaining that those two editors are making bad edits to the same article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Has a sock-puppet investigation been filed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. Didn't realise discussion had already been started. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of an SPI report being filed yet, no. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd blocked this user for 24 hours before I saw this ANI to stem the flow of copyright violating articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I really do think an SPI case is warranted here, though I don't necessarily have the time to file it (at least, not over the next 24–36 hours...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked the "Irish" account as an obvious alternate account of the "Scottish" one. Fut.Perf. 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
They've just created another sock and continuing with same edits. See English18. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I've indeffed the Scottish and the English versions, protected the X-South Korea relations articles and semied Foreign relations of South Korea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

HOUNDING by Elvey[edit]

Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.

Response from Elvey[edit]

I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: '[T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show. Specifically, I went to User:ColumbiaLion212's talk page because User:Brianhe directed me there with this edit. So I wasn't following Jytdog there at all, let alone hounding him. And even if I had followed him there, I was pointing out that he was violating WP:NOEDIT, so WP:HOUNDING#NOT is far more applicable than WP:HOUNDING . --Elvey(tc) 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Wikipedia!

6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey(tc) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
6b. Sorry but here you are telling the respectable subject of a BLP that the COI policy does not allow him to directly edit his BLP. Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey(tc) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
no, i have asked the community to do this. if you just agree it will save a lot of drama but you are apparently unwilling. so on we go. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I note, again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent. You have made no specific requests for clarification. Your refusing to respond is disruptive; respond or retract your campaign, Jytdog.--Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I note, yet again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Can someone else respond? --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talkcontribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded TALK 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey of responses to proposal to sanction[edit]

  • Note: A "Community sanction proposal" has been opened away below, below the closed subsection: here -- Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


WP:BOOMERANG 172.56.18.107 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
172.56.18.107 has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has [a COI]" - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey(tc) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about Jytdog here, I am talking about you. Jytdog may be a sinner or a saint, but that does not excuse your own behaviour in this area, which I regard as problematic. Seeking out COI is good, asking leading questions of editors without some proof to substantiate your suspicions creates a chilling effect that is not helpful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps 172.56.18.107 is the same user that set up https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/with_replies! Wasn't me. --Elvey(tc) 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Wikipedia at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded TALK 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Claiming you've never followed me around is hogwash. The new editor hasn't been pushed off the rails; he's been scared off by Jytdog. Hasn't been back. WP:BITE, WP:BULLY etc, in action. You chased him off like a good guard dog. --Elvey(tc) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never followed you around and you have zero diffs to prove that. More nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either a COI topic ban of Elvey per Johnuniq and/or a one-way interaction ban of Elvey regarding Jytdog per Guy. I think that the discussion has gotten considerably off-track, but I also think that the ways in which it has gotten off-track support the appropriateness of some restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If it is one or the other, I would choose topic banning from COI, as that is the most damaging to the community.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
We know you'd like that, but we're trying to determine what's equitable and practical, not what gives the complainant what he most wants.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if I've misrepresented policy, I'd really like to know how, because I don't want to do that. The only way they've been able to suggest I've misrepresented policy has been to misrepresent what I've said, and then reach false conclusions based on false evidence - which your 'per Guy' suggests has worked. Guy grossly misrepresented my positions and then accused me of having those bad opinions, and refused to address the misrepresentations. What the hell is OK about that? If I've pointed out a true policy that you don't want what you see as the wrong people to know about, I've, reluctantly, offered to stop doing so under the terms below, at #Proposal. Please consider endorsing it. --Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked me to reply, I will. I've read it, and I agree with Guy. I don't see the problem as being about misrepresenting policy, but as exhausting the community's patience with the way you communicate with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Just several days ago User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th said here that Jytdog should be banned from COI areas. User:Viriditas chimed in, "Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics?" --Elvey(tc) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker recently said of Jytdog, "I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material." I do too. Right after the shoddy treatment Jytdog gave Clockback, a subject of our biographical material, and NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR, I responded with factually correct information, which no one is disputing, but some here nevertheless want to ban me for. What the hell kind of respect for the subjects of BLP is that? --Elvey(tc) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this - I'm not saying anything about Jytdog, one way or another. We resolved our issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Someone had a concern" isn't very helpful. I'd like to hear from those four editors or have specific pointers to the discussions of what they think the alleged issues with Jytdog are. Never mind, I found it. Jytdog having any COI-patrolling and civility issues of his own would not magically make Elvey's actions okey-dokey, but we may be looking at a mutual interaction ban, even a mutual topic ban or other action; Upate:I don't see a mutual issue. ANI is not a forum for one side to "win" with quicker and craftier argumentation or a bigger enourage. I'm not convinced a long topic ban is needed here, though, for anyone. If an editor has WP:COMPETENCE problems (which Elvey clearly does with regard to at least COI, CIVIL, and CANVASS interpretation), this is generally resolved with experience, which they cannot gain if barred from the area in which they need to develop better competence. If there's an interaction ban, set a time limit, like 6 months. Long-term ones are too easily gamed, are onerous, and usually don't serve any purpose but cementing a dispute forever instead of letting it naturally come to a "why were we even fighting?'" WP:DGAF realization, and become by-gones. Permanent topic bans are rarely useful except with regard to actual soapboxing POV-pushers, or "great wrongs" battlegrounders, and just serve to create martyrs-in-their-own-minds among editors who mean well but are "differently clued" at the moment. I do agree that the COIN filing by Elvey of vague, unsupported-aspersion casting should not go unaddressed, probably with a 3-month COI topic ban, regardless of other matters and outcomes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Updated. 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SMcCandlish I was recently brought to Arbcom (case was dismissed) and at the same time to ANI (no action) over my COI activities. Elvey is having a field day quoting stuff from those events. I took a week off from dealing with COI issues to get feedback as advised at Arbcom and got some good feedback, which I've been reflecting on; I still have still not fully gone back to my former levels of COI work as I am still considering some things. Elvey keeps quoting stuff from those stale (and older) cases as though it is hot news.
The problem with Elvey's involvement in COI matters is that he is "intervening" in ongoing interactions with new editors who have or may have a COI (which are often delicate and require respect and diplomacy) and writing frankly incompetent things. Sometimes harassing the conflicted editors, and sometimes harassing me and encouraging bad behavior by the conflicted editor. There is no sense to it. This is really bad with new editors, especially, who are trying to learn how WP works, under pressure from their COI.
Anyway, I recognize that the community will do as it will. But working on live COI issues is not a training ground. Nothing will prevent Elvey from reading COI actions and getting their head on straight, and asking for an indef to be lifted when they can show they understand things better. But I need to stop responding to things here - have written too much already. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I'm interested in due diligence. Not every dogpile indicates consensus, but often bandwagon mentality, and every argument has at least two sides. Just because ArbCom or ANI previously didn't act on something doesn't mean it's not relevant, since patterns emerge over time. But I have no interest in fishing for one with regard to you; I just asked for clarification of what complaints others had raised (and it was the BITE one that caught my eye, not a COI one, but I treat all claims of wiki-wrongdoing with skepticism).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed Risker's and related material, saw GregJackP's disavowal of a current dispute, and don't see a major issue. The two arbs who made the point to you that COI and paid editing are more distinct that you seemed to think at that time, probably got that point across (that was much earlier in the month), and I don't see evidence they didn't. Absent a showing of really recent issues in this regard, or of newbie-biting that's also recent, I'm satisfied there's no boomerang of any kind here, but hope the message was absorbed, to get COI/PAID policy understanding in synch with the community's if you're going to be helping new editors who have conflicts of interest.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommendation: Elvey should be subject to a one-way interaction-ban from Jytdog, and a topic-ban from COI-related discussions and processes, for 3-6 months (concurrent) in both cases; long enough to learn these ropes and re-examine his approach. More than 1 year would be counterproductive and patently punitive at this stage. I'm particularly concerned about the aggressive nature of Elvey's approach to all this, especially the aspersion casting at WP:COIN, which can, as someone else said, "tip the balance" and drive incoming editors away. Because of the BLP connection, we have to be especially careful in this area. The sarcastic, lecturing tone of Elvey's responses here is not a good sign. WP:COMMONSENSE escape valve: Elvey should be able to report what he is sure is a glaringly obvious, unmistakable COI problem, to an admin, who could determine whether it required further investigation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What is our CoI policy actually?[edit]

Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

The diff above shows that:

Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

"Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

--Elvey(tc) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:


Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey(tc) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Jytdog, that wasn't it at all. It was about you not me, and it's time for you to seriously self-analyze because your behavior is extremely problematic. Risker stated: "Enough, Jytdog; stop haranguing people. We're talking about half a dozen links, half of which are on pages that have already gone through community review and were deemed to be reasonable additions to the page. I don't accept this sort of thing on my talk page. You are not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no. Risker (talk) 1:23 pm, 6 July 2015, Monday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)" [176] And with regards to you telling other editors to stop following you around - you need to self-analyze in that department, too. Atsme📞📧 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

  1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
  2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey(tc) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey(tc) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.
And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.
I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.
And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I expect your behavior won't change, despite what Risker, Newyorkbrad and a dozen other folks have told you, so yes, I propose we avoid each other. I've offered the proposal in this section as a solution. Clearly there's lots of feedback for both of us here and on the huge thread on Risker's talk page on how we could improve our approach to COI issues. I intend to change my behavior accordingly, and you have said that you will too. Progress, I dare say? --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No progress. Your ideas still appear to be as confused as they were before and you have not acknowledged once here that you have made a hash of things in your pursuit of me. And again - you are following me around; if you stop doing that and let go, you will not find me in front of you anymore. I don't want to interact with you; the fixation is yours. And nothing new has been to said to me here about COI, nor have I said anything new. Everything you have brought here about me is stale and dealt with already. Please just agree to stay away from me and from COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from sort of involved editor[edit]

Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

  1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Wikipedia.
  2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
  3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
  4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Wikipedia might have taken it differently.

So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded TALK 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded TALK 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded TALK 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded TALK 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me. I also ask you to reconsider your !vote above. Whatever you think about me, Elvey's behavior has been very out of line. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
(Belated requests: Jytdog, stop attacking Snowded here. It's derailing the discussion. Snowded, don't feel the need to defend yourself here.) Jytdog says above, "I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that." I am happy to hear that. However this diff and the interactions Snowded points to suggest the behavior hasn't improved. That recent threatening of a new user with an indefinite ban like that appears to be calculated to maximize Chilling Effects. That's why I got involved. But apparently, consensus is building (as shown by the support votes here) that those chilling effects are just dandy and I'm not to interfere. --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
He isn't attacking we have a difference of opinion. I seriously suggest you just back off for a bit. At the moment a few of us think that this should just be left and there is no need for an interaction ban or a topic ban. I still think that but if you get into a Battleground mentality some sort of restriction will be needed. Per my suggestion on your talk page I think you should just stop for a bit and ping me or another editor if you something is wrong and we can look at it. ----Snowded TALK 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that of Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey(tc) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

  1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
  2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
  3. Absolutely!
  4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

Thanks for piping up. --Elvey(tc) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded TALK 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded TALK 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is not helping Snowded. Elvey, I'm not particularly concerned about any incivility towards you. I'm concerned about you attacking other editors out of the blue under the justification of "good intentions" to advocate for the COI policy. Again, I look at the Kaiser talk page post and see someone who seems out to find a fight to win. Everything else falls from that. Are you capable of offering a moderate incremental discussion (namely, if you think there's a problem (a) post a discussion on the article in question; (b) bring it up at COI; or (c) at the very least communicate to the people you accuse without presuming their guilt ahead of time) or is it just "let me do what I can or else I can do nothing at all"? WP:OUTING is a policy too and I've never felt that harassing individuals to protect us from some hypothetical COI is a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is some new definition of 'sarcasm' is it Ricky? If you misinterpret that phrase you might well have misinterpreted others. Maybe you could help by pointing me to the diffs that indicate a possible outing? ----Snowded TALK 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy status[edit]

Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Wikipedia on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

The guideline has another very important purpose.

Any company or individual who edits Wikipedia with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Wikipedia community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, in short, no, he still doesn't. I reiterate my support for a restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd promise to stop asserting the foolishness you say I'm asserting, and so forth, but it would be very much like promising to stop beating my wife. You insist on grossly misrepresenting my position. What part of "I agree, users should follow the COI guidelines" do you not understand? That was and remains my stated position. Please stop mislabeling opinions that aren't mine. Shame on you for that. I'm a human being. Have you no shame?--Elvey(tc) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted.--Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytog, you said last month, "Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate." so how have you done that. I see no change, specifically: Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7) HOW has your understanding of what the ToU says changed?--Elvey(tc) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Go to WP:COI for any further discussion. This tangent is not going anywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

COI needs updating or clarification[edit]

I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If my interpretation is idiosyncratic, why is Risker getting on Jytdog's case about his misinterpretation? GoodDay is right - WP:COI is NOT clear enough. All these arguments are very strong evidence of that. If I'm wrong for telling people the truth about what WP:COI says, then surely that's damn good evidence that WP:COI needs to change to say that Paid advocates must not engage in direct article editing. Unfortunately attempts to change it to say that have failed, and attempts to get ArbCom to help (by others; I haven't tried) have fallen flat. Right, User:Coretheapple? --Elvey(tc) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, not accurate. It is not clear what Risker's current stance on me is. Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate. Please stop bringing up stale issues. And your confusion and your hounding and disruptive behavior, does not mean there is a problem with the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD. Writing for Wikipedia is analogous to how scientists contribute to review articles, you must base everything on reliable sources, you cannot do original research. Your peers will check if what you write is up to standards. Now, in some less reliable discipines like e.g. medical science, you do have a problem with COI, authors are required to declare them in articles. But Wikipedia is much more like a hard science discipline like physics than a softer science like medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD." Poppycock. If anything it should be stiffened and made policy. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which would mean that anonymous editing would have to end, editors would have to submit their CV's the WMF as part of a formal application to become editor here. Admins would have access to the submitted documents to check if the editors are sticking to the COI policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's no correlation between "stiffening COI" and IP editing having to end, that's pretty much a straw man, nor do any of the other dire results you predict follow in any logical way from the premise - it's all pretty much hyperbole, innit?. However I will say frankly that the project would be much better off if IP editing had been ended many years ago, since its downside far out weighs its upside, and it's mostly still here for political/philosophical reasons that have no relevance to the reality of life in the trenches. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would end IP editing as well for similar reasons. It means people can too readily hide an interest. But it is also the case that in many articles enforcement of the COI as interpreted by most of its enthusiasts would mean that subject matter experts were confined to requesting changes to articles from patrolling COI bureaucrats which would be equally disruptive. Banning ALL paid editing, restricting University projects to drafts that would then be reviewed would all be more helpful activities. Key is to stop the one size fits all COI approach currently being practiced and advocated. ----Snowded TALK 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey[edit]

Current results 14:2 14:3* 15:3* in favor of the proposal. We have had ~48 hrs and sufficient participation and supermajority. This is ripe for uninvolved administrator close and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed:

Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed to the community in six months.
  • Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion above shows six supports for a topic ban of various durations (Johnuniq + Alexbrn + Guy (JzG) + Ricky81682 + Tryptofish + SMcCandlish) and two opposes (Snowded + GoodDay). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • More lies misrepresentation. (So what else is new?) Collect voted oppose too. With my !vote, it's 4:6. Way to use dirty campaign tricks, Johnuniq. Too bad there's no voting fraud hotline to call. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the accidental omission of Collect who opposed sanctions above (and below). The omission of Jytdog and Elvey was intentional as it did not seem useful to include the two protagonists. I listed the names specifically so others could check. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but for it to properly stick absent community or arbcom sanctions we really need a formal proposal. Admins can't just say "I ban you", the community can... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It is time to move on. If Elvey won't drop the stick on their own perhaps we should encourage them.--Adam in MO Talk 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per my comments above - my view is strengthened, in fact, because Elvey has shown no undertanding of why his intervention was so bad, and has instead mounted a belligerent defence of himself in which it seems only others are held to be at fault. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support After reading through all of this I see no other alternative. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted. I shouldn't be banned for informing users of what WP:CoI says, which what this is really about. That's the behavior this is intended to prevent. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the OP. Elvey's behavior is only getting more disruptive as this thread continues. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Draconian measures simply do not work, and the evidence that they are needed in the case at hand is weak. If the stick is being dropped, let it stay on the ground. Collect (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything Draconian about a 6-month ban from a single noticeboard. Nor do I see a dropping of the stick with respect to the added comments about "dirty campaign tricks". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. I don't see you accepting my request for someone work with me. --Elvey(tc) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish to be clear, the proposal is a topic ban from "COI, broadly construed" - so not just the COIN noticeboard.Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. But, as is becoming ever-increasingly clear, it is far from Draconian, in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, all the votes above were made before Johnuniq's false summary of the vote was noted or corrected. Also, there was just a !vote on this; which shows a 6:4 result. Holding another one because there was no consensus because User:Collect, User:Snowded User:GoodDay and User:Elvey opposed is unfair and a policy violation.--Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that I modified Elvey's formatting to make this section more manageable, but Elvey's reference to votes above refers to votes dated prior to 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC), so anything added subsequently to that time is after the response to the summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agreed to drop the stick, and have done so. I did:

  1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
  2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI.

The quality of the reasoning in the !vote so far is interesting. There isn't any. Proposals must be !votes. So I'd appreciate a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me cuz I "exhausted the patience of the community"? What am I supposed to learn from that? Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damnd; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I hadn't read of any of Jytdogs promises to change his behavior regarding COI topics, and so I regret how I responded when I saw him misrepresenting policy again. --Elvey(tc) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This User talk:Johnuniq#Deliberately introducing incorrect information into an ANI discussion is not dropping the stick and reinforces the concerns expressed throughout this thread.MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. --Elvey(tc) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Try not to yourself blocked entirely? That's why dropping the stick is about. There's more to harassment and disruption than cursing people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I asked what to do, not what to not do. I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? You didn't answer that question. Please do. And see section below--Elvey(tc) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a ban on all COI-related commentary not just the board, as I said above. The antics go way beyond disruption at the noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • For the record, I see that as a !vote about #6, because that's what you refer to, and hence a !vote in favor of Jytdog misrepresenting WP:CoI and against me pointing out what it actually is. I already agreed to stop doing that. So you're apparently voting for punitive measures. --Elvey(tc) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I'm voting that based on your inability to conduct yourself when there are potential COI issues. Your false dichotomy routine of either I support your antics or I support Jytdog's views on COI policy don't work on me. Let the closer determine how my vote goes, not your personal opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban as stated by Ricky81682 and per MarnetteD. Having read through this, really quite lengthy, thread, it's obvious that Elvey just doesn't know when to stop. The explosion at Johnuniq for an easy to make miscount and the subsequent histrionics at GWH's talk page is evidence enough that Elvey needs to take a step back, whether it be voluntary or imposed. Blackmane (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. I have, i think, read the whole of this, and followed it down several rabbit holes, and i cannot see any further editing by Elvey on the topic of COI ending well until he takes the time to understand all that he has been told. Honestly, i feel he's lucky to be getting off this lightly, as some of his actions (to my mind) clearly reach extremely poor levels and he's been flirting with a longer-term block. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- I don't really see any alternative at this point. This user simply won't drop the stick on his own and also seems to have suffered a near-fatal overdose of IDHT. Reyk YO! 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I see all kinds of red flags in Elvey's combative, "everyone else is at fault" mentality here; even after a warning it took a block to force them to stop disrupting this thread with their repetitive wikilawyering about vote process. Elvey's counter-proposed solution is more "you guys are wrong but I'll go along with it" rather than owning that they are the one that is wrong, as many users above have strained to explain. None of that points to a user who will drop the stick, so I fully support a topic ban from the subject of COI which they don't understand/refuse to accept. Furthermore, clear evidence has been presented that Elvey followed Jytdog to several articles expressly to WP:HOUND them, so I support the suggested one-way interaction ban as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. My patience is certainly exhausted, thanks to WP:IDHT here in addition to issues already noted above. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with qualification. I can't see any real progress here and while I think there are wider issues around COI I can see that Elvey is his/her own worse enemy. If Elvey will accept a voluntary withdrawal from direct editing but with the right to raise concerns with a third party editor for review then that might work. If that is not OK then I would support a three month topic ban ----Snowded TALK 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly there are broader issues here with regard to Elvey becoming needlessly combative and retreating into IDHT stances in any area where their behaviour has come into question, but what concerns me most are the original (and to my mind, substantiated) claims of hounding which set the discussion off in the first place. I'm sure plenty of people can relate to Elvey's no-love-lost disposition towards pharmaceutical reps, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a tool for editor's personal political crusades. These comments were clearly off-topic, hostile, and in no way involved with or relevant to the improvement of the project. I echo the sentiments of Ricky81682 and others that Elvey's has used COI and other policy principles as cover to harass or otherwise adopt needlessly adversarial and disruptive behaviours with regard to other editors on issues to which said policies do not really apply. And given their resistance to accepting a clear consensus of their fellow editors here that this and other of their behaviours are inappropriate, I think we can trust they will not re-examine their behaviour with regard to the relevant policies of their own accord, so they ought to be removed from the areas in which they cannot conform to community expectations. Frankly, I'd have proposed an indefinite TBAN with a chance to appeal after a year, or even a block, but we can hope the current measure will suffice. Snow let's rap 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Vote results[edit]

Proposal evaluations must not be mere !vote counts, but rather argument evaluations. So I asked for a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me just the same, do so based on something I can learn from. Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damned; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided such a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I might as well shut up now and take my beating or retire after some shady user closes this double jeopardy !vote, and not count the votes of User:Snowded or User: GoodDay, or make note of the changes I agreed to. I've said enough. Not going to change any minds no matter how valid my defence. --Elvey(tc) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple question which you will sidestep I'm sure but how is this in any way useful in terms of fighting COI on Wikipedia? It looks like nothing more than you figuring out someone's COI and then using it to attack the entity you want to attack. You aren't Perry Masoning anyone there, just going for a cheap shot. Your goal seems to be finding problems with editors (COI being the convenient tool of the moment but civility is always a backup) so that you can lord it over people which is more destructive than any COI issues we could ever have. It's a grudge mentality that's the problem not your personal beliefs about policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, somewhere in the middle of User talk:Elvey (Elvey refactored the page but these are the relevant edits) is a response to this. Even though this was brought up at the start of this I think, the response there reiterates my concern that Elvey treats COI issues as a tool to take advantage of, which is far from our purposes. We are not WikiNews and we are not looking for another Edward R. Murrow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey blocked for 31 hrs for ongoing disruption of this ANI discussion[edit]

I warned Elvey on his talk page ( [177] ) to stop disrupting the ANI discussion regarding his sanction as he had been. He wall-of-texted my talk page in response (acceptable) and continued here (not acceptable). I have blocked him for 31 hrs. I am concerned about a wider NOTHERE question after this string of behavior. I am not doing anything more than the 31 hr block, reporting that here, and noting my wider concern. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're at a WP:ROPE crossroads here. Let's see where this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

About SPT[edit]

This incident was talked here a couple of weeks ago. It is about an edit-war at Standard Penetration Test. With BMK'help, Argyriou and I were supposed to discuss the matter at the talk page. I left my comments. He replied once and again deleted my writing, and he has not responded after that. I have tried my best to be civil. I mailed him to answer my replies; I promised him that I would edit my writings if he gives me valid reasons so I asked him to put back my writing. I have no intention to start another edit-war so I left my deleted writing as is.
I checked Wikipedia:Consensus. It says "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."
I believe my comments in the talk page is fairly reasonable. His unwillingness to have a healthy discussion seems to be self-explanatory to me. I have been under suspicion that for some reason - and that is not based on neutral point of view nor fairness - Argyriou does not want my writings and PWRI source link to be exposed to the public, and I think it is safe to say that is the case. To me his action has been vandalism and taking my advantage. Since this incident has been talked here, I felt this is the proper place to ask for gurus' guidance. Thank you. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no edit war at this time, and therefore no need for admin action, just an ordinary content dispute. You think you're right, Argyou thinks you're wrong. If you and Argyiou cannot reach a consensus, then, as I suggested earlier, you should avail yourself of one of the various WP:Dispute resolution mechanisms and go from there. BMK (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Against my advice, rather than seeking out dispute resolution, you have once again tried to force your material into the Standard penetration test article, when you know that another editor is firmly opposed to it. This kind of behavior is why I originally reported you here as an POV-pushing single purpose account. If your behavior continues, I wouldn;t be at all surprised if an admin decides to block you for WP:tendentious editing. BMK (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Original AN/I report is here BMK (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yoshi continues to add his SPA bullshit to the Standard Penetration Test article, degrading the usefulness of the article. I have attempted to point out to him why his stupid shit is stupid, and I've had it. Someone block him. Argyriou (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBAll - Yoshi has been told what's wrong with his edits, yet persists in re-adding them. He's a WP:SPA (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive892#User:Yoshi123Yoshi), and has not shown any understanding of how Wikipedia works, nor provided satisfactory responses to anyone who has tried to show him the error of his ways. He's a disruptive editor, but unfortunately, there aren't enough people editing Wikipedia to respond to blatant hobby-horsing on technical articles. I'm tired of dealing with his crap, but being uncivil seems to be the only way to get anyone do protect the encyclopedia. Argyriou (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
When ANI intervened, they put back my PWRI summary. I believe they did that because I left my response in the talk page following the procedure. I started another discussion hoping to find a solution, All you said was "it is factually wrong," and never answered my response. How is it factually wrong? Why is it irrelevant? What you have been saying is that you asking me to believe your words blindly by faith. Of course I would not do that. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone just could easily say "it is factually wrong," and erase my writings, but but if one wants to convince the other, one needs to say why. I have been doing my best in the talk page, but Argyriou keeps ignoring it, and warned me of vandalism. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: 188.78.134.205[edit]

S/he shows single purpose editing, trying to add their ideas wherever s/he sees fit, but sometimes seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption (a way of wasting my time), like here. Repeats continually the need for references but does not add them, like here, or startling claims. They removed fully valid verification when they did not like it. Despite their eventual participation in discussion, shows no consensus building, and it is plagued with accusatory and incoherent language, sticking to their point and failing to listen to the arguments provided by other editors.
The pages affected have been protected by bot, but as it happens that has established the IP's reverted last version in a number of articles while they were being discussed on the talk page, which appears to me a kind of reward for disruption, since protection affects all editors alike. The latest IP editor will feel free to act again on August 3, when the ban to edit those articles is lifted. I request a clear indefinite block on 188.78.134.205 and, if possible, its sockpuppets, to avoid further disruption to the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Remarks) I think that it is Iñaki who has an agenda and adds Basque origins (such in the case of Banu Qasi which I reverted) without references. By the way, I am not the IP. The IP's reversions were correct. --Maragm (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No references?
Basque kingdom of Navarre;
  • Possessing the Land: Aragon's Expansion Into Islam's Ebro Frontier Under Alfonso the Battler:1104-1134, by Clay Stalls, page 12.[178]
  • The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, by Wendy Davies, Paul Fouracre, Cambridge University Press, page 97.[179]
  • World Monarchies and Dynasties, by John Middleton, page 95.[180]
  • Spain: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, by Roger Collins, page 31.[181]
Inigo Arista a Basque;
  • Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus, by Hugh Kennedy, page 61.[182]
  • R.L. Trask, The History of Basque, page 14, "In about 824 a certain Inigo Arista in turn otherthrew the last trappings of Frankish hegemony and founded the tiny Kingdom of Pamplona. Inigo, like most of the population of Navarre was a Basque."[183]
  • A History of Medieval Spain, by Joseph F. O'Callaghan, page 107.[184]
  • Conquerors, Brides, and Concubines, by Simon Barton, page 26.[185]
  • The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Volume 25, page 541.[186]
According to this source, Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;
  • Basque Sociolinguistics: Language, Society, and Culture, by Estibaliz Amorrortu, page 14.[187]
Maybe the IP and Maragm should do a better job of researching, instead of making accusations based on their own personal opinions. I will stick with the facts I have listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Listen, IP 188.78.134.205 (or should I say Maragm?), I did not bring the issue here about references, whatever you have add them on the right place and the right statement, refuting the main statement, that the king was a Basque, period. The problem is as follows, not only did Kansas Bear add loads of references on the talk page, but I added myself one fully valid inline citation and you replaced it gratuitously. You are wasting my time and that of other good editors big time, contribute what you need to contribute, and do it as smooth as possible. You engaged in blatant vandalism in Corruption in Navarre, adding an incongruous explanation line, since you removed loads of content you did not like. I demand a rapid executive measure, I do not have time to engage in a long discussion that will last days, since that is the disruptive editor's aim, to cause frustration. I demand an executive measure over an IP tracking disruptively my edits, non-responsive to anything, and not collaborating. Maybe the vandalism resource is the right place, the IP has been warned by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The only thing was to add this remark on the talk page of the Banu Qasi article agreeing with the IP's reversion. I can assure you I am not the IP and if you have any doubts go to a checkuser. --Maragm (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I find terribly shameful this way of ¿reasoning? consisting of accusing others of being the same person, in order to disguise the lack of true reasons about the content of the disputed articles.

If anybody want an administrator to check my connection data to verify that I am not another user different than me, please, go on. I do not have anything to hide. The truth is this conflict is, as Maragm said, that the user Iñaki LL has an obvious strategy of imposing slanted labels and biased or false claims focused on the consideration of Navarre as a "Basque" territory. Sometimes he does it by imposing a statement without any references. For example in the article 1833 Territorial Division of Spain, in which he is obsessed with impossing the biased expression "Basque Districts" (regarding Navarre as one of them) in spite of the fact that there is no academic usage of it (as he knows perfectly, because he has been unable to give any reference). Sometimes he does by adding politically slanted labels to historical figures and trying to support that with references of books published 50 years ago or whose verification can't be done by internet. For example in the case of Iñigo Arista the vast majority of the Navarrese historians agree about the absence of evidences about the filiation of Íñigo Arista, and significantly (as I remarked in the Talk Page of the article by giving the due reference) the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (a well known and prestigious source of information comparable to the British Encyclopaedia whose content is accessible on line) states this fact, and tens of references of books and scientific papers (much more recent that the given by Iñaki LL) regard the Kingdom of Navarre as Navarrese/European/Hispanic kingdom and not as a "Basque Kingdom", moreover no king of Navarre entitle himself "king of Basques", never). In the case of the article Corruption in Navarre everybody can realize by reading only a few lines that the writing is clearly biased and is utterly aimed to convince that a particular political party is "corrupt" by regarding irrationally as "corruption" several events that they have nothing to do with corruption like a problem with a catering company (!).188.78.134.205 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your effort to add references, Kansas, is highly appreciated, no matter what the actual target issue is. As for Maragm, I did not report 188.78.134.205 for sock-puppetry, although there are at least 3 different IPs with strings pulled by the same master. You speak like 188.78.134.205, your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous as that of the IP, well, you do not let me many chances (WP:DUCK). You intervened here just about 20 minutes after I posted the report template on 188.78.134.205's page, you claimed you had reverted me in article Banu Qasi, well, a simple check of the diffs tells it all here and here (helloooo). By the way, I made clear my views on this issue in the Talk:Banu Qasi, but both Maragm and her (her?) alter ego 188.78.134.205 have shown a total inability to engage in consensus and have kept pushing ("it is utterly illegitimate stating that the Banu Qasi were 'Basque'", it seems that for the IP it is about a moral issue...). I won't dwell on content issues or incongruous talking, as attempted by 188.78.134.205 in the last intervention above ("books published 50 years ago", don't make me laugh, you were attempting to justify your position with an 800 AD propagandistic reference!) since this is about someone throwing out of the window the WP guidelines and policies all in a row, as well as WP:HOUND. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You say: "...your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous..:". I have not accused anyone of anything. And yes, you're right, I did not revert in the Banu Qasi article and just added a remark and a source, sorry for the despiste. Lorenzo Jiménez has written not just the article I mentioned but a book, recently published on the Banu Qasi which I don't have with me because I'm on vacation, but I have many other sources that I use to reference articles and none mention the supposed Basque origin of the Banu Qasi. And as far as I remember, I have not intervened in any of the other articles you mentioned, just the Banu Qasi and I always log in with my nick and I never edit under an IP, so stop making the accusation that I am that IP with whom I just happened to agree on the Banu Qasi issue and added a reference. Agur ba. --Maragm (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As I explained on my talk page, I stick to evidence shown in all editors' records, you Maragm engaged yourself in the dispute. Instead of adding accuracy and detailed evidence, you have come to say that I want to add Basque origins and "agenda" and stuff, nothing said on 188.78.134.205's irregular behaviour. In fact, if you get down to detail, you will read that I may agree that it is not certain that Cassius was Basque (nor that he was Visigoth), but all the same... In fact, I did not add that information myself originaly. 188.78.134.205 not only added its own rejection of just about anything Basque, but added generic information on the religion of the Banu Qasi lineage ("Christian", Syrian Christian perhaps??? Did not the article mention that they were muwallads?, sic), and other ambiguous information (Pyrenean...), all without references. Well, no wonder, since the IP's drive is to cause disruption and frustration. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You'd better use all the time that you're spending in making false accusations, in providing references about those inexistent "Basque districts" (until now you have been utterly unable to do), in showing the references supporting that a problem with a catering company is "corruption" (you have been also unable to) or in explaining the reason why the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (the most important on line source of information about Navarre) is not a valid source of information for Wikipedia.The truth about Iñigo Arista is almost the same about the Banu Qasi. The filiation of this historical figure is unknown (that is what Gran Enciclopedia Navarra confirms). There is no notice about his birth (date and place). The only medieval source of information about the lineage Arista states that the familiar origins of Iñigo Arista were in the French Central Pyrenees (Bigorra). But even that is not enough in order to state that Iñigo Arista was bigorran, cause this only source of information is dated two centuries later, and so the only certainty about this matter is that his origin remain unknown (as the proper Wikipedia article explains). Trying to report to different administrators or in different days (as you do each time that an administrator decline to validate your desire of imposition of unreferenced content or introduction of biased labels), or trying to undermine the credibility of a user by sprinkling accusations of being the same person (as you are doing in order to disguise your lack of reasons about the true content of the dispute or your argumentative impotence against Maragm) are just additional evidences of the questionable aims of your behaviour. Please, don´t confuse knowledgement with political opinions. There are many things in the world and many aspects of the reality that don´t match with my preferences, but I have a minimum of honesty in order to not to try to impose them on knowledgement. Think again, please. 95.20.249.28 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And, obviously, I carry on being the same IP user, now identified 95.20.249.28 and not with 188.78.134.205 because my device works with dynamic IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.249.28 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I must agree with the IP. The artice on Íñigo Arista is protected now and contains your version, again, A Basque origin, as you had erroneously claimed on the Banu Qasi. Yes, you definitely have an agenda and it is you behavor that is irregular. Now go to a checkuser to confirm if I and the IP are the same person. I guess you can't take any criticism and lash out when contradicted, accusing anybody who disagrees with being a sockpuppet or whatever. --Maragm (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
O, this is funny, so you were "over and out", and here you come again, Maragm, with personal sweeping accusations, well done for your contribution to the WP! Listen, if you are on holidays as you said, and you feel you got involved inadvertently, get a break and chill out, instead of adding fire as you are doing now. Again, you, like the IP, are not sticking to evidence but ad hominem sweeping arguments, and you are talking yourself out.
As I said, there is not talk on content, I accept whatever provided by the references (let's move on... even the "Gran" Enciclopedia, a whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque, now outgoing, sectarian government of Navarre), over. That is just a diversion of the disruptive editing, POV pushing, WP:HOUND, removal of content and references and a conspicuous do-as-I-say attitude. My work on the WP is my best support, and everything is there, so I have no worries. Sorry, I have to say, what worries me is the absence of the administrator, this is a straightforward case as regards WP guidelines and policies.
Labelling the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra as a "whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque sectarian government of Navarre" is a major evidence about that your behaviour in Wikipedia is not related with any sincere desire of adding knowledgement to this project. Take notice: The Gran Enciclopedia Navarra is a prestigious academic work published for the first time in 1990 (when the government that you label "anti-Basque" it was not even in power).95.20.246.45 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As for the IP, o, at last a speck of honesty. It is funny that you say I switch administrators, well I have not. I used once and you were temporarily blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism. In contrast, despite being an experienced WP editor if your knowledge of the WP is anything to go by, you avoid warnings and blocks behind different IPs, so that they can not be held against you, but well, now we know at least that there is master behind a number of IPs. Bye Iñaki LL (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
First, Maragm and I were "the same person". Now, behind us is an evil "master". What is the next that you are going to try in order to disguise that you are unable to explain why a problem with a catering company is corruption and to give references about the usage of those inexistent "Basque districts"??95.20.246.45 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Amazing that so much can be placed on the Enciclopedia Navarra when it makes no mention of Inigo's ethnicity! And yet, in contrast, the IP can categorically ignore sources he does not like! IF any of the sources I have posted on the Talk:Kingdom of Navarre page are "biased" then the IP needs to "put up or shut up" and take those sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard!
Also, just where is the Basque article in the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra? Link? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Useless and unsourced edits by The Sheikh001[edit]

On July 6, 2015, user @Livelikemusic: reported @The Sheikh001: for making repeated edits of unsourced info. Nothing was done because, at that point in time, LLM had been the only one to warn the other user on their talk page. That wasn't true because, although not a "warning," per se, another user named @NottNott: had certainly questioned TheSheik001's editing on the same page (Days of Our Lives cast members). I added to that conversation that TheSheikh001 is also adding odd info and then self-reverting. Since that inital report, in the last 3 weeks, TheShiekh001 has continued this bizarre behaviour with these further examples:

Is it not possible for something to be done? He or she does not listen to anything said to him or her whether by edit history or direct talk page messages. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He's currently on his last warning. If he does anything like this again, please report it here, and if it happens within the next 2 hours at AIV. --wL<speak·check> 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So, how many "last warnings" does he get 'cause LLM issued his most recent 6 days ago and then he did it again yesterday.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Given this user's persistence and a previous report to this board, their "last chance" has run out. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We may need to apply WP:ROPE here. I think one more edit like this from User:The Sheikh001 and it can be reported to WP:AIV (and the report there should include a link to this ANI topic), where a block will be very, very likely at that point. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass rollback required[edit]

You better look out below! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made some 1,000 edits within minutes, apparently using an automated tool to remove links more or less at random. I've blocked the account, but this will all need to be rolled back. Is there some automation to make this feasible?  Sandstein  19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: Ping to notify you of this thread because you've also taken notice of the matter.  Sandstein  19:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
All rolled back. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Writ Keeper has a "rollback all" script. I've applied it to these edits, but I'm not sure I got them all the way back — my computer is all exhausted and hissing at me from all the rollbacking. :-( Please check. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
YesY Looks good to me; thanks all. –xenotalk 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Cripes… Firefox opened nearly 400 tabs in a few minutes when I did that. No wonder it hissed at me. Useful script, though! Bishonen | talk 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
y'know, I bet I could fix that. Writ Keeper  20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
For interest, please note parallel discussion at NeilN's Talk page about this. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed! Writ Keeper  04:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So no WP:AGF then... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTSUICIDE. --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Orme School[edit]

Hello. Not sure this is the right forum, but don't know where else I could bring it up. I keep watch over a lot of articles having to do with Arizona, and on one of them this edit took place. If you look at the revision, you'll see that the editor appears to be associated with the school. I checked out the source (the LA Times), and it's not a dead link, so the veracity of the deleted material was readily available. I reverted and left a message, and then, since the school now appears to have dropped the "of Arizona" from their name, I moved the article's name. Not even sure this needs attention, but thought I should bring it to the attention of the admins. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no justification for removal, although it could have been worded better (which has now been done as well). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but I left a message for the IP user. I tried to explain a few basic items about Wikipedia, including the existence of talk pages, how to get consensus to remove disputed content, and how to manage of conflict of interest. It could be that the school objected to being called "infamous". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Want to thank all you folks for looking into it. Honestly, I agree with the wording changes wholeheartedly. Much better now. Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, FreeRangeFrog, and Finlay McWalter for your help. I believe that the school simply is embarrassed by that incident, and (based on the edit summary comment), are simply trying to live it down.Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
One other thing, the IP editor requested to be pointed to a venue to express their concerns about the material being included. NinjaRobotPirate suggested to the IP that they bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Which is a normal course of action. However, in this instance, this is not a real active page. Is there perhaps a better venue where they might open the discussion? Or, if they do open the discussion on the talk page, is there a way we could notify folks that the discussion is going on? Perhaps on the Arizona Project? Although that's not a particularly active project either. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: The article's talk page would be fine, although I don't see how that could possibly be removed. It's too well sourced. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think it warranted removal either, for the same reason. But based on Ninja's response on the IP's talk page I thought there might be some rationale I didn't know about for not including it. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Onel5969 TT me 03:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mean to insinuate anything by that message. The IP editor said they had reasons to object and wanted a place to explain. I pointed them toward WP:ONUS to give them a head start toward making a policy-based argument. They seem pretty lost, and I figured they could use the help. I'm not saying that I think there are reasons for it to be removed, but I'm willing to read a reasonable talk page post. Well, we can see how things go from here, but it seems more-or-less resolved for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation‎ [edit]

I call to your attention what I believe to be prima facie violations of WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ... by Xenophrenic at Talk:Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation. Examples of these WP:TE violations:

1) In response to: "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue." You have not answered the question. How do you justify you [sic.] edit?" Xenophrenic continues to not address the issue of "absurd or manifestly untrue".

2) There are a number of good-faith questions that I have asked that Xenophrenic has simply ignored; see the talk page. If you'd like I'll list them; let me know if you'd like me to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation from an uninvolved editor. I noticed that Xenophrenic responded to several issues that you raised.
  • First, if you are going to ask a question, do so. That involves an interrogatory, not a declarative sentence.
  • Second, your statements seem to be directive, as in "Justify," "hereinbelow provide," etc.
  • Third, you are not entitled to an answer.
  • Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING.
  • Finally, you may want to work on your communication style. GregJackP Boomer! 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: just above you assert "Third, you are not entitled to an answer." How do you reconcile this assertion with the Wikipedia policy described in WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ...?
Deicas (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TE is not a policy, it is an essay. You are not entitled to an answer. No one elected you wikigod, nor is there any policy that states you are entitled to an answer. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: I call to your attention, from WP:TE, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.". Note, above, "How do you justify you [sic.] edit?". How do you explain the failure of Xenophrenic to answer this question, which lies at the crux of the disputed edit, without seeing a violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?
Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: with regard to your comments above "Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING" and "No one elected you wikigod". Would you please either strike these comments out or justify your violation of your Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?
Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline. It is what someone thinks. No more, no less.
The cites you are making above are perfect examples of wikilawyering. After you requested I strike, I looked at your edit history, and since 2004 in your 450 edits, you have been repeatedly warned about wikilawyering. It's a pattern of behavior, and you are exhibiting it here, again. Please stop doing so.
In any event, you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic, nor to a further answer from me. GregJackP Boomer! 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GregJackP: With regard to your "WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline", above: in retrospect I should have cited WP:DR which *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". I have difficulty reconciling this policy with your statement above: "... you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic ..."? Would you please expand on your reasoning?
Deicas (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a routine content dispute, acerbated by: (a) a very minor edit war or slightly aggressive BRD-ing, and (b) some difficulty reconciling communications styles between Xenophrenic, who describes themselves as "shy" about talk page comments, and Deicas, who is fairly voluminous, pointed, and slightly odd in their talk page discussion style. All in good faith no doubt, each of us has our unique voice, it just looks like people need a little extra effort to try to communicate. It's only going to become a behavior issue if people make it one, otherwise that's what talk pages are for. Although perhaps a content issue there are some significant BLP and NPOV policy issues here because we have a prominent professor who claimed (falsely it appears) to be Native American and who was fired for academic misconduct, promoting or making up untrue but widely believed historical claims that American military committed acts of genocide by spreading small pox blankets among indigenous villages. The professor is still alive and still has defenders, so this topic can get quite heated. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Even the above statement can raise discussion. I'm no fan of the wannabe, but I would state that he was "promoting or making up untrue using unsupported, but widely believed historical claims. . . ." There are some others who have published along the same lines, and it is a matter of faith among the tribes (see Denzin). I don't think it is an ANI issue. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the weirdness of Wikipedia's PC policies, rule #1 about fight club history is that you can't discuss fight club history. Some person, rightly upset over historical events that could justifiably be called a genocide, starts making stuff up including that he is a descendent of the victims. Meanwhile, we editors have to tiptoe around the facts because of obscure policies that affect even our ability to discuss policy amongst ourselves. So we cannot describe people as frauds or impostors, even in the rather interesting space of — what do they call this now? — trans-racialism. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I agree with you that he is a fraud who took an honorary membership and went way too far with it. The problem is that there was genocide of the American Indian, but since that was one of his research areas, any proposal or position that he ever advocated is immediately attacked without ever going to the actual merits of the argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic has repeatedly included information in the article deriving from Guenter Lewy's writing (ie. [188]) that Lewy describes as non-creditable (coming from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets"). So I ask User:Xenophrenic why he's including information from Lewy that Lewy believes is not creditable. And I get no explanation. And I ask variations of the question. And spend more time. And I get no explanation. If I had a putative explanation for including non-creditable information then the content dispute is addressable. Absent an explanation then there is no content inclusion reason to discuss. Hence, I view this as a behavioural question. If as, Wikidemon suggests, this should be viewed as a NPOV issue then I'll happily agree.
Deicas (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Asked and answered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Another way, resolving this issue as a content dispute, would be for user:Xenophrenic to provide a citation to Stiffarm and Lane for the claim that Lewy finds so objectionable. Then the portion of the article under dispute would look something like: "Stiffarm and Lane assert X [citation to Stiffarm and Lane]. Lewy views X as not plausible because ... [citation to Lewy]".
Deicas (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's content, not behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is content, not behavior, but it may be a way to end the current dispute. Isn't that what we're striving for?
Deicas (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic just removed a portion of text with citations [[189]] providing as the reason for the removal "(continued removal of Lewy assertion pending Talk resolution, as half of it was left in the article.)". The issue in dispute on the talk page is one, of multiple, uses of one of the deleted citations? How is this not disruptive editing? Deicas (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone *please* persuade User:Xenophrenic to stop his disruptive editing? Please?
Deicas (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in a proposal that, if accepted, would resolve the behavior issue, close this AN/I, and roll the dispute back to a content dispute?

Deicas (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Flooding of consensus talks with lengthy posts about an editor rather than edits[edit]

Issue has been resolved by hatting the tangential discussion(s) on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi all! I'm having an issue with @Flyer22: over at the Talk:Todd Manning page. A consensus talk was attempted to be started but, instead, Flyer22 has filled it with overly lengthy complaining about me. I've asked her multiple times to stay on topic but, every response is another lengthy one about me personally, not my edits. I know moving the conversation is a violation of talk page guidelines but, so is adding overly lengthy posts because "it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner." Is it possible to have an exception so I can move the relevant parts of the discussion somewhere else or, at the very least, get the mundane and lengthy posts about myself removed please? At this point, I can't see anyone wanting to join the mess that conversation has become. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should mention the specific conversation is this one so nobody has to go searching through the entire page. Sorry about that.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone wanting to know why Cebr1979 and I should not interact can look at this section from my talk page. And this comment by another editor that he removed from his talk page sums things up as well. As for his report of me here at WP:ANI (after I made it clear to him that I would bring him to WP:ANI if he fiddled with the talk page in a way that required administrative attention), this and this are my responses. His characterization of how things have played out is inaccurate. He stated "Flyer22 has filled it with overly lengthy complaining about me." That is not entirely true, and his definition of lengthy does not match mine. He acts likes I have gone completely off-topic. That is false; everything I have stated in that discussion has been directly relevant or indirectly relevant. He says "I've asked her multiple times to stay on topic." That is false, depending on your definition of "multiple."
My thing is this: Cebr1979 is a highly disruptive editor. And I do mean highly disruptive. He recently picked a fight with me at the Cougar (slang) article and was blocked for it. He saw posts on my talk page about the Todd Manning article. Saw me editing the Todd Manning article in preparation for a WP:Featured article review, and decided to edit it in a way that he knew I was likely to disagree with. He waited until it was nearly time for the WP:Featured article review. If an article is edited by an editor you have trouble getting along with, is it wise to then go to that article and make likely contentious changes to it? No (often "no" anyway). On that talk page, I briefly mentioned Cebr1979's disruptive behavior toward me, and in general, to explain why I never want to discuss a thing with him, and I noted that he is the one who changed the format of a different article in a WP:Inuniverse way; that is the extent of my "complaining about" Cebr1979 in that discussion. Many at WP:Soaps know just how unpleasant and unreasonable he can be; so that he is trying to blame me for others not weighing in on the discussion gets an eyebrow raise from me. It's not just a WP:Too long; didn't read issue, if one at all. That stated, at that talk page, I have no problem refraining from commenting on his problematic editing as long as I see no more problematic editing from him at that article. That is the main soap opera article that I edit, and I was dreading him showing up at it, given his hostile nature and our tempestuous past (his past with me). Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the behavioral complaints here, only on the conflict over content: on that, I agree with Flyer22 and the other editor over at Talk:Todd Manning – while Trevor St. John was later "retconned" to be someone else (and many of us watching OLTL at the time suspected this would eventually be the result), he was originally cast as Todd Manning, and was treated at such in reliable sources (for years, IIRC). As such, St. John's portrayal should definitely be included at the article (as long as the later details and revelations regarding St. John's character(s) are properly explained in the article, which I'm not sure they are currently...). And, from what I saw at the Talk page, I can't say that Flyer22 was throwing overly lengthy "walls of text" up either. Beyond that, on the behavioral complaints here... well, that's above my pay grade. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The retcon is explained in the Casting and portrayals section, in what I consider a proper way. And, of course, it's noted in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that it was in the 'General' subsection, rather than the 'St. John' subsection. My bad. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22, so your response to a complaint that you write excessively long diatribes attacking other editors is to write an excessively long diatribe attacking the person who reported you? The discussion has gotten long past useful. The point is you all disagree on whether the actor played the soap character or not based on an old discussion from almost four years ago. I'm going to close your section and start a simple RFC on the matter. I expect it to be similarly chaotic because nobody there seems to have heard of the idea of using a source to prove their point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: You get it. Exactly. Thank you! But, I've chosen to move on anyhow. Having conversations like this get archived always ends up proving useful in the future. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I've have enough for one day. I suggest you close that discussion, organize a simple RFC (including St. John/don't include St. John), I don't know what you people are arguing about and keep it under the line of what are the soap opera policies regarding reconned characters (include the actors but footnote? I don't care). It seems like everyone agrees on the factual issues: namely the actor played the character but that characterization was reconned away (?) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ricky81682, I wasn't going to respond to your post, but, clearly, I've changed my mind and will respond now: This is WP:ANI, where editors' behaviors, past and present, positive or negative, are addressed. This "attacking" happens all over WP:ANI. Cebr1979 asserted some things about me above; I challenged them. For example, one or two medium-sized paragraphs is not overly lengthy or excessively long, in my opinion, since my attention span handles such length well; and I certainly didn't spend an excessively long time talking about Cebr1979 at that talk page. I did, however, waste much time talking to him at that talk page. Above, I also noted my history with him and explained my feelings on that. It might be the case in the future that we need a WP:Interaction ban. And considering that I rarely edit soap opera articles these days (I'm more of a sexology, medical and anatomy editor), while Cebr1979 commonly edits soap opera articles, that WP:Interaction ban should be simpler than most WP:Interaction bans at this site. Here in this section, both of our behaviors' are under scrutiny, as is expected to be the case with WP:ANI, and I don't mind it. Do I like bickering? No, especially over matters that I consider trivial and/or common sense. And, as you likely saw, I WP:Hatted the bickering at the Todd Manning talk page hours ago. I am done discussing that casting matter with Cebr1979. I will wait and see if others have anything to state on the matter; but, like you stated, people have agreed with me thus far that Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning. Flyer22 (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we're done but I just want to say you'd do better with a short, concise summary including diffs rather than long responsive attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I commonly categorize an editor's behavior as problematic when it is, especially at WP:ANI where it is more than appropriate to do so. If that is considered an attack, then it is one I will not apologize for. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And there are WP:Diffs in my "05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)" post, including one directly pointing to the fact that he wipes incriminating posts (posts documenting his problematic behavior) from his talk page. But I will keep in mind your suggestion to be more concise and less attack-laden when documenting an editor's problematic behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • With the hatting, I think this is resolved. It seems to have simply been a thing that got out of hand or off-track and the hatting has resolved it. Suggest we close this thread while everything is on an even keel. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Underage editor[edit]

Not up on current best practice regarding self identified very young editors. Posting here for advice / attention.
User talk:Brodie Flynn
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no lower age limit for editors, but anyone under about 15 is probably going to fail to meet the WP:COMPETENCE level required. I wouldn't let my kids (the eldest of whom is around that age) edit Wikipedia, but they're more interested in Minecraft anyway so it's a moot point. If they leak any personal information, get it oversighted and if they do it twice, indef them. It's for their own good and if they come back under a different account 7 years later when they've passed puberty, nobody will notice. I've dropped them a note advising them to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors - pretty important stuff for them and their parents. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The user name is possibly the kid's real name, which I guess counts as personal information.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dblama[edit]

This user originally came to my attention over at Wikimedia Commons after numerous copyright violations and sockpuppeteering. (The user is also using the accounts Durlavkt7, JasonStack43, PurNep – falsely claimed to have pending change reviewer privileges, SadiU7 and Snubssulky here on English Wikipedia.) I noticed that he falsely claimed to be an administrator and a bureaucrat (in addition to overstating his experience here by eight years) on his user page. When the message from User:220 of Borg about this went unanswered for three months, I decided to remove the false claims myself. The response was to replace my user talk page with "FUCK YOU LX!" and another fuck you on his own. I'd appreciate if an actual administrator could educate User:Dblama on appropriate ways of addressing other volunteers. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Boy, between the fraudulent Admin/Bureaucrat claims, and the personal attack/violation of WP:TPO, I'm wondering if a block is in order here... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @LX: it looks like you forgot to notify Dblama about this discussion (see instructions at the top of this ANI page for details) – I have gone ahead and notified Dblama for you. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see now that you did, just not with a {{ANI-notice}} template. Sorry! - My bad! --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Thank you for bringing this up here. I should have followed it up myself. Indeed, that rude response is uncalled for. In addition to comments above, Dblama seems to be a bit of a SPA as a large proportion of their edits are to create/edit pages relating to a particular Nepalese family. Their move log may need reviewing too when the move rationale, which I mentioned to them on their talk page here back in April, includes "To make it easier for Nepalese national to find the page". 220 of Borg 02:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This guy is clearly not interested in encyclopedia work. I suggest an indef here (if he hasn't been blocked by the time I make this post) for both the master and the socks, with the socks having talk page access revoked if a Checkuser comes up Likely or better. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, as it was archived without any action or resolution. Did I do something wrong when filing this that would cause it to be dismissed without as much as a comment from an administrator? Are socking, falsely claiming to be an administrator, and making personal attacks not considered problems on English Wikipedia these days? Should I not have brought it up, or is this the wrong place to do so? If so, please tell me, don't just ignore me. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So... First impression is that we should have acted then, probably an impersonation block. But they did not reinstate the impersonating claims. Nor did they repeat personal attacks.
Generally with older non current issues we let them lie. Admin intervention is intended to be preventive not punitive. Not sure what we would prevent now.
You were correct in reporting here originally.
I think continuing to watch for future misbehavior is all we should do now.
Other admins may have different opinions.
166.177.249.163 (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You may this report more complicated than necessary. You're throwing in other names based on what happened at Commons, red links, blue links, no idea if I'm reviewing five people or one or if there's sockpuppetry here or what's going on. Also the diff format isn't obious to me at a immediate glance but that's just me being lazy I'm sure. There's too many people who claim that person X did this and now to check if you're correct, I see a page of edits from them which seem decent but editing goes back to November 2013. Don't just point to edit histories and move logs and expect everyone else to jump through hoops to figure out the issue. The editor copied a userpage with a bunch of lies, they were removed, terrible but normal. I see massive civility issues from weeks ago and someone who never talks so that's two bad strikes. There's a move log. Ok, are the moves being reverted? Are they problematic? I see a lot of images being posted. Are they still problems like at commons? Is there something recent or do they just need a civility warning about their antics from weeks ago? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the attempt to explain what I should have done differently here, but frankly, I'm even more puzzled now. I didn't just point to edit histories, I provided specific diffs that look just like any other Mediawiki diffs – no hoops to jump through. I'm not familiar enough with practices here to say what the outcome of replacing another user's user page with FUCK YOU should be, but I thought it was obvious that this type of behaviour was not acceptable on any Wikimedia project, and with the comments from other users, I'm surprised the result was to do nothing. LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@LX: The simplest way to resolve the socking bit would be to file an SPI. I'll try to go through the move log soon to figure out what's going on. —SpacemanSpiff 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll look into that process, but again, my main wish here was simply for a basic level of civility to be maintained. I have no reason to expect a more civilised response if I need to interact with this user again, because the signal that's being sent from English Wikipedia's administrators is that this type of behaviour has zero consequence – not even the gentlest warning (unless you count my own pointer to this discussion, which was blanked out without response). LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • LX I need to sleep but I'd suggest making a report at WP:SPI regarding the socks (just list the accounts from Commons for now) and from there, I suspect someone will block him. To simplify, a user who had a history of sockpuppetry at Commons is clearly using the same puppet accounts here. The user had a copyrighted images problem, has two uploads here but is now inserting a number of images here all from Commons from different accounts there (more socking? I don't know). User has a terrible name-calling habit when called out on it and never communicates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dblama. LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've got the SPI watchlisted, I've left a final warning stating that any further problems will most likely be met with blocks.—SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Spaghetti07205[edit]

This is very obviously not a new user, and has pitched into a number of disputes such as over an infobox on Rod Steiger. The WP:DUCK is quacking, but does anyone know the duck man is? Guy (Help!) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Might this be associated with the above discussion on the same talk page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Could possibly just be coincidental -- he was only involved in the Steiger infobox RfC because he had added an infobox to the article earlier that day [190] (which was in fact different from the infobox which had been there before and had been removed [191]). Although, honestly, why he would create an infobox for Steiger out of the blue is a bit odd; but he could have seen the discussion and decided to make a better one. What other disputes are you seeing that he has been in? Softlavender (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a surprising overlap on some fairly obscure articles previously edited by User:Eric Corbett: [192]. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this account is related to Eric, but it may be an editor who has had some prior interaction with him. Yunshui  15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The last blocked out editor that had overlap with him was a sock of User:Mattisse (User:EChastain). That is one place I would start to look. Dennis Brown - 15:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a case of stalking after EC's edits. Those are really obscure articles! I share some interests with Eric, and I've never been to any of them. Definitely someone with a history. This is an interesting edit summary: [193] - I wonder who the "we" - which they immediately deny - [194] is supposed to be... ScrpIronIV 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In case it needs to be said then I'll say it: Spaghetti07205 has absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on Spaghetti07205 this morning. The account is one month old and yet they know an awful lot about the infobox dispute. I don't like the sound of this one bit... JAGUAR  16:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the "we" is clearly Lukeno94 [195] [196], who already has a (now closed) ANI running right now [197] (can someone make that a permalink for when it gets archived)?. This Spaghetti character and his similars have an awful lot going on at ANI right now (these in addition to the preceding: [198], [199] [please make these permalinks]), and perhaps all of them are related and trolling. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note -- In light of the above, I would now render the Rod Steiger RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. The current RfC should be shut down immediately. Would someone facilitate that please? CassiantoTalk 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Response – the "we" was a typo, as I noted in my edit summary, I meant to say "I". Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because the key "I" is so close to the two(!) keys "WE" on the keyboard. Funny how you also know about dummy edits after only five weeks and 250 edits. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's an impossible typo. More like a Freudian slip.--Atlan (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Socking paid editors removing G4 tag[edit]

Can someone please review Dawnn Karen? I think it is similar enough to this version deleted at AFD to qualify for G4 but the tag keeps on getting removed. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleted as a repost under category g4. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest someone with the time take a look at Arun Pudur also created by this user. AniMate 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which promotional sockmaster they belong to (the IP ranges used are highly dynamic), but Moonlight78644 (talk · contribs), Nocompromise6 (talk · contribs) and Nocompromise61 (talk · contribs) (deleted edits only) are all  Confirmed socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Has an SPI been opened about this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Well, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32 is a related SPI case. But there's been some confusion there, so I'm being careful how I word this! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Pudist and conspiracy theories [Needs Admin Attention][edit]

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

Users edits in just the past two months include:

User has some other edits demonstrating potential usefulness elsewhere, but their edits relating to conspiracy theories run in the complete opposite direction of WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I would have taken this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard which generally deals with the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, but since it's here I will ping that board. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You do realize you cannot ping a board here? not unless you post a message there about x subject. Otherwise, pinging boards does not work. Pinging serves for pinging users only. Callmemirela {Talk} 02:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I do realize that. I was using the term in the more general sense, meaning to alert. Which I did in fact do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE block. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure. This editor has been around for a while and some of their older work doesn't look especially controversial. But after a long break they are suddenly on a fringe conspiracy theories kick and definitely engaging in disruptive behavior. Perhaps a broad topic ban including any conspiracy related topics might be in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban relating to conspiracy theories was what I was thinking as well. Perhaps something along the lines of "anything that List of conspiracy theories discusses and any pages in Category:Conspiracy_theories or its subcategories," just to prevent any possibility of the claim "I didn't know that was a conspiracy theory." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of this editor yet. Sometimes it takes new people time to get the hang of working with others. Incidentally, the rant was copied from the blog of James H. Fetzer. - Location (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He's been around since 2006. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He/she averages around 10 to 12 edits a year. Perhaps "inexperienced" would have been a better way to describe him/her. - Location (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have blocked this user as they have blatantly violated WP:NPOV in spite of a final warning, but would recommend we impose a topic ban to prevent this disruption over the long term. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban broadly covering any conspiracy related subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - Why I posted, why he's blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban and warn that NPOV is essential. Any editor who considers James H. Fetzer's blog to be a reliable source cannot be trusted to edit such articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban as proposed. We've been here enough times by now to know that this kind of editor's behaviour is unfixable. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Time to close this? There appears to be a consensus favoring a broadly construed topic ban covering all conspiracy related topics and articles. Could an available admin please close this? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bumped from archives. We can extend this discussion as long as necessary but there's clearly an uncontroversial, unanimous consensus with no objections raised, it would be great if an uninvolved admin could do the formality of closing this for archiving purposes and notify the editor of the Category:Conspiracy theories topic ban. Swarm we ♥ our hive 03:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This user has been sufficiently warned, but has only been blocked once regarding the concerns mentioned here. I feel that we're jumping towards a ban too soon. Yes, I absolutely agree that this user's edits are disruptive, but I don't see any edits to articles related to conspiracies before his first block on July 1st. I believe that we should wait and see if he has learned from this most recent block. If it is clear that he hasn't, then I support the topic ban. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rajkamal Rana breaking things[edit]

Rajkamal Rana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wp:competence problem. Breaking articles, not learning from mistakes.

This user's edits are not contributing to building an encyclopedia. He needs lots of training. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 07:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Seems to fail WP:CIR and (given this edit adding a school timetable) a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia actually is (or rather, isn't). Kleuske (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with jim1138; this editor needs some guidance and training. He has been sufficiently warned, and has continued editing in the same manner despite them. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention needed[edit]

This was archived unresolved.valereee (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncollaborative behaviour by SportsEditor518 (and related IPs)[edit]

I have been engaged in a dispute with User:SportsEditor518 (his talk page) (and various IPs of the same editor, including Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F andSpecial:Contributions/2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F) on the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It has been mainly a content dispute, with the two of us having different views on the popularity of the concept in the state of Victoria. My version states that interstate football was not popular in Victoria; his version states that it is. I'm not here to dispute the content; I'm here to report disruptive/obstinate behaviour by SportsEditor518 which is precluding any conclusion.

The dispute played out through moderated dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football. This dispute resolution ground to a halt when SportsEditor518 simply stopped responding at the dispute page; but he is still monitoring the page in question, reverting any efforts to remove his unreferenced views, and making no efforts to engage in discussion proactively. There is an ongoing pattern of uncollaborative behaviour which, while it mostly seems well-intentioned, is proving disruptive; and therefore I am at a loss to understand where to go next other than to report SportsEditor518 (and his IPs) for edit warring, and also more generally on competence is required grounds. Specifically:

  • He has continued to push his POV in the article that interstate football was very popular in Victoria, without providing any supporting references. The attempts at sourcing that he has provided have either a WP:SYNTH based on his interpretation of crowd numbers, or extremely generic references which don't really support the point (examples: [200] [201]) The dispute resolution volunteer moderator and I have both tried to explain the shortcomings of his references to him, and to educate him on the policies, but he has proven unable or unwilling to accept them. (You can see in this diff [202] that he still has a steadfast belief in the admissibility of his own synthesised conclusion).
  • During the dispute resolution process, he went for two long unexplained absences which led to the volunteer moderator and I concluding he had lost interest in the dispute – only for him to re-emerge and begin reverting me or adding the disputed content again within a day of my making the edits to the article. (These diffs are the sudden re-emergences after long absences: [203] [204] – the timestamps make sense in the context of the dispute resolution page highlighted above) He has never given an explanation or apology for or even an acknowledgement of his absences. In the more recent case, he simply reverted the content and made no other attempt to continue discussion on the matter despite being fully aware that I disputed the content. This most recent response to my talk page [205] is particularly insulting, and suggests he may be trying to game the system by claiming the dispute is unresolved when it was his own recalcitrance that led to the lack of resolution.
  • He seems to have, and be unaware of, his own biases on the subject. He's shown on a couple of occasions ([206] [207]) that he views supporting interstate football as an inherently positive act, and therefore that my suggesting Victoria did not support interstate football is somehow an attack on Victoria's character – rather than simply a description of the state's tastes and preferences. It's clouding his judgement to view the references objectively.
  • Finally, he is unaware of his own shortcomings as a writer. On a couple of occasions I have made purely style- and grammar-based edits without removing his content ([208] [209]], only to have them reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "mine says it better" (which I think the diffs clearly demonstrate is not true). I did raise this issue with him, but it was not well received [210]. Once again, I think WP:CIR is relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talkcontribs) 10:16, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)
comment I was the DRN volunteer for this dispute. The dispute started out with both parties appearing to be willing to discuss and find compromise. Unfortunately SportsEditor518 did fail to return to the discussion for a long period on two occasions. The first time, after a week's silence, we closed the discussion, believing their absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that they had decided not to dispute the issue further, and Aspirex began editing on the disputed section again. SportsEditor518 immediately started editing the section, so we pulled the discussion from the archives and reopened it. SportsEditor518 returned briefly to the discussion, promising to respond the following day, and we waited this time nearly two weeks but they never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. I have to agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having watched this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard as User:Valereee tried to mediate it, I have to agree with the OP and the moderator, at least if the IPs are SportsEditor518. If the IPs are SportsEditor518, then we have a pattern of attempting to provide synthesis amounting to original research, and of using dispute resolution to stall rather than to collaborate. SportsEditor518 replied and discussed briefly, then went into radio silence, then became active again, and then went into radio silence again. This is an intermittently tendentious editor who is disrupting the dispute resolution process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on SportsEditor518 from Football[edit]

A topic-ban on SportsEditor518 is recommended from articles on Australian rules football. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proponent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that's overkill. As far as I know, he hasn't caused any problems other places, just one section of one article, one particular tiny point that he feels extremely passionate about, possibly to the point it's almost a COI for him. He's a new user, and he found an assertion that he violently disagrees with on an emotional level. He just needs to stop editing that one article until he learns more about Wikipedia. If he's topic banned from Australian rules football, you might as well just block him, I think it's all he edits at this point. valereee (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am willing to strike my recommendation on two conditions. They need to agree, first, to take part in collaborative discussion of editing, rather than pushing changes through, and, second, to edit only from their account and not from IPs. The problem at this point is that SportsEditor518 hasn't recognized that their editing behavior is problematic and that they should follow Wikipedia practices and guidelines. (The two disappearances are also problematic, but a rule that forbids editors from going off-line and coming back is not reasonable.) At this point we are waiting for a response from User:SportsEditor518. If they agree to improve their editing behavior, I will strike my recommendation. If not, not, because another period of silence is not agreement to stop the intermittent disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Alternate proposal Again, he's new -- at least to using a user name -- and one of the issues we had was that he doesn't edit every day or even every week. He hasn't edited logged in since July 11, so he possibly hasn't seen the messages to his username. He needs to be pinged at both 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F; I've also put the notice on both those pages. What I would support would be putting a block on both IPs, which would force him to log in and see that he has messages. valereee (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football[edit]

Okay, the 4406 IP edited today. I think we can assume this user is ignoring us. I suggest a block on both IPs, an article ban for SportsEditor518 on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and that Aspirex resume editing that article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This was archived, wasn't resolved. Needs admin attention, please[edit]

Can I get some admin attention? valereee (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and Aspirex, I'd like to formally close this discussion so we can ask an admin to implement...do you support the block on the IPs 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F and the article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football? I am headed out of town with extremely limited access tomorrow, likely won't be in here until Aug9, and I'd like to get closure on this before I go to prevent it being archived unresolved again. valereee (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It appears that neither the named account nor the IPs have edited recently. The IPs are likely to be reassigned anyway. I don't see the urgency for getting this closed out. Yes, it is true that it is likely to be archived by the bot again. A new report can be made if the disruptive editing resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon The IP edited on the 26th. Apirex reverted today, so if the other user conforms to past behavior, they will revert soon. If we can get the IPs blocked before they do, we might finally get their attention. You're right, no deadlines, but this has been going on for months now and I'd kind of like to feel like there's SOME progress being made. This has been talked to death on a half dozen pages now, I've spent hours on it, and we are really no further forward. I am feeling a little frustrated. valereee (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Can the article be semi-protected? If so, if the IPs are User:SportsEditor518 editing logged out, it will either stop the edit-warring or force him to log in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done semi-protected one month. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! That represents definite progress for this issue! valereee (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realised I was meant to comment further; but yes, I think that would be a sensible approach. Aspirex (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on BLPs[edit]

124.188.8.78 (talk · contribs · .html#whois WHOIS)
124.188.8.78 has a long history of disruptive editing. Most recently copyright violations.

[211] copied from [212]
[213] copied from [214]
[215] copied from [216]

Their most recent warning [217] was on 22 July 2015. That was for edits like [218], [219] removing sources without explaination.
Other copyright problems

[220] copyvio from [221]
[222] copyvio from [223]
[224] copyvio from [225]
[226] copyvio from [227] ([228] from an old version [229]

Older removal of sources

[230], [231], [232]

Other stuff

Bad headings, eg [233], It's not his early life, it's his current career, most recently this month. Similarily [234] his debut is not his early life, it's his current career.

Disruptive problematic editing that needs fixing by others. Counterproductive to the project. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See section #An anon on a date-changing kick above, from 3 days ago if that is the IP referred to, but in fact the warning on 22 July referred to in Duffbeerforme's message seems to be to a different user, & most (if not all) of the other diffs seen to refer to 124.188.8.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not to 178.174.253.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I think we need clarification. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops, fixed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have given a final warning for the copy vio and will watch. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Another final warning!!!! Yay!!!!! Lets keep those final warnings coming!!!!! duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)!!!!!!
He hadn't so far been warned about copyright violations at all, so a warning is the appropriate course of action in my opinion. --Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Бучач-Львів[edit]

I tried to explain the user that WP:MOS disfavors sandwitching text between images and the infobox. They have chosen to edit-war in Zhovkva (a town in Ukraine). Normally, I would just go to WP:3RRN, however, they also went to my talk page and left a message in Russian [235] saying that since I am Russian (which they apparently infer from my mothertongue), I may not edit articles about Ukraine and should go editing articles on Russia and Putin. I believe this requires some administrative intervention. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Subsequently, they accused me in vandalism [236]. They are writing in Russian, possibly to avoid scrutiny. I respond them in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Ymblanter said absolutely horrible about my editing. I think, it was some tactless on his part. What were temples remove photos from the article? Sorry for bad English. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I can speak Russian well.
to Ymblanter, Iryna Harpy I'm not accusing Ymblanter of vandalism. I said it looks like vandalism. but he have perverted their way to my phrase.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I said that the layout of the article after your edits looks horrible. I removed the pictures per WP:MOS, and this is the third time I am trying to explain this to you. If you do not speak English, may be you should not be editing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you two can agree to display the four non-infobox images in a gallery rather than deleting some of them or forcing some of them into a position that produces an awkward "river" of text. Discussion on the talk page seems called for here. Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the user has consistently demonstrated problematic behavior and inability to comply with our policies. You may want to check their talk page. Additionally, their command of English seems to be insufficient, they clearly do not understand the messages. And, for the record, I started a talk page discussion before coming here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
to Ymblanter You said absolutely horrible [237]. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you actually speak enough English to understand my comment? Do you understand what I said?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the user does, Ymblanter. The editor has a history POV-pushing on Eastern Europe related articles, but doesn't seem to understand policies and guidelines when they're pointed out to him/her. Even if we are to assume good faith, their command of English is too poor to meet with the WP:COMPENTENCE needed to contribute productively hence, unfortunately, their presence here has become WP:DE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly my impression. I refer to WP:MOS, and suddenly they say I should keep clear of the Ukrainian articles because of my bias. It is not even an overreaction, it is a clear lack of understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
to Ymblanter exactly, clear lack of understanding (100%). It is not my first conflict with you. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't we have WP:EMBASSY to facilitate communication in such cases?
  • Getting back to the original complaint, this seems like an uncollegial nationalist (pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian) who is editing English-Wikipedia incompetently and behaving uncivilly. I favor a block. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
to Carrite Ymblanter tells some lies, I believe, if he hasn't the right to edit articles about Ukraine. Of course, he has every right to do so. But since this article is about the Ukrainian town Zhovkva, this theme known me better than him. I think, his actions in the article, when he removed the photo of the Ukrainian church and the Rome church, were not constructive. Regarding my uncollegial nationalism - you are mistaken. But I am Ukrainian, and might know something about my country some more than the citizens of other countries.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What about: Жолква - это Россия? Город основан украинским поляком. Пожайлуйста [sic.], займитесь Россией, Путиным. Бальшое спасиба [sic.]. ? This is akin to an Austrian telling a German Wikipedian to stop editing about an Austrian village and to go back to writing about Germany and Hitler. That needs an apology, for starters. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Russian Пожалуйста transated like please in English. I only expressed a request to Ymblanter because he speaks Russian, better complements the article about Russia or president Putin, instead he had removed photos of churches from the article about Ukrainian town. Am I charged him? I thank him for his contribution and I am glad its constructive contribution to the Articles about Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Бучач-Львів: Please do not try to play other editors for fools. There are plenty of us who know Russian (and some of us actually know and speak Ukrainian far better than Russian). Fobbing off the remainder of your missive by pointing out your use of 'please' in the context (where it is far more likely to be read as, and intended to mean, [I'll thank you not to]) is intentionally misleading as there is nothing polite about the remainder of the message: read as a whole, it in absolutely and undeniably WP:UNCIVIL.
Furthermore, it is indicative of the WP:PERSONAL attitude you adopted virtually from the moment you began editing English language Wikipedia. Aside from the derisive manner in which you've approached Ymblanter, should I bring your Ukrainian language 'discussion' with Ezhiki to this forum and translate it precisely (that is, with the nuances thoroughly parsed) for non-Ukrainian speakers? Your attitude is arrogant and harsh towards anyone you even suspect of being Russian, and all you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that you are an unabashed bigot. Nonetheless, you persist in depicting yourself as being good faith and are unable to bring yourself to even apologise for your behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: sorry that you think that I want someone to deceive. I currently difficult to prove to you my opinion, because it is the opposite of what you still want to keep. Thank you. Sorry for my mistakes. But what you say if I initially changes in enwiki am constantly WP:PERSONAL attitude - that did not quite true. Sorry for google transl.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Бучач-Львів: What it comes down to is the fact that you aren't assuming good faith about other long term, regular editors (in this case, we're talking about two administrators who have always been NPOV about the most contentious issues surrounding Eastern European articles). Rather than trying to WP:LISTEN, you are working on the assumption that they are POV pushers and telling them that they have no right to work on articles because they're Russian (or, in this case, you're assuming that they're Russian). They have tried to explain the policy and guideline based reasons for reverting your changes and/or modifying the content you've introduced. Interacting with other editors on a seriously misjudged assumption that they are automatically the 'enemy' because of your perception of ethnic prejudice undermines the entire project. Such an attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND. No two editors are always going to agree on everything. Approaching any subject matter on preconceptions as to who they are and assuming an agenda is unacceptable. Any apologies should be offered to them, not to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: Please refrain from adding Kyiv in any Kiev-related article by citing this letter before we reach any consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13[edit]

So I was just removing the {{blocked user}} tag from this user's page because their block expired. Then they started warring about it ridiculously, so I had to warn the user with {{uw-ew}}. The user then removed my message and pointed to WP:DENY in their edit summary (see this diff), then banned me from their talk page and decided that any of my edits to their talk page and user page would be vandalism (as shown on this diff, this diff, this diff and this diff). This, of course, violates WP:NOTVAND and can be considered harassment. And because I'm banned from their talk page, I can't notify them. --TL22 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification is required, and you can not be banned from placing required notifications on a user's page. ScrpIronIV 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know. I notified them on their talk page, that should do the thing. --TL22 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Gonna be honest, the blocked tag seems like a ridiculous thing for either of you to be edit-warring about. It doesn't seem to be putting them into any categories, and technically it's not even inaccurate (they have been blocked for 24 hours in the past), so it's not really doing much harm. In an ideal world, yes, it shouldn't be on their user page, but this isn't an ideal world; if they want to keep the template as some sort of red badge of courage or whatever, well, more power to them. The vandalism thing is also uncouth, but is it really that important? I certainly wouldn't call it harassment; such bans are customarily respected by the community, and though it's not vandalism to disregard them, the distinction is largely academic since you shouldn't be posting there anyway. I'm not seeing that any action needs to be taken here. Writ Keeper  16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
ToonLucas22 Why the heck are you editing someone else's user page? That just seems like baiting them. And then coming here to report them for edit warring on their own user page? valereee (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • TL22, you were the one who reported the user for edit warring, got them blocked and went on to add {{blocked user|time=24 hours} to their userpage. Surely you can understand why the user does not want you meddling again, especially since you did not even bother to remove the so called block notice(which you shouldn't have put there in the first place) even after the block expired. Please disengage. - NQ (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Apply a fish slap to TL22 for this foolishness. Placing a blocked template on a user's userpage after they got them blocked for edit warring is baiting (no pun intended). Subsequent edit warring with that same user over the template is just downright ridiculous. Apply a whole basket of said fish. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Attention requested on Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais regarding the edits of User:Sakimonk[edit]

Sakimonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is removing properly sourced and cited information from Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), especially sources which directly relate to the subject's notability in the English-speaking world, and is substituting both original research and completely off-topic material. I reverted and explained my concerns on his talk page. I also explained my concerns as to why I believe his edits were against policy on the articles' talk page. This cycle happened a second time (Sakimonk reversion, my restoration) at which point I realized we getting into an edit war. As Sakimonk is not a frequent editor, I reminded him about edit warring and asked him to follow up on the talk page. At which point Sakimonk reverted yet again and then accused me of anti-semitism and racism. I will not rerevert and propogate the edit war; that is not constructive for the project. However, I firmly believe Sakimonk's edits are improper from NPOV, NOR, and content perspectives, that the article should be restored to the way it was prior to his edits, and that he should contribute to the project gainfully and in accord with our policies and guidelines, and not with what appears to be a POV-pushing, hagiographic, and ad hominem based approach. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted them and commented at the talk page. If they continue, I am going to block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll try and get sources later on. Sakimonk talk 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
While new reliable and verifiable sourced which enhance the article are always welcome, new sources will still not permit removing information for which there already exists reliable and verifiable sources that directly relate to the subject's notability. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding unsourced data - numerous warnings[edit]

Zhayden123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues to add unsourced data to articles, despite warnings from two separate editors (three including me). I saw a level 4 warning on Zhayden123's talk page and came here. On July 15, 2014, User:Jetstreamer reported this editor to ANI here, and then withdrew it here. There was extensive discussion on Jetstreamer's talk page, including a section where Zhayden123 said "if I was caught in any wrong-doing, I would like to sincerely apologize for my mistakes." Today, Ernest A. Love Field appeared on my watchlist, and there were two unsourced edits (the most aggravating kind, some numbers randomly changed), and the editor was Zhayden123. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Unlock Cher Lloyd article[edit]

Not an issue for this board, please make an edit request on the talk page of the article in question. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 01:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I need to edit Cher Lloyd's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by JENTINA2015 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to request any edits on the article's talk page. Nakon 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Uvik and Kazakhstani to Kazakh category & page moves[edit]

All reverted, user was advised to seek consensus first.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Uvik has moved dozens of categories (and some pages) from Kazakhstani foo to Kazakh foo. From my brief discussion I believe they've been done in good faith. I think something like this should go through a WP:RM or WP:RFC process. Our article for Kazakhstan has the demonym to be Kazakhstani, and not Kazakh. Therefore I believe with something of this nature that the categories/pages are moved back until a consensus is reached. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh is certainly not appropriate, it is about ethnicity. Everything about citizens of Kazakhstan is Kazakhstani.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ymblanter. It's not my area of expertize, but moving categories/pages with a long-standing naming structure seemed wrong. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
They worked very hard today, help is needed in reverting all of this back.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Bangalore[edit]

The requested move at Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 27 July 2015 has become ludicrous as the result of obvious meat-puppetry. I recommend it be closed in an attempt to forestall further silliness. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorted by FPaS, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD[edit]

HughD for violation of guidelines on publicizing a RfC, namely [and excessive cross-posting] and vote stacking. HughD opened a RfC to insert information into the article Americans for Prosperity.[[238]] This RfC was opened on July 9th and notifications were place in the following locations:

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[239]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[[240]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[241]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[242]]

The initial posting may be WP:VOTESTACK because it was not posted to all the categories associated with the article and did include a category that would likely be inclined to support HughD's POV on the topic. The RfC should have also been posted in WikiProject Conservatism (a category listed with the article). The inclusion of Political activities of the Koch brothers may be seen as trying to stack the deck. HughD did not correct the failure to post the Project Conservatism noticeboard even after being warned.[[243]] - Note, warning dated July 27th

Later that day HughD added the following additional RfC notifications:

  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[244]]
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[245]]
  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[246]]

Seven RfC (eight including a notice on the RfC noticeboard) seems more than sufficient.

As of July 17th HughD's proposal did not have a clear consensus for inclusion. Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times. This includes adding new information which could be seen as biasing as well as targeting talk pages or noticeboards which he feels may be sympathetic to his POV while avoiding pages/boards that would likely oppose his view.

Postings at new locations:

  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[247]]

Bumps to original postings:

  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[248]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[249]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[250]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[251]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[252]]


New postings at locations of previous postings:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[253]]
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (second new post) [[254]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[255]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[256]]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (Original post was July 16th, 8 days prior) [[257]]
  • Talk:Citizens United v. FEC (This is a location that may find a sympathetic ear to HughD's POV thus is probably canvasing in addition to cross posting and spamming) [[258]]


Bumps after being warned of excessive posting/canvasing (Bumps/posts on July 30th or later)

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[259]]
  • Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[260]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[261]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[262]]
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[263]]
  • Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[264]]
  • Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [[265]]
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (this is actually yet another new post) [[266]]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[267]]


User was warned of excessive posting/canvasing HughD was warned on his talk page prior to making the July 30th updates.[[268]] The user had been previously warned in conversation by a number of editors. [[269]], [[270]], [[271]], [[272]] Additionally Hugh has asked that others be aware of Wikipedia policies on canvassing.[[273]] Thus he is unlikely to be ignorant of the guidelines.

HughD has a history of disruptive editing on this and related topics and has 3 recent blocks (June 23rd, June 10th, April 10th). The most recent two are for edits related to this article [[274]]

This is an editor who should know better but is unwilling to work within the rules to get the changes he thinks are best. I'm posting this ANI as an outside editor who has replied to the RfC in question but has never edited on the subject.

HughD has been notified of this ANI. A notification will also be added to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - For additional context, folks might want to check out this other recent ANI complaint against HughD (not much came of it), and Hugh's recent AE filing against Arthur Rubin (ditto). This all relates to a broader and rather ugly dispute over the content of Americans for Prosperity that's been going on for some time. As someone who's been involved in this debate, I'll just say the same thing I said when this came up before; as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

All publicizing of the request for comment Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is conformant with WP:RFC "Publicizing an RfC", WP:Discussion notices "Best practices", and WP:CANVASS.

WP:RFC reminds us that WP:CANVASS "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." WP:VOTESTACKING clearly prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. Please note that the option of notifying WP:CONSERVATISM was discussed at article talk five days ago 27 July 2015 and following, please see. Please note that the reporting user has filed an ANI report of canvassing, but has not themselves notified WP:CONSERVATISM. Please note that no editor has notified WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. If the consensus is that notification to WP:CONSERVATISM is conformant, and an editor was willing to place the notification, I would support a reasonable extension to the RfC period to allow additional time for comments from the participants in WP:CONSERVATISM.

"Bumps" WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice.

WP:RFC authorizes publicizing an RfC at the "talk pages of closely related articles or policies." Political activities of the Koch brothers and Citizens United v. FEC are closely related to Americans for Prosperity, as evidenced by the "See Also" section, please see. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note 19:24, 31 July 2015 my good colleague User:Capitalismojo, on record in the Survey section of the RfC, deleted Citizens United v. FEC from Americans_for_Prosperity#See_also. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly decline this report. An important aspect of this RfC is to solicit community-wide input regarding a local consensus regarding a local interpretation of our neutrality pillar. Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome by most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any canvasing, canvasing is by definition non neutral. What I saw was a neutrally worded message on multiple forums. I agree that this complaint needs to be dismissed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the canvasing links at the top of the ANI. There are two issues. The first, is that HughD has been selective in where he has posted his RfCs. The much bigger issue is spamming and cross posting. The excessive number of posts is spamming and against guidelines listed in the WP:CAN. Springee (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I am very happy to say that I support the right of HughD to post wherever and whenever he wants, just as I support the right of other editors to do so. "The solution to the problems caused by freedom of speech is more freedom of speech." This complaint should be dismissed post haste. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Any claim that the canvassing is "neutral" requires failure to understand basic English. Also, the postings should not contain the arguments for inclusion without including arguments against inclusion. Hugh's claim that reporting the RfC to WikiProject Conservatism would balance the canvassing is failed and irrelevant, unless Hugh is banned from the project and is unable to make the announcement. It's failed because the RfC has been going on with the unbalanced announcements for over two weeks, and irrelevant because it doesn't excuse Hugh's actions.
This is more appropriate on the discussion page of the RfC, but the only way the RfC could be perceived as not being hopelessly biased is for it to be closed, restarted with neutral wording, advertised ONLY to the projects, not the noticeboards or irrelevant talk pages, and the the current participants NOT specifically notified of the restart. I'd be willing to work with Hugh on neutral wording if he would agree not to make his non-neutral wording other than in the actual RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me Arthur, but I'm not seeing where Hugh made an "argument" for inclusion in any of the diffs provided above. What are you referring to specifically? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing a canvassing or a votestacking issue. I am seeing a lot of effort to bring more outside views into a fairly obscure topic area, which is beneficial. More people being involved in the RfC should result in a more representative consensus. If some interested wikiprojects were not notified, that's easily rectified. If HughD were selectively notifying individual editors or wording the notifications in a partisan manner, then I would conclude otherwise.- MrX 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm honestly not well-versed in what is or isn't canvassing/campaigning, but if consensus here ends up being that this isn't a case of canvassing or votestacking by Hugh, then perhaps other editors' repeated repeated refactoring of Hugh's talk page posts to remove the RFC notices bears scrutiny: [275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288]. These editors have been very aggressive about removing Hugh's posts and have [289] accused him of edit warring for trying to restore his own talk page posts since this thread was opened. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm quite curious why Hugh posted the RFC notice multiple times on three of four related WikiProject pages (Organizations, United States, and Politics) while never posting the notice to WikiProject Conservatism. This seems like selective posting to me. When you couple this with the multiple postings to Citizens United v. FEC (the posting of the RFC notice to this page has been reverted by three different editors, and restored by Hugh four times), it looks rather odd to me. Hugh, could you explain your thinking behind not notifying WikiProject Conservatism? Perhaps if you posted the RFC notice there, it would help to clear up this matter. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    I just notified WikiProject Conservatism. Are there any others that should be notified?- MrX 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Posting to WikiProject Conservatism can be seen as canvassing. It clearly has a conservative bias while the other projects connected to the page are seemingly neutral. Even on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, it says "please note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project, and may be regarded as a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline." The purpose of posting a notice there is to recruit people from a group with a conservative bias for input on a RFC and doesn't merely seek assistance in how to approach a discussion or seek editing help. Just because it's labeled as a project, doesn't mean it gets excused from canvassing efforts. Clearly, if there was an explicitly liberal project that Hugh posted to, while ignoring the conservative project, then these concerns would have merit.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As an aside, should this ANI report be advertised on all the boards where the RfC was advertised? It would be helpful to get the opinion of editors who thought the announcement inappropiate but didn't know where to complain. I'm not going to do it without consensus, because it borders on spamming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    thumb|left|Yes Arthur, that sounds like a great idea!
  • - MrX 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note well in considering my good colleague's suggestion above, to further publicize this ANI filing "on all the boards where the RfC was advertised", that no editor not previously involved in the talk page of Americans for Prosperity, none of the "regulars" at any Wiki Project talk page or notice board where this RfC has been publicized, has commented regarding so-called "excessive cross-posting", let alone deleting talk page comments and notice board postings. The only editors raising issues with the publicizing of this RfC are editors on record in the Survey section of the RfC, and also on record on one particular side of the RfC question. Understand clearly this is not an ANI complaint filed by annoyed notice board or Wiki Project participants. The regulars at the notice boards and Wiki Project talk pages managed to assume good faith. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Respectfully request quick close of this ANI filing, by an administrator please, since the target page Americans for Prosperity is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any real evidence of RfC canvassing. It seems clear that when Hugh gets into a disagreement about whether something is or is not WP:SYNTH, for example, he posts an announcement to a noticeboard with a lot of editors who are familiar with that policy. That isn't canvassing. I personally ended up commenting on the RfC in question based upon seeing one of his announcements on a notice board, and my considered opinion is that what Hugh is trying to accomplish violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (some commenters agree with me on this and some disagree, which is why we have RfCs), so any alleged canvassing attempts failed in that respect. I do think that more admins should keep an eye on anything related to the Koch brothers and apply discretionary sanctions as needed. I am seeing a lot of attempts to whitewash or blackwash the Koch brothers rather than treating the topic in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the third time the same RfC has failed to gain consensus. He's not getting the answer that he wants so he keeps trying to roll a bigger ball up a bigger hill. Heck, we even had the pre-RfC RfC for wording since it failed the previous time. Please make it stop. It's a long election season and starting the RfC dogpile on Koch brothers stuff now is just going to cause problems and entrenched positions later. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. A topic ban for Hugh on Koch-related articles would be too harsh. Perhaps a six-month topic ban on for Hugh on posting new Koch-related RfCs? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DHeyward, would you please provide links for the two previous RfCs. I can't seem to find them. Thanks.- MrX 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A short or medium term topic ban would be an appropriate solution in this case. HughD has shown "polite hostility" towards editor who don't agree with him while praising those who do. He also has 2 recent bans related to this article. A Koch family and related topics ban would allow him to work on other projects (and he seems to contribute in many cases) while avoiding what is clearly a family he wishes to blackwash. If others feel his proposed changes are worth while they may discuss and make them.Springee (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Hugh had held the opposite POV, this would have been deemed canvassing and he would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The apparent bias on Wikipedia is absurd. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What HughD is avoiding discussing is the primary complaint. The rules tell editors to avoid [and excessive cross-posting]. 29 posts as of the time of this ANI and he has since done a new round of bumps. Clearly he is unhappy with the results of his RfC and is now using spamming in hopes of getting people who will agree with him rather than accepting that his view, part of a clear blackwashing attempt, didn't get consensus. If over 30 posts isn't excessive what is? Why have the rule?Springee (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (uninvolved non admin) I see no violation of canvassing and the diffs presented here seem to follow the advice on WP:RFC. The number of them leaves some concern, but original posts and the bumps seem neutral and only point out the RFC is applicable to the place posted. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines. Given the editors other behaviors including edit warring on this topic and specifically telling others to follow the RfC rules I don't believe he should be given a pass here. I do think that his was also trying to stack votes by publishing his notices selectively (avoiding the Conservative Project page despite the fact that it is listed as a page related to this project). However, I would consider that minor were it not for the obvious excessive postings (something the guidelines clearly state should not be done).Springee (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it was excessive, and I do not see a violation of the RFC guidelines. They would be a problem if they were not neutral. As pointed out above, not notifying the Conservative Project can be considered within the RFC guidelines as they have, by the projects own admission, a bias. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
How many is excessive? His notice was neutral but his posting locations were not (though not radically off). The Conservative one should have been notified as the page in question cites it as a related project. Other pages such as Citizens United could only be seen as trying to find a favorable audience when his original postings failed to get the support he hoped for. Why post there if his intent wasn't vote stacking? I could see over looking the less that 100% clean notifications but adding to the list and reposing in old one when it was clear that things weren't going his way was a clear violation of the spamming part of the canvasing rules. Springee (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please produce a non neutral posting location. So far all I see are wikiprojects, noticeboards and the pump. All neutral locations. In fact he has avoided a non neutral location in the Conservative wikiproject. AlbinoFerret 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:AlbinoFerret, I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [290] was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page). I found it odd to not notify one of the WikiProjects (Conservatism) while choosing to notify this seemingly arbitrarily selected page (Citizens United V. FEC). I also found it troubling that Hugh continually reverted the RFC notice on that talk page after three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it as an example of canvassing. Diffs of reverts: [291], [292], [293], [294]. The RFC was certainly in enough places, so the four reverts on a seemingly unrelated page where three editors disputed the edit seems like a case of WP:IDHT. No rationale for choosing to post on the Citizen United page was ever given on that page or the AFP page. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Champaign Supernova, you wrote "I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page" Citizens United v. FEC was included in the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity, and as such was specifically authorized for publicizing at WP:RFC as a "closely related article," that is, until it was deleted yesterday. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) How would you characterize the non-neutral bias you claim among the participants at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC that you claim was sought out by posting an RfC notice there? Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if your basis for posting RFC comments to pages was that the pages were included in the "See Also" section, why didn't you post to Mark Block, which is also in the "See Also" section? If you're picking and choosing which pages to post to from among similar pages (i.e., pages in the "See Also" section), it's going to look like canvassing unless you have a specific, shared rationale for why you chose the pages you did. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully request quick administrative close of this report with no action as the arguments get increasingly desperate. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Champaign Supernova, you wrote "...three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it..." Thank you for acknowledging your role in deleting perfectly valid RfC notices, but you might have gone on to specify that the other two editors were our good colleague Arthur Rubin and a sympathetic IP. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yay, more dripping condescension. Helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
All noticeboards associated with the article should be notified. Conversely why notify ones that are not? Why notify the Citizens United talk page? Why not notify all up front rather than casting a wider net (and again avoiding all boards associated with the article in question) when it was clear that HughD's attempt to blackwash was failing? Regardless, if it were just the location of notices I would say is was only a bit biased. It was the volume that I think is the issue. This is especially true since the volume went up after it was clear he was not getting the consensus he wanted. The canvasing guidelines make it clear that notification should be limited in number.[[295]]Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Conservative one should have been notified" If you believed WP:CONSERVATISM needed to be notified, why didn't you? Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Reporting user Springee, you asked "How many is excessive?" Our behavioral guideline WP:CANVASSING at "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" makes no mention of quantity, but does mention "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." If you would like to pursue an answer to your question, kindly take your question to the appropriate policy talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Reporting user Springee, you wrote "the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines." Can you please be more specific about the specific policy or guideline you are alleging was violated? WP:RFC says "one or more." If you believe WP:RFC should include a maximum number of notices, please take your concern to the policy talk page. All the venues in which this RfC was publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." Which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, the policy in question is noted in the opening of this ANI. Springee (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Hugh (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you may ask. You can also read above. Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Noncommunicative IP / Yngwie Malmsteen album articles[edit]

Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

An IP keeps changing the lead sections of Yngwie Malmsteen album articles to reflect an incorrect chronological order. The correct order can be observed on this navbox. All articles in question where they have made disruptive edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The IP neither leaves edit summaries nor communicates via talk page. Either I go for RfPP on all the affected articles, or preferably they should be blocked. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Revoked. I think I understand their edits now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Kiev vs. Kyiv (again and again...)[edit]

Wrong venue. Meanwhile: The issue has already been hashed out dozens of times on Talk:Kiev, on Talk:Kiev/naming, and in five WP:RMs in as many years. Anyone who wishes to assay yet another discussion/debate/poll is welcome to try their luck at any of those venues, and submit whatever evidence they please (but it's doubtful the consensus will change, so users are warned against wasting everyone's time unless they are really certain they have a compelling case). (non-admin closure) --Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Kyiv City State Administration Letter to WMF.jpg

Recently the Kiev State Administration wrote an open letter for WMF requesting that the spelling of "Kiev" should be changed to "Kyiv". Based on this letter @EricLewan (with minimal contributions) executes the name change to Kiev Metro which I believe not yet justifiable. My point is, unless there is a consistent usage of "Kyiv" in the official documents of the US and UK governments, not even the state administration can change the usage in English Wikipedia in an attempt to influence the global application of the pro-Ukrainian spelling. I view this act as a misuse of Wikipedia and must be discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, but why is this thread on this page? Isn't this a matter for normal talk page processes? Even if it is a repeat, how do we handle it here? What are you proposing?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If a change is made to standard English Wikipedia spelling, just revert it. If the changer edit-wars, direct them to the WP:BRD policy, and explain things on their talk page. If they persist in edit-warring, report them at WP:ANEW. If someone (anyone) wants to change the way English Wikipedia spells the city, they need to institute a public Move proposal. Governments or their agents cannot influence English Wikipedia articles; everything is decided here by consensus via the appropriate process. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This will potentially affects all articles mentioning "Kiev" if the consensus favors "Kyiv" over "Kiev". What I want is to establish a revised consensus regarding the Kiev State Administration letter in question, to give editors a clear direction on how to deal with the naming dispute stemmed from this letter. I requested page protection as I foresaw an edit war but the involved admin deemed the situation disputable and rejected my request. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The admin was right to decline protection and this isn't the place to establish consensus about a name. If it becomes an issue, start a RFC on a page like Talk:Kiev. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There have already been multiple discussions about this at Talk:Kiev. The outcome is always the same: "Kiev" is the current English COMMONNAME, so no "Kyiv". --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, this is not an ANI matter. This is a WP:RM matter. Please go there; there are processes for multiple article names as well as for single article names. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Update: We are still seeing what I consider to be low-level edit warring going on at Kiev Metro (most recently involving User:Бучач-Львів (see ANI thread above), so pinging Ymblanter... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am obviously not going to block this user, since I am involved, and communicating with him is very difficult since he does not speak English and assumes bad faith. May be a move protect could be a temporary solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for a block – I just wanted you to be aware. I'll keep an eye on Kiev Metro – if this persists over the next 24 hours, WP:RfPP will be my next stop... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Time to block User:Jdude5[edit]

I've been dealing with User:Jdude5 for quite some time. This user keeps randomly inserting material, mostly regarding the Mexican origin of various things, such as the cowboy hat or rodeo, that is either redundant, unsourced, or just in the wrong place. This user initially appeared harmless and a newbie, but he now makes the same kinds of edits repeatedly, will not take his concerns to talk and, as one can see by all the warnings at User talk:Jdude5, he is getting disruptive. His edits often mess up formatting or alter sourced material. He seems uninterested in learning how to edit, just keeps putting in random information that usually is either already in the article or is phrased oddly with a bit of POV tone. Much as he seems to be very proud of the contributions Mexico has made to the world, I think it's time for a block. Diffs to follow. Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A review of this user's contributions shows a pattern of editing and being reverted in slow motion, so far no 3RR violations, just the same IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. To wit:

He also has a host of other random edits that seem like a schoolkid who got an assignment to "edit wikipedia": [320], [321],

There's more, see the contribs list and all the talk page warnings. Montanabw(talk) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support block. Good grief, the user has had enough warnings, and final warnings, and final final warnings, to earn a block of some length. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep – this ones had enough Level 4 warnings to necessitate a block. Also, never touched a Talk page (any Talk page!). --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I've "indeffed" Jdude5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The reason why I didn't block for a specified time is because I think the block should be for an indefinite period. That indefinite period will end when Jdude5 starts interacting with other users, hopefully very soon. I guess that would start with talking to me, as I'm the shmo who blocked them. I'm in the process of adding a hand-written block notice explaining the indef. If any other admin sees good reason to unblock them before I do, that would fine by me. Warning: this ANI post contains repeated uses of the singular they. Prescriptive grammarians may need to don goggles.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK[edit]

Background: WP:Advocacy ducks is a relatively new essay, currently rated low impact. Unfortunately, what recently transpired was off the charts, WP:POINTY. A few editors are now attempting to make a mockery of the essay in a very disruptive, vandal-like fashion which was actually tried once before in the recent past by Quack Guru as evidenced below. The same editors adamantly opposed the essay from day one and tried to prevent it from going into mainspace. Their 3rd attempt failed but they have not dropped the stick. The most disruptive editors of recent events are:

I've grown weary of the BATTLEGROUND behavior.

The essay was created as a guide to help new editors respond properly to real (or perceived) disruptive editing by advocacy zealots. The suggested responses could actually apply to most disruptive situations. Much to my dismay, a small group of editors have misconstrued the essay and cannot/will not be convinced otherwise. They began the disruption after I initiated the current RfC because of ATG's reverts of my work. They have incorrectly interpreted the proposed statement and the essay itself as an attack on project teams which couldn't be further from the truth.

Disruption by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Previous_Account_Names

Disruption by AndyTheGrump

  • ATG continues to challenge segments of the essay, and insists there is zero evidence that confirms 'project advocacy' (his terminology) exists anywhere but in my imagination. Of course, that isn't true and I've explained it to him numerous times, and even quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, which confirms it as follows: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope... added 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by QuackGuru

Such behavior is disruptive, unwarranted, hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. I respectfully request that an administrator review the behavior and take remedial action. Atsme📞📧 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously User:Atsme this is not needed at ANI. I agree some sticks need to be dropped. The Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks essay started out really bad. It is now somewhat better. User:AndyTheGrump does write a good story though :-) We are here to write a high quality encyclopedia based on high quality sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Sticks do need to be dropped, and this is exactly the place for it since it isn't happening organically. (I'm unsure what high quality sources have to do with this thread or the essay.) petrarchan47คุ 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:Advocacy ducks should be userfied as it is a misguided essay based on the idea that certain editors should be dismissed as "advocacy ducks"—anyone wanting WP:FRINGE to be followed is an advocate and is biased. Furthermore, if several editors disagree with you it's because they are part of a biased project (see the talk page RfC). Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a rehash of the failed deletion discussion, it was closed keep. Sadly those opposed continue to beat a dead horse. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely would not say that I own the essay. I would say, however, with actions like this ANI report and the heavy-handedness with which she is trying to impose her views on the talkpage, that Atsme seems to think she owns it. If anyone doesn't like my edits, please feel free to revert them. I'm just trying to improve things. If I fail, well, that's life. jps (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your editing patterns at the essay define you quite well. You've have consistently disrupted my editing beginning with your opposing views at Griffin which resulted in you proposing an RfD which also didn't fly. Atsme📞📧 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, would you care to explain why, having written that "If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it", [323] you are now complaining that I did just that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Certainly - [324]. Atsme📞📧 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, reading something before posting a link to it is advisable. You have posted no evidence whatsoever that I am trying "to prove a point" (what point?) or that I am trying to "game the system" (How? And to what purpose?). Instead, my essay is doing exactly what a user-space essay is supposed to do. Express a personal opinion on the way Wikipedia operates. And providing useful advice. Advice on the inadvisability of tilting at windmills, and the advisability of actually providing substantive evidence when claiming evidence of wrongdoing. Advice you should follow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well of course - your essay is perfect and the essay I created is garbage - the world according to AndyTheGrump. Generally speaking, it's actually good to maintain confidence in one's own ability as long as it's within reason. Face-smile.svg Atsme📞📧 19:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
When I want advice on whether something is 'within reason', I'll ask someone who doesn't ask for Monty Python references to be oversighted. [325] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note - it has been pointed out to me that the apparent call for 'oversight' I link above might have been a typo, and 'checkuser' intended. If so, I'll withdraw the above remark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's response:[edit]

Ok, let's take a look at just what Atsme is accusing me of:

"ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP" [326]

I had written an essay (User:AndyTheGrump/Advocacy Dragons)), clearly indicated as a personal response to the Advocacy Ducks one. And added a link to it amongst the 29 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' (including several other personal essays) at the bottom of the 'ducks' essay page. Does it 'mock' the ducks essay? If you want to read it that way, possibly. Though only to the extent that the ducks essay deserves mockery (or at least criticism) for its emphasis on seeking out 'advocacy ducks' as some sort of alien species, rather than recognising that advocacy is a complex issue (I'd argue that every Wikipedia contributor is an 'advocate' of something or another) and that apropriate responses are better centred on actual behaviour (and actual evidence) than on duck-hunting. A perspective which is at the root of much Wikipedia policy, I would have to suggest. And why the hell shouldn't I write an essay on advocacy-hunting if I want to? Wikipedia contributors are perfectly entitled to express their personal opinions regarding the way Wikipedia is run. Atsme has written a controversial essay, and added it to Wikipedia space. And she has the nerve to object to me expressing an opinion of it, in my own personal space? A double standard almost beyond belief.

As for the essay itself, I invite everyone to read it, and decide for themselves whether it is legitimate. I note that the page view statistics show that at least 99 people have viewed it so far, and that the only people who have criticised it have been Atsme and a couple of her supporters from the RfC. Supporters who seem to think that they are beyond criticism, and that they have the right to stifle dissent.

"Challenge to another editor - more battleground behavior" [327]

Utterly ridiculous. A contributor was basically asserting that edit-warring to remove the link to the essay (which incidentally I'd only ever added once) proved that there was no 'consensus' for it. Did I 'challenge the other editor'. Certainly - because he was asserting that edit-warring was the way to determine consensus. Which needless to say, it isn't...

"Reverted my edit with unwarranted PA edit summary “you don’t get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges” "[328]

Given the nature of the edit, the number of times Atsme has defended the content by claiming (without ever producing the slightest bit of evidence, despite being asked to on multiple occasions) that Wikiprojects have been engaging in advocacy, I have to suggest that all the evidence points to the fact that my summary was correct. And note that this edit is over a month old. And that I told her that if she had a problem with it, she should take it to ANI (se this discussion at User Talk:BDD [329]) She didn't. Instead, she chose to start an RfC on the disputed material. Which unsurprisingly shows that the clear consensus is that unwarranted attacks on the integrity of Wikiprojects don't belong in an essay in Wikipedia space. Only now, when it becomes clear that I was right to remove the material, does she decide to raise it here. And as for the edit summary itself, Atsme had stated only a few days previously that she intended to edit the 'ducks' essay [330] - in a manner clearly intended to attack the integrity of Wikiproject medicine.

"Casting aspersions I believe it's the result of his own misapprehension of the essay and the statement I added that he kept reverting." [331]

As is self evident, I am doing nothing of the sort - Atsme wrote "Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN..." ...and yet again failed to come up with even a scintilla of evidence. Aspersions were certainly being cast. By Atsme. Yet again.

In summary, nothing Atsme has linked is evidence for anything but her own relentless battleground behaviour, her own inability to take dissent as anything except evidence as a conspiracy against her, and her complete lack of self-awareness when she accuses others of behaviour she exhibits herself by the bucketful. She is a liability to the project, and we would be a lot better off without her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: From a post by Atsme, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks:

"If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it." [332]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been noticing the goings-on over this essay, and would say AtG's is an on-point analysis. Meanwhile, I am having my own time wasted by Atsme with a vexatious complaint at WP:COI/N#Potential_COI_re:_Alex_Brown, and this follows on the heels of a declined case at Arbcom, again over COI. The Arbs suggested there were issues here to be discussed at AN/I and so it may be time for the community now to examine this editor's behaviour more widely and decide whether its patience with Atsme has been exhausted and if some kind of WP:BAN should be considered. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Alex, your presence here is retaliatory which is understandable but it conflicts with WP:AGF. Proposing bans, blocks, etc. simply because I filed this ANI is pretty sad. Perhaps you should be included in the above list considering your hands aren't clean based on the disruptive behavior you displayed at Gabor B. Racz along with the many unwarranted allegations and aspersions you've made against me in recent months, July 4, 2015 - edit summary: (serious problems with sourcing (/advocacy?), July 7, 2015, edit summary: "the lurking suspicion of a COI taint": and your unwarranted removal of copy-edit tags I added to a poorly written BLP. Your presence (and that of a few other editors here who won't drop the stick) is seemingly ubiquitous where I'm concerned. I just want the PAs, aspersions and disruptive behavior to stop so I can get back to creating and editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. The amount of attention that was given to a low-impact essay I created and co-authored coupled with the gang-like disruption from editors who opposed the essay from the beginning (and who have repeatedly refused to drop the stick which Doc James even noted) needs administrator attention. Please don't try to make this a kangaroo court because the focus needs to remain on the obnoxious behavior exhibited by the above named editors. You know full well it was disruptive and unambiguously pointy and carries the strong scent of tag-teaming and own. Atsme📞📧 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say that AndyTheGrump is 'casting aspersions' on this editor. His editing is disruptive, unfriendly and not cooperative. The well meaning and well done essay does not deserve such intense attack personalized against the writer of the essay. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, I find AndyTheGrump not to have been disruptive whatsoever. He has accurately and forthrightly laid out the facts. I see no personalized "attacks" at all, just a calm recitation of what has been happening. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
EKJ, would you care to expand on that in a manner that suggested that you were actually addressing the issue being discussed here, rather than using this thread as a platform for your own issues with me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Earl King Junior is the one entirely uninvolved voice in this thread, and his comment is 100% accurate. petrarchan47คุ 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Granted alternative essays on Advocacy may be something that can be linked within an essay. But an essay that seeks to focus, not on advocacy, but on other editors work is not appropriate. When asked if diffs were really needed to be provided of his continued opposition to the essay [333] His answe was "Nope" and then a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion.[334] This is a clear case of failure to drop the stick as the essay has been under constant battleground mentality of those opposed to its existence, even after a deletion discussion was closed keep.[335]. The continued battleground against the essay, which doesnt have to be in complete agreement by all editors, borders on WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE behaviour if not already crossing the line. AlbinoFerret 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion" as evidence of battleground behaviour? Do you even have the faintest clue of just how ridiculous that is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The continued opposition to the essay is battleground behaviour, even after the deletion discussion ended as keep. Once read you have continued, not to make it better, but to oppose it. Its time to drop the stick and focus in on building WP. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I am entitled to my opinion of the essay. I am entitled to express my opinion of the essay. And that will remain true no matter how many times you repeat your vacuous clichés. Wikipedia is open to contributors with a diversity of opinion, and is not under the control of bureaucratic Commissioners for the Prevention of Literature. [336] If you want a website where doubleplus-ungood thoughts are suppressed, go find a Maoist cult or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang suggestion[edit]

Might I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from vexatious litigation at ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards? If she ends up having problems, she could contact administrators privately rather than drawing everybody into a circus of drama. As for her WP:OWN problems, well, we can see if being deprived of external squawk boxes might not allow her to settle down a bit.

jps (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Classic - I think the lady doth protest too much. An editor once summarized the Boomerang OP quite well in the following statement, [337] It should serve as a lesson to all that while some may make promises to change their behavior, they rarely ever do. Atsme📞📧 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the lady doth protest too much. Which is why it has been suggested that banning the lady from protesting might be a good idea. I would support a topic ban from ANI, COIN etc as a minimum response, though I'm not sure that it wouldn't merely result in moving the problem elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I do think a boomerang is in order. However, I don't think restricting her from the dramah boards will help as she already has been contacting admins privately on their Talk pages.[338][339][340]
The problem as I see it isn't that she takes things to the dramah boards but that she engages in aggressive, bullying, tit-for-tat behaviours when editors disagree with her or call her out on her behaviour. From my statement at her declined RFAR case request against Jytdog, "This is par for the course for Atsme; instead of dealing with criticism, she engages in WP:POINTy edits[341] and posts long rants (for lack of a better word) about how she is right and accuses those who disagree with her of being unwarranted,[342][343] ill-will,[344] harassment,[345] being biased,[346][347] or, as in this case, being part of a cabal.[348][349] Also of concern is her misunderstanding of edit-warring,[350] MEDRS,[351] NPOV,[352] and POV-pushing." Her bullying, antagonistic behaviour is not new. She avoided a block in 2014[353] by finding a mentor[354] but her behaviour remains unchanged since that time.
She is displaying strong WP:OWNership behaviours on this essay and addedin the text under discussion in the RfC in a revert of another editor's changes.[355] I removed the text[356] and left a note on the essay Talk page;[357] instead of responding there, Atsme inserted an extraneous character into the essay to leave an edit summary arguing with the one I left[358] and then she left the extraneous character in there. She has also displayed ownership of Gabor B. Racz where she continually reverted changes to remove promotional puffery, COPYVIOs, and inaccuracies.[359][360][361][362]
With all of these long-term issues, I think a block or ban to prevent further disruption to the encylopaedia is necessary. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Classic play when someone is brought to AN/I. Try and toss a boomerang. Then others can pile on edits from other articles where there is a content disagreement with those who disagree with the person who is the boomerang target. Perhaps this tactic needs an essay. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing things in terms of "plays" tells of a problematic mindset on your part and fails to assume good faith. Sometimes problems are real, and Wikipedians do their best to express what they see happening. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, if you watch this board long enough and read enough of the sections you will see this done quite often. AlbinoFerret 18:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I could not agree more with AlbinoFerret. I have followed Atsme's articles and disputes for several months now. I have been absolutely staggered at her continued politeness and strength of motivation to focus on the content rather than editors, and to remain civil. This is in total contrast to some of her opposers above where it seems they can make uncivil remarks about edits or editors with apparent impunity. A boomerang is definitely not appropriate here.DrChrissy (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you have been following, for example egging Atsme on by tittering together over the "Pricks"[363] on Wikipedia (or is that the Borg?) who you fancy yourself to be in battle against. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on the edit, not the editor.DrChrissy (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Point of order. I did not post on ANI. If you think Atsme is being harassed by my response to her thread about me, then you would do well to advise her to voluntarily topic ban herself from venues where this kind of outcome may occur. jps (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@jps My ES was not directed at you.DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
AN/I is for examining editor behaviour, and that includes mine - and yours, DrChrissy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support a boomerang. I believe Atsme is fundamentally well-meaning, but s/he seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever, and seems prepared to poke and pester her opponents ad nauseam. That is a problem. Editors with such an approach have been known to ultimately be indefinitely banned from the project. (I'm thinking of a particular user, but I don't want to name them here.) I support a sanction, either a ban from Wikipedia space or a ban from vexatious litigation (which would fit the case well, but is probably impossibly vague, and would be a difficult judgment call every time) or, ultimately, a block of some length — one month, three months? This after reading through this ANI which Atsme opened 1 August, this arbitration case which Atsme opened 12 July (declined by arbcom 15 July), and this retaliatory COI noticeboard report against Alex Brown (compare the edit summary here) which Atsme opened 29 July. Look at the whole pattern: she's abusing the noticeboards and brandishing an apparently never-to-be-dropped stick. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
Addendum: Added after seeing this utterly irrelevant oh-yeah-what-about-you well-poisoning retort to jps just above, posted by Atsme while I was fiddling with my own post (I'm slow). It made me cross out the bit about believing her to be well-meaning. I've changed my mind. Also considering this 2014 ANI: this time she has really run out of excuses for acting like a newbie. Support a three-month block. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
  • "She seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever" - Wow. That's a pretty big statement. I checked out your claim and immediately found it false, using the Kombucha page as an example. In nearly every source about Kombucha research, it is noted that very few human trials exist. In the Lede, the Project Medicine regulars prefer to leave this fact out, and say simply that no evidence exists to support health claims. This leaves the reader with the idea that perhaps many trials have been conducted and failed to find evidence. The team (Alexbrn, Jdog) reverted my change that added this context. Ca2James reverted Atsme twice when she made the same edit. Atsme apparently did let it go, her only edit there today was to fix the prose. Atsme has been trying to help stick to the science and help deal with the intense bias and misrepresentation of evidence at Kombucha. IMO, Atsme is being trolled. For instance, I have been editing here for years, and only ran into AndytheGrump at Jimbo's page... until the essay happened. Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy. My topic areas haven't changed, and I don't see him at any articles that I edit if Atsme isn't there. At Kombucha, I haven't seen any evidence that he is there to help build the article, even though I have asked for help. But he is always there to bash on Atsme. That's how it appears to me, anyway. petrarchan47คุ 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. So AndyTheGrump followed you to Kombucha? Are you sure about that? In my recollection it's more the other way round: Andy has been a long-time steward of that article, and you (and, coincidentally, Atsme) showed up at the same time fairly recently pushing the same line. What brought you to the Kombucha article, really? Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Even more interesting is that I didn't claim he followed me. I'm just reporting a strange phenomenon and I highly doubt it has nothing to do with Atsme. It is time to drop the stick, by force or otherwise. petrarchan47คุ 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What 'strange phenomenon' are you referring to then? That you and Atsme have a habit of turning up at the same articles, pushing the same fringe POV, and that people object to it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "Atsme is being trolled. ... Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy." I'll leave it to other readers to decide what you meant by that. You also put "My topic areas haven't changed" - but your topic area did suddenly change to include Kombucha, at the same time as Atsme's did. Just another "strange phenomenon" ... or ... what? Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited health articles for years, and trying to fix your "Kombucha kills people" falls right in line with my previous work. I got involved with the Cannabis articles for precisely the same reason, someone was claiming that Cannabis killed people in WP's voice, just as you were doing at Kombucha. petrarchan47คุ 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck has an article I've never edited [364] got to do with this? As for Kombucha, I am of the opinion that including reliably sourced information in an encyclopaedia is generally a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Andy, your use of profanity is uncivil. Please have some consideration for the possibility there may be children reading your comments. Atsme📞📧 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - though I suspect that unsupervised children will find more interesting things to look at on Wikipedia than ANI threads. I'll refrain from making suggestions beyond pointing out that we have an article on the word, per WP:BEANS, but if you really think that 'think of the children' is a valid reason to complain about things on Wikipedia, you are probably raising the issue in the wrong place entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My first edit to the Kombucha article was in November 2013. Atsme's was in June this year, as was Petrarchan47's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that I now run into you on various pages, but never on pages where Atsme is absent. You know as well as I that we never ran into each other before. petrarchan47คุ 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a user interaction tool somewhere, isn't there? From memory, I can only think of a few articles where I've interacted with Atsme at all - at the Kombucha article, at the controversial No-go area article (which I had again edited long before Atsme's involvement), and in relation to the 'ducks' essay. If there has been other significant interaction, I can't think of it offhand, though I'm prepared to accept evidence to the contrary - I have a lousy memory for names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Boomerang Atsme brings evidence of behavioral problems that need to be addressed by uninvolved editors/Admins. petrarchan47คุ 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Ban for presenting the case at ANI. There is sufficient evidence that there is repeated bad behaviour in this case, and that means that presenting this case at ANI is not abuse.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • comment I would support a topic ban but only in principle. Atsme does have actions that do betray her and it's time for her battleground behavior to stop. This however is a case with alot of evidence to review and it does go back a few months. I don't think and I have seen that Atsme is not the sole problematic editor in this "Feud". I don't see any problem above with Andythegrump however. While I would support a topic ban of Atsme, it would be better to allow her to bring further evidence so that a few others might take part in a ban with her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support boomerang to stop this bloody waste of time: Keep her away from ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Do you you really care that little about the project that you would take such a cavalier attitude to the potential ban of one of the most productive, polite and insightful editors on here. That is shameful. If you don't want to waste our time, then vote !no (that would save us all time), or give your reasons for the !yes posting.DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This can be quickly resolved with a topic ban. It is becoming a waste of time trying to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang Atsme has eloquently raised legitimate concerns about the disruptive behaviour of some editors in an essay. Here at AN/I, she has raised concerns about the way she is being dealt with regarding the essay. She should in no way be punished for bringing this behaviour to AN/IDrChrissy (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support boomerang I wrote above my reasons for supporting a boomerang but thought I'd formalise my !vote. I'd prefer to see a three-month block because her behaviour extends everywhere she edits and is not limited to the dramah boards. That said, keeping her away from initiating new reports at the dramah boards will help. Ca2james (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Atsme has done nothing to warrant a boomerang. She has simply came here seeing community consensus for what she sees as a disruptive problem. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagteam Dramaboarding[edit]

Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. It seems that @Atsme: is getting the rest of her tagteam to do her dirty work for her now. She tries to get a checkuser to come after me and then crows about it on the AVDUCK talk page. The cause is taken up by her comrade-in-arms @AlbinoFerret:. Just another fun day dealing with the alternative medicine true believers. jps (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I didnt know Atsme had tried to get a checkuser on you. But the edits on the AVDUCK page, right after you were brought here, an IP replaced one of your edits, twice, right down to the wikilinks on a relatively new and unused essay prompted me to start an investigation into whats happened. WP:SPI is the correct venue for such investigations to look into such edits.AlbinoFerret 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
According to logic you've used elsewhere, your claims of ignorance seems to fail the WP:DUCK test. Seems to me that you all are working as a WP:TAGTEAM. jps (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have watched Atsme's talk page because we have worked together on the essay, but there is no tag team, I dont look at it all the time or follow her editing. I simply found it fishy on the essay and sought for an investigation into what happened. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:AVDUCK, I don't think that's a convincing argument. Do you? jps (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat from User:Lifegami[edit]

Please see this permalink at the foot, in the final section, where I perceive that this editor has either issued a legal threat or has issued words preparatory to issuing a legal threat. Fiddle Faddle 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? All I see is this[365] and I don't see a legal threat there. Chillum 05:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not a legal threat against Wikipedia – it seems like a very mild legal threat against Tamsin Kendra (IIRC, subsequently blocked for...) who solicited the payment for getting the article approved. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The closest I see is "I'm not sure if the circumstances surrounding this matter are legal or not" which is not a threat of action against anyone. Chillum 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That is it in a nutshell. My perception differs from yours. I am content that it differs. My role once I perceive it as a legal threat is to bring it here and then to let others judge. Fiddle Faddle 05:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, to clarify, my intention was not to threaten legal action. I only wanted to know how someone would be able to see a rejected submission. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, so I may have missed some standard rules. I thought if an article was not approved, it wouldn't be made public on Wikipedia. If that is not true, I would like to know if there is a way to make it private (i.e. only viewable by the article creator and authorized editors)? Also, if this is not the appropriate place to ask the aforementioned question, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the appropriate section. Lifegami 1 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.36.94 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually User:Lifegami was attempting to report an instance of the scam that has recently emerged where writers of declined drafts are approached off-wiki by scammers claiming to be a "senior editor" who then attempt to extort payment for getting the declined draft into mainspace. Unfortunately he/she used such indirect "legalese" language that the post was easy to misinterpret . (The WMF Legal office is aware of the scam and warnings about it are posted in the headers of various pages at AFC.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I work on the basis that one must never ignore a perceived legal threat and the only correct course of action is to bring it here. Once it is here it will be judged by more than one person and the right outcome will be reached. I am perfectly happy to have been shown to have erred on the side of caution. A good result all round, that! Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IP User - Edit War[edit]

97.85.113.113 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed Delta as a Hub in Amsterdam because I believed that its hub was in Atlanta, Georgia USA. However, an IP user removes it and says that Delta has a hub in Amsterdam.

In my opinion hub = headquarters right?

So I revert it and say that I think that hub means headquarters but again the IP user continues to argue and reverts it. So I stop, because 1 more addition and I would soon be past the 3 Revert rule.

This IP user continues to harrass me and annoy me on my talk page, giving fake vandalism warnings and saying that he will report me. His behaviour is mighty unfriendly and he refuses to disscuss it at the talk page on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Then he deleted the dissussion I started on the talk page. He also deleted his comments on my talk page for some reason, luckily. I have our disscussion here. He also decided to cut out some of my messages, which is why some don't make sense.


Delta AMS

Please note that Delta has 10 hubs in the U.S. and 3 hubs outside the U.S. According to their website. 97.85.113.113 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I know that Delta may have 13 different hubs. But on the Wikipedia, we don't really add an airline to the 'hubs' section if it is not the 1st Hub. For example, Ryanair has 2 Hubs in Dublin and Stansed, it is listed as a hub for Dublin, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Ryanair and Vueling are not "hub and spoke" carriers and therefore are not listed. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Please do not remove or you will be blocked for vandalism. We list airlines that have a hub operation in the infobox. Headquarters have nothing to do with hubs. Please discuss your matters at at:airports and the Delta talk page already has a discussion on AMS as a hub. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please porvide proof that I am wrong. We will disscuss it at the airports behavior regarding that you won't give out fake vandalism warnings. RMS52 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You already have been blocked once for harassement and bullying. AMS is a Delta hub as per http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts. Harass me one more time and I will report you! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not harrassing you. The block was for sockpupperty too, and if you want to report me fine! But there is no reason why you should do it now. Lets take it to the talk page ok? RMS52 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed after my block, and apoligized to the user involved.

This user shows no signs of stopping so I would like the least that can be done, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and report and block me indefinitely for all I care. I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia anyways. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you drop the stick, RMS52. Why don't you try to set up a discussion instead of bulldozering him to AN/I. A polite exchange of arguments instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And off course, the IP is also not without blame and should not remove a discussion attempt. The IP has to start discussing too. The Banner talk 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did, on his talk page I asked if we could disscuss the matter, what did he say? No. I asked if he could stop his behaviour, same answer again... RMS52 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated IP adress 166.170.57.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article Gamerghazi needs GG Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Snow delete this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi. Ghostwheel ʘ 08:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created yesterday and much edit warring going on, creator is squatting on article and reverting many times. Can an admin please post Discretionary Sanctions template?

Note: Article immediately sent to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and will probably be deleted but meanwhile warring continues. Most of article is based on bad premise and is primarily about Gamergate response to criticism, claims "Gamerghazi" is a named countermovement (no RS named it), but Gamerghazi is nothing but a subreddit created to mock Gamergate. Warning template and 1RR will help. I am not asking for any action against editors at this time and am stepping away from the article while discussion is here. AmericanEnki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has received several warnings from different editors on their talk page, and keeps insisting their reverts are against vandalism, showing WP:BATTLEGROUND. Suggest this new editor needs a mentor as they are debating all over the AfD page as well.

Note the difference between current view and what I attempted to add, this is literally different planets. Lots and lots and lots of reversion trying to maintain the Gamergate view of the world. Tried to list diffs and my tablet crashed, sorry. I had 6 of them. A glance at the article history makes edit warring and reversions clear.

Diff from my longer edit to current (very similar to original) [366] 98.210.208.21 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • A snow close of the AfD would be easier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Fix BAJRANJI now[edit]

blocked by Admin FPAS. Ghostwheel ʘ 08:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Bajranji did not have only 400 crore. What kind of idiots are you people Koimoi and box office India both say over 500 crore. If you don't know proper information don't tell lyes and terrorizing continue. Whole Indian media says over 500 and you people treat us like stupid Maybe we aren't smart enough to edit here, only US and UK masters get to decide what the truth is, rest of us still subject. Fix it now with the truth no more lies. Don't cheet others with fake updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.79 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Paging NeilN (or any admin) to block yet another disruptive sock with this same agenda. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hostility and ownership from Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and J3Mrs[edit]

Content dispute opened by someone who has admitted that they re socking in order to complain. – SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Administrators might want to check what is happening at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. There have been disagreements for years about the scope of the article. Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and J3Mrs believe it should include just the history of the event, not the annual event itself, and are demonstrating ownership of the article. Currently, they are being increasingly hostile on the talk page to anyone who disagrees with them. Some edits made over the previous days include the following: [367], [368], [369], [370], [371], [372]. This is not the kind of behaviour to be expected and is not being repeated by those on the "other side" of the discussion. Some further opinions and help could be useful. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (long-term editor making anonymous post: worried about receiving grief for months to come because of this)

I do not think we can do much here. There is no incivility as far as I can see, and this content dispute should be resolved via usual dispute resolution avenues. I am not familiar with this article, apparently many things have been already tried, but naively I would think about WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "long-term editor making anonymous post: worried about receiving grief for months to come because of this": the fact you've admitted socking in order to complain about a content dispute is shocking. Closing on that basis, and you deserve a BOOMERANG for your action. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Socking refers to using multiple accounts for an improper purpose. I have made clear my use of this account and never attempted to be deceptive. I am not comfortable with opposing these editors when there might be repercussions for me from them in the future. I am genuinely worried about harrassment. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear the use of alternate accounts to participate in internal discussion, particularly to lodge complaints against other users is in fact sock puppetry. Chillum 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Off Wikipedia Legal Threat made by an indefinitely blocked user[edit]

User's talk page access revoked by Chillum. Nothing further currently actionable here. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Curse of Fenric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Several weeks ago, User Curse of Fenic was indefinitely blocked for making personal attacks and as the blocking admin stated, Not being here to build an encyclopedia. There was a short discussion on a possible "ban" as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892#User:Curse of Fenric, but it was withdrawn. Shortly afterward Curse of Fenric vowed never to return.

Fast forward to this morning, when Curse of Fenric edited the talk page again, that included an external link to a an article written by the blocked user that uses the words libel, libelous, local law, criminal and accuses the blocking admin of violating the Defamation Act. All of these imply legal threats. I suggest that we revisit a formal ban on this user.--JOJ Hutton 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually a legal threat, even though he uses some legal wording. For another thing it's off-wiki, even though he linked to it. He's already indef blocked; there doesn't seem to have been enough longterm intransigent problems/abuse in multiple situations over a long time to formally site ban him. Could wipe the talkpage and revoke talk page access. The blog post he linked to was mainly just childish sulking and adolescent posturing; he claims he was accused of bullying or being a bully, and that isn't in the wording of the block at all (or even in the ANI). This mainly sounds like a blockee letting off normal steam in our direction; it happens all the time. Ranting, in other words. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Softlavender. It's essentially a continuation of their more recent behaviour for which I blocked them. The legal threat, if you call it that, isn't remotely credible and most people familiar with the relevant piece of legislation know that Sections 2 and 3 (Truth and Honest opinion) would apply in this case. The blocking rationale is both truthful and is an honest opinion of their recent behaviour. The blog is petulant sulking from someone who didn't get their own way. Nick (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We block users indefinitely for more making legal threats on Wikipedia. Why should making one off Wikipedia result in a formal ban? Not that this is anywhere near an actual legal threat of course. All you have succeeded in doing here is giving him a greater audience for his nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The threat isn't important. The important thing is to consider whether any legitimate wrong has been done and whether there was a breach of WP:CIVIL. GregKaye 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck trying to uphold WP:CIVIL on Wordpress.--Atlan (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the indef block seems justified, but I don't feel that Curse of Fenric's vow to never return is going to last. If COF ever tries to appeal the block, I'm hoping that this strongly worded diatribe is included into evidence.JOJ Hutton 14:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it is definitely a legal threat in spirit, no matter how hard he tries to wikilawyer around it with a disclaimer. The intention of that "blog" post is clear - to try and chill discussion and to scare people into giving him what he wants. And by linking it directly from his talk page, he brings this on-wiki. But his efforts to play amateur (UK?) lawyer are meaningless since he's already blocked indefinitely. Just file it away for future reference if he seeks a return, and consider revoking talk page access if he were to continue abusing it. Resolute 14:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If a user is indef blocked and no admin is willing to unblock then the user is de-facto banned. If the user ever seeks to return then this can all be taken into account. I have removed this users talk page access though. Chillum 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC[edit]

re: Harald Forkbeard (talk · contribs) Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

I had a disagreement about article content which was not solved by 1-1 talk. I started a RfA, during which I deliberately did not present my point of view. Several people joined and we are carrying out a meaningful, calm, nonpersonal discussion. With the exception of Forkbeard, who obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me.

Three times I warned the user that wikipedia policies forbid personal attacks, but I was derided to "blind adherence" to "obscure policies".

Normally I don't care how I am being called. I was even "Anti-Romanian antisemitic communistic vandal", I never complained, only chuckled. However in this case I think Forkbeard's multiple long diatribes about my negative personal qualities seriously derail the otherwise normal RfA discusson. Therefore I would like to ask an admin to take an action. -M.Altenmann >t 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

M.Altenmann >t>t has been acting in a hostile manner during the discussion on the Mat talk page. He has resisted all attempts to build consensus engaging in disruptive editing and obtuse interpretation of Wikipedia rules that only he holds to be applicable. He failed to make any meaningful contributions to the article choosing instead to clash with multiple editors and persist in his insistence on alleged rules. This position has been challenged by other editors. Instead of cooperating M.Altenmann >t continues to cause discord and disrupts others' work. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I might add that I am baffled by the allegations of personal attacks by M.Altenmann. His attitude has been unhelpful. Please review the talk page and edit history on the Mat article for details. It is clear to me that M.Altenmann has taken a very hostile position towards my translation of the original Russian text for the article. For some reason, M.Altenmann refuses to collaborate with other editors. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
False. Filing RfC is collaboration. Repeating that I am an idiot is not. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
True. At no time did I or any other editors use personal labels you are referring to. You continue obstructing the consensus building on this Mat article. You are pushing your point of view and refuse to contribute to the article in any constructive way. This is not a personal attack, but a plain statement of fact. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Harald Forkbeard, Could you please explain the following two edits?[373][374] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What explanation are you looking for? --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The comments you are referring to are an attempt to encourage M.Altenmann to get off the rules interpretation, and focus on coming up with a positive, tangible contribution to the article. To date, all he has done is criticize my translation without any constructive alternative being provided. This despite multiple editors explaining the situation to him, please read the talk page comments for Mat article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If you read the whole mess on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), in combination with the invitation posted by M.Altenmann on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#RfC:_How_much_.22poetic_license.22_does_a_translator_of_primary_sources_have_in_wikipedia.3F, I think the handling admins should at least consider Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot in this case. (Note that after asking for comments M.Altenmann responded on the first two comments of uninvolved editors with "<sigh> You are not addressing the concern" (to a comment by Diego) and with "You are wide off the mark" to my own first comment.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but if someone told me that my dogged insistence on rules again borders on obsession, that other editors make sensible and highly valuable contributions but mine are a bewildering array of misinterpretations on various Wikipedia rules without any constructive contribution, accused me of personal bias, and told me to refrain from editing the page and find something else to do, I would not feel particularly encouraged.
As for the implied "it's OK to behave poorly because others did so first" argument, we are responsible for our own actions, and in my opinion the above diffs show a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality rather than the claimed "encouragement".
If anyone here wishes this noticeboard to consider the actions of others, please provide specific diffs rather than asking us to "read the whole mess". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Harald Forkbeards reactions are not very civil. But I think this should include a look at the mainspace edits (and summaries) by M.Altenmann that preceded the debate (including a response on an uninvolved editor invited to the rfc). [375][376][377][378][379] Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
With due respect, the comments made by M.Altenmann are not very civil either. Moreover, his actions are disruptive and relentless persistence at pushing the alleged Wikipedia rules interpretation is entirely non-constructive. He has consistently failed to offer any alternative to my good faith translation. Hence, the recommendation, made by several editors, to provide an alternative translation or, in my comments, suggestion to simply walk away. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of Guy Macon, who is new to this discussion, I would provide some summary of what, in my view, happened to date:
1. I provided a good faith translation, from Russian into English, of some verses cited in the Mat article.
2. Given the obscene nature of these verses, a published source of this in English is extremely unlikely.
3. For some reason, M.Altenmann has taken exception to my translations. So far, this editor has stubbornly insisted that the translations are not verifiable. This stands to reason, as I have provided the translation myself.
4. Despite repeated attempts to encourage M.Altenmann to offer alternatives that pass muster in terms capturing the highly idiomatic essence of the verses, we have nothing still. Amazingly, M.Altenmann suggested that a verbatim translation provided by Google is better than the one offered by the native bilingual speaker. Forgive me for being extremely skeptical.
5. Despite several editors encouraging a constructive path toward consensus building through expert discussion of the verses and their translations, M.Altenmann has so far limited himself to repeated interpretations of various Wikipedia rules allegedly being violated.
Conclusion: We have a translation of well sourced Russian originals offered by myself, a native speaker of both languages. I would welcome another expert translator's contribution to break the logjam and arrive at a sensible resolution that serves the best interests of Wikipedia readers.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo[edit]

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

This user had a long and troubled history on Wikipedia - began contributing in 2002, desysopped by ArbCom after self-unblocking a 3RR block (repeatedly) in 2005 [380] and later placed on an editing restriction by ArbCom which stated that "Stevertigo... is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article". [381] The last restriction apears still to be in force. [382] Despite this, Stevertigo has chosem to create several entirely unsourced stub artices - see Expressive power (now removed and redirected to the original topic) and Snap (military) for example. The former is probably best described as unsourced waffle, while the latter is frankly bizarre - if there is an actual topic in there, I haven't a clue what it is, but whatever it is, if it involves a "tachyonic command problem" we should probably give our readers a hint as to what that is supposed to mean. Meanwhile, in talk-page space, Steveertigo has posted another bizarre screed on Talk:Bitcoin [383] claiming (from what liittle of it that makes any sense at all) that bitcoin is run from the English "Fort Terror complex", funded by "Barack Obama, as a favor to Joseph Biden" to the extent of "58,000,000 dollars" as part of some global conspiracy involving England, along with "The Breiviks, Chalmers, and the Odierno groups each represent paramilitary wings of the Euro-forted (Nordic, British, Hispanic), Nihon-Manchu forted militas, who have worked in espionage agains the United States, with planning and involvement in diabolical terror operations abroad, around the world". And at Talk:Honour we have another example of Stevertigo's postings [384] which seems to be a request for a page move on the grounds that "The spelling belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language, which honor a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and in a different way than in the land abundant nations, to the materialistic". The word bizarre seems inadequate.

Having become aware of Stevertigo's editing restriction, I posted a reminder of this on his talk page. [385] The response in full:

Article stubbing is not a crime, as it takes time to write a global compendium project. I understand that you may not happy there in Bristol, but if the aristos-kleptos money they pay you was worth a nickel they would have built that nice and easy to engineer walking bridge to Paris by now and have hired actual Europeans to do it, (jobs!). Rather than mooching off the Free (democratic honor, try it) people's of the world, and the work we provide, try the opposite. [386]

For the record, I don't live in Bristol. Not that it really matters. And neither am I in receipt of "aristos-kleptos money" (I should be so lucky). As personal attacks go, it is so off-the-wall as to be laughable. It is however further evidence that Stevertigo has gone from merely being a troublesome contributor to one who's sole purpose seems to be to use Wikipedia as a forum for random typing exercises and flights of fancy in the far realms of tinfoil-hat-land. Stevertigo is WP:NOTHERE. He is so far from 'here' that only the internet (which somehow seems to be able to link our universe with his) is the only connection. A connection which is self-evidently of no earthly use to Wikipedia that the only rational thing to do is to indefinitely block Stevertigo and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Block He is clearly not here to build an encycolpedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporary block This sort of incomprehensible behaviour is certainly problematic. That and the violation of sanctions justifies a block. Given this users long history of contribution I would like to see a temporary block. In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again. Chillum 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that per the arbcom ruling I have deleted the pages this user created without sources. I also moved back a back that he moved out of the way to create Expressive power. Chillum 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support - (portion redacted, see below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, plus this user is clearly editing (adding unsourced material) in contravention of an active Arbcom restriction (to source all edits). In any of these cases, the best that we can probably do for this user is to indefinitely block and give the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I suggest you redact your medical opinions. Collect (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It could relevant to treating the situation with some sensitivity rather than annoyance. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Collect is right about this, we have a strict policy forbidding specific medical advice. It wasn't so intended, but could be so interpreted, so I have refactored. In future I would take it as good faith if you were to refactor on my behalf if I step across one of these bright-line policies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I've refactored my comment as well — no medical advice there, but no need to get into that here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative. He has posted in the past year fairly infrequently, and making a "big deal" out of the (interesting) posts is not important in the "great scheme of things." Heck, I also routinely objected to banning (grumpy) editors who have been brought to this court. If the matter is not of substantial and urgent importance, it is not worth the paper we are using here. Collect (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have extensively examined this editor's editing history over the last few years. Almost all edits to articles are unsourced, and while many of them make do not seem to be problematic, a very large proportion of them add content which at best is personal opinion, and at worst is crazy. Many of the pages created are clearly about ideas the editor has made up himself or herself. This applies not only to the strikingly bizarre conspiracy editing, but also to articles which on the face of it look more natural and plausible. For example, the article Universal Ranking System (now deleted) was completely unsourced. I have searched, and failed to find anything anywhere referring to the sort of "Universal Ranking System" described in the article. What is more, the article's second sentence says "such a ranking system would have to use...", with the word "would" clearly indicating that this is a hypothetical concept, a system which does not exist. Reading the article as a whole, it is evident that it is not about an actual ranking system, but rather about Stevertigo's personal ideas about what a universal ranking system should be. This is a relatively mild example: other parts of Stevertigo's editing are much worse, some of them totally crazy.
  • We are not dealing with an editor who has made a few unacceptable edits, and created one or two good faith but not very good articles. We are dealing with an editor who had such an extensive history of totally unacceptable editing that he or she was placed under restrictions which required sources for all article content, but who five years later is still making numerous unsourced and unreasonable edits, including creating completely unsourced articles which are totally off the top of his or her head, unrelated to anything in real life.
  • Chillum says "In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again." Maybe that "tends" to be the case for "people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas", but it does not appear to be so in this specific case. Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change?
  • Collect says "There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative." Collect must have looked at a very different sample of Stevertigo's than I have, because I have seen a very large number of edits which at best violate the ArbCom restriction, and at worst are total nonsense.
  • The ArbCom ruling says "he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction". On the basis of that ruling, I could easily block him for many months, perhaps for years, without further discussion. However, I don't think that would be enough. The editor has been subject to discussion in (to my knowledge) at least eleven administrators' noticeboard discussions, and at least three Arbcom cases, and has had restrictions placed on his/her editing at several of those discussions. We did not get to the stage of Arbcom placing blanket restrictions on the editor and authorising summary blocks for individual unsourced edits until the editor had been a major cause of problems. Nearly five years later, the same editor is (a) continuing to produce large numbers of unacceptable edits (b) completely ignoring the Arbcom ruling, and (c) failing or refusing to recognise that there is a problem. What is more, some of the problems are on exactly the same topics which were causes of sanctions before, such as Barack Obama related editing. Problems have been going on for at least ten years (when the editor was repeatedly blocked, and then desysopped): to expect that the problems will now fade away in a few months is unrealistic. Time for an indefinite block, and probably a site ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I tangled with Stevertigo years ago over his insistence that his personal analysis was correct at the article Perfect crime (what exactly does "perfect" mean?) He was wedded to the idea that his own original research was a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The friction between us escalated to this textbook example of disruption to make a point. Discussion such as this one in September 2009 resulted in him being blocked. Later, at a Wikipedia meetup, I talked with him in person, and he seemed a reasonable guy, but this recent spate of work proves otherwise. Support site ban. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blocking. If there is something wrong with the content on his user page, remove it or delete it. From what I can tell, his user page statement is less of an antisemitic one and more of a Christian one. In any case, while it is certainly quite easy to dismiss Steve as "totally crazy" per the above, he's always come off to me as more of an artist engaging in intellectual performance, such as the kind you might find in the local coffee shop or an itinerant orator like Stoney Burke. As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages, he should be okay. I would recommend that he focus on art and only on his art, as we have numerous topics that need designs, illustrations, and graphs. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban as WP:NOTHERE</