Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899

User:E.M.Gregory again

Coming here to avoid 3RR. As a result of a dispute on Matthew C. Whitaker, I have been keeping an eye on User:E.M.Gregory's contribs. He started 2015 Ikea murders for political reasons only per the edit comment). He supported this political view with sources from Breitbart. I knew these were not RS, but tried to stay uninvolved - I notified the Sweden Wikiproject to keep an eye on the article here. They did so, and some cleanup was done, including the addition of failed verification templates on all the sources in the Impact section (the "political part" which is the article creator's claimed focus) at the time. EM Gregory has removed those templates twice and left the sources they are tied to in the article. I restored the templates once, but I'm not going to editwar about it.

In the interests of disclosure, substantial errors were found and corrected on the aforementioned Whitaker article by myself and others, as evidenced by the Talk page, where I and others have documented several and I would note that there was no engagement by E.M.Gregory on the article talk until the initial matter was brought to ANI as the the result of a PA towards me. There is also a pattern: aside from the massive puffery removed on the Whitaker article, another sourcing error was found on another article, apparently due to a typo (because "Whitney" and "Bingham" are very close together on the keyboard, I guess). These "mistakes" seem to be far too prevalent, including what the initial PA was claimed to be. I'd note that I have also been accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, which is an issue I don't even edit. The intermediate diff showing the strikeout of a comment disregarding consensus is pretty interesting, too.

However, if that is, instead, the focus of EM Gregory's editing (aside from combating supposed "academic injustice" via Whitaker), that is a problem if not done fairly. The editing pattern is damaging to the encyclopedia (like moving an article during AfD), and the unwillingness to assume responsibility for the "mistakes" and errors (instead claiming "accidents", "wikihounding" and "SPAs") is a detriment to collegial editing. I'd take an interaction ban if this were indeed a personal issue on my part, but it isn't; EMG's editing pattern (and the IDIDNTHEARTHAT associated with it) is damaging to the encyclopedia, and it's simply not an isolated problem anymore, because it's cropping up on every article he edits. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.

I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.

Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Here's a statement directly from E.M.Gregory that shows exactly why there's an editing conduct issue: [1]. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And apparently he's attacking other users as well, later apologies aside: [2] MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if a problem has been identified, can we please have some actual disciplinary action on top of the problem identification? The user's behavior is getting ridiculous, to the point of effectively inventing things to change. It's actually a minor improvement for once, but the behavior around it negates the whole thing, as the change was made only as a way to attack me (not to improve the content). This should not be the level that it takes to get a minor positive contribution out of the user, either. Said user, by the way, despite being notified of the ANI, hasn't actually addressed anything stated herein (of which there is a substantial pattern illustrated by diffs in several articles, talk pages, and AfDs) other than to accuse me of POV editing and mental instability. I consistently address content, and he consistently addresses me, not the content. Maybe I simply haven't been clear in what I wish to be done, so here it is: The shoddy disruptive POV editing all over Wikipedia and the personal attacks in response to content edits from this user need to stop, by sanction if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And some NPA [3]. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

which the user attempted to refactor out of the discussion, removing another editor's comment as well: [4] MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Still more disruptive behavior:

• citing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS implicitly in an AfD by referring to his own articles' existence as reason to keep, also illustrative of POV editing with respect to articles relating to illegal immigration (a position he claimed I was pushing).
• Another personal attack on me in an AfD.
• Auslondoner cites EMG's disruptive behavior on another AfD, where EMG has brought up a totally different article.
• I'm also mildly concerned, given EMG's involvement with Susya and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush to see notability tagging by EMG on Arabian Business magazine, an article we've had since 2008. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that when E.M.Gregory does not get his way, he edits disruptively, pushes back against editors who do not agree with him, and generally causes a problem. For that reason, I'm retitling this ANI, as this has really gone well beyond one article. There are too many issues across the contribs at this point to call this isolated or personal. I've found at least three other editors he has caused problems with at this point. By ignoring this, his behavior is being validated. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note — As a heads up, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s to editors involved with the BLPs and warned E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) about a clear personal attack. To be fair, I do understand why he would feel he was being followed around, but clearly random accusations on talk pages or AfDs is not the proper place to go about dealing with the issue. --slakr^\ talk / 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• EMG has removed all of the failed verification tags from the Al-Bazi article, and I have notified slakr, as well as provided full support [5] as I also did in a briefer format in the AfD already. That's a clear violation of the sanctions, so I'm placing it here for documentation purposes. I will also note in the AfD diff, he states my claims are unsupported, but does not address any of them, relying on attacking the editor instead of engaging with the information. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• And perhaps a solid WP:COMPETENCE issue here, because in ten years at Wikipedia I've never seen these policies used to support exactly their opposite position by anyone who'd actually read them. MSJapan (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User interactions with AusLondonder

I've mentioned these before, but I'm going to drop them into a subsection to see if Auslondonder wishes to participate in this discussion, because there's a lot of interaction between them, too.

• [6] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondonder of CSDing
• [7] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondonder to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondonder of violating canvassing by doing so
• [8] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment having had a brief look at some of the articles created/edited by EMG, over and above the quality/misuse of sources, tag removing and general uncooperativeness referred to above. The articles seem to be written in a very WP:Coatrack manner, in which the main purpose of the article is to link immigration and criminality. Some of the articles currently at AfD, might well pass, but need major cleanups. If MSJapan and others have been obliged to follow this editor to ensure reasonable standards of sourcing and neutrality, they are doing us all a favour, not 'wikihounding'. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly, I am perplexed why no admin is replying to this matter or addressing the concerns. I have had some difficult experiences with E. M. Gregory in the past. My perspective is that this editor seems to seek to seek to pursue a political agenda on Wikipedia to a significant extent. This relates mostly to Islam/immigration and related topics (and in the past LGBT issues). This includes misuse and misinterpretation of sources and continual false allegations against other editors. While E. M. Gregory has made some helpful contributions, they also fail to follow some behavioural and editing guidelines. My response to his false allegations against me was fairly robust, as we have clashed in the past when I nominated an article relating to a book about gay "conversion therapy", resulting in false accusations of bad faith and agenda-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Auslondoner's record of bring articles the political implications of which he does not like to AFD is remarkable. Trying to remember ever "tangling" or even editing an article on LGBT issues, I came upon his AFD for a book: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Cannot find/recall what LGBT -related AFD I might have met him on. More recently, he simultaneously attempted to speedy SeaGlass Carousel and brought to AFD 2012 Paros (Greece) rape and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush. The problem is that he does not seem to perform WP:BEFORE, before he nominated articles. Moreover, the sort of reasons he gives for deletion "An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." are not exactly policy driven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  I feel, as I have felt since MSJapan started this, that while it is true that I have made mistakes since I began editing regularly earlier this year, I have in general been a responsible editor. I also suppose that all editors make mistakes. What is intense and inappropriate about MSJapan is not only combing thorough months of edits to fine errors, but saving them up like a magpie to bring here, why not just fix the things? the intensity comes in articles like Douglas Al-Bazi, an article I found at AFD and sourced. I'm not saying that it's perfect, merely that MSJapan's description of it both at the AFD and, particularly, at the [[User talk:slakrs talk page to be almost inexplicable. Unless, of course, his goal is to drive me form Wikipedia, and the only reason for trying to drive me away that I can imagine is that she does not want articles about Christian refugees from ISIS on wikipedia. Perhaps this is not political, whatever the motivation, I do feel that I am undeserving of the language and animosity directed at me by MSJapan, and that both MSJapan (who repeatedly has expressed a desire to drive me off Wikipedia) and AusLondne To me, it feels as though they are working in combination to drive me away form Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have in fact never stated such a position, and I see that EMG has not provided diffs to illustrate that. Meanwhile, I have provided plenty of diffs illustrating that EMG is not a responsible editor. Too many of his articles are written with an agenda in mind, and when confronted, he attacks the editor. The reason EMG finds my explanation "inexplicable" is dumbfounding to me, because I read every source EMG added to the article to try to find the statement he was citing to the source. In no case were those statements there; period. Therefore, it is likely that COATRACKing via Google is what is happening - Google the subject, add every source that his name is in - there's no other way that we could get to the situation that material clearly from a BBC radio program only was being sourced elsewhere. That is not responsible editing.

A similar thing happened here, where my source-based explanation was met with personal response, and in fact has nothing to do with the article's topic. The same thing happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen - the pushback against the editors, not the sources: "the nom didn't do BEFORE", "Assertion is false" etc, not "the source says." MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the personal pushback seems to be an agenda of wanting these articles on Wikipedia, often for what appears to be ulterior motives. 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush was created on August 16, and then he basically walked away from the article. It was prodded two weeks later, and that's when the issues started. Every time someone said something in the AfD, EMG went an COATRACKed a bunch of sources in to the article. This is the same thing he did with Matthew C. Whitaker, and several creation edit summaries illustrates this creation/expansion pattern:

2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later

Matthew C. Whitaker - Started the article July 14 during coverage, worked on it for about 2 days, then went away from it until it was tagged as undue August 2. EMG removed tags without discussion, and then didn't touch the article again until it was edited August 19.

[Seaglass Carousel creation diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeaGlass_Carousel&action=history] - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia" This is simply inappropriate use of the encyclopedia

There wouldn't be so much evidence if this wasn't such a widespread problem, and I have probably not gone back more than a month or so of editing (maybe six weeks by now?), except in a few cases, because the point is that this is a long-term problem iwith this editor, not a personal issue limited to interactions with one or two editors. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize for my levity at SeaGlass Carousel. The carousel is a big deal, artistically and in terms of coverage. I made a joke because I started the article just before the official opening. I happened to see it at night when the lights were on, the crew was running trials. I was totally take by it. So I wrote the little article. I write when something moves me. My first edit was about a terrorist attack. Mateu Morral. I find these things appalling, what ever the politics of the perpetrator. I suspect that a great many more of the old-time old anarchist and communist terror attacks could support articles than have them now. Often I am moved by a book, or an artist. I recently began several articles (mere stubs) about the cast of a show I saw: ((Hamilton (musical)]] and loved. I was not aware that there was a rule against starting an article and leaving it brief, in the assumption that it will grow. I have been under the impression that this is how Wikipedia functions. I often add just a bit to an article. Say, a reference, or a small fact. Sometimes I start an article in the belief that others, who know more about the topic, will sooner or later come and add to it. this seems to happen. But I have certainly been under the impression that if an incident of terrorism is widely covered by major media outlets, then an article is appropriate. This is true even of a great many such incidents where noone dies. (for example, 2014 Dijon attack, 2006 UNC SUV attack. I remember these incidents vividly, perhaps because I am familiar with the locations where they took place, but I heard about them on the national news at the time they ocurred. To me, MSJapan appears to be setting up a set of requirements for keeping an article on the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush that don't exist and/or are not applied to other, somewhat parallel incidents in which civilians are targeted by terrorists. In a broader sense, I do not find his descriptions of my work accurate, or his attitude constructive. I had, as I have stated elsewhere, decided that if I ignored him instead of engaging with him, that he would forget me. Since he has not, I respond here and throw myself on the fairmindedness of editors reading this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You "ignore me" insofar as you revert edits out of hand, and refuse to engage in discussion until I bring things here, despite my posting on talk pages and AfDs consistently, documenting all my changes for the record. Meanwhile, you very much don't ignore me when your reversion edit summaries are all some form of "MSJapan is wrong/untruthful/makes unsupported statements", and yet you can't point to where the information you say is in the source, is actually in the source. I would also point out that I have never once made a personal attack against you, and have confined my statements entirely to dealing with sources. You, on the other hand, have accused me (so far) of: being an article topic, POV editing, having a COI, being "mentally unstable", and "having a nervous breakdown." It takes several other editors making the same changes I make and document for them to stick. Three other editors have indicated problems just in this thread, and two of them have never interacted with you. How big does the problem need to get? MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate rewording and coatracking: here. The phrase from Al Monitor reads Whenever groups of Jewish extremists enter, the women begin to chant Islamic verses. If the Jewish groups are seen attempting to pray, the women shout the Islamic religious phrase of Allahu Akbar (God is Great). EMG has changed it to "Israelis", and the source he adds says "where they would study Quran and disrupt the increasingly frequent visits by religious Jews to the site, with shouts of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) and physical assaults." Neutrality aside, "Israelis" are not the same as either "religious Jews" or "Jewish extremists" and that is not an accurate representation of the sources. The fact that this is a new article that EMG is editing reinforces the point that this is an editing problem, not a content dispute. I personally don't care what the content is, as long as it reflects the sources, and it does not. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reformat of information

I am condensing the information in hopes that less text will encourage input.

AfD issues

• citing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS implicitly in an AfD by referring to his own articles' existence as reason to keep, also illustrative of POV editing with respect to articles relating to illegal immigration (a position he claimed I was pushing).
• Auslondoner cites EMG's disruptive behavior on another AfD, where EMG has brought up a totally different article.

Personal attacks/Accusations against other editors

• Another personal attack on me in an AfD.
• [9] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondonder of CSDing
• [10] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondonder to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondonder of violating canvassing by doing so
• [11] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• A source-based explanation was met with personal response.
• Same on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen - the pushback against the editors, not the sources: "the nom didn't do BEFORE", "Assertion is false" etc, not "the source says."
• PA in original ANI.
• I was accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, an area I do not edit in.
• Commenting on an editor, not sources.

POV editing

• Notability tagging on Arabian Business magazine, an article we've had since 2008.
• Per the edit comment, article created to talk about nonexistent political fallout.
• Addition of failed verification templates by uninvolved editors removed twice.
• 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later.
• Combating supposed "academic injustice" via the Matthew C. Whitaker article.
• This AfD diff where EMG justifies writing an event article solely to focus on the perp.
• Seaglass Carousel creation diff - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia"

Source issues

• Deliberate rewording and coatracking: here, changing text so that the quote does not reflect extremists or eligious Jews, but Israelis in general.
• Documented source errors not addressed on article talk.
• Removal of the failed verification tags from the Al-Bazi article, despite support provided here and on the AfD. Coatracking has led to several editors voting keep based on "good sourcing".
• Removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened.

Suggested course of action

Editing restrictions should be imposed:

• Oversight of EMG's edits by a mentor to ensure sources support claims made, without exception.
• If possible, requirement of approval of edits by a mentor who will do due diligence to verify those sources.
• Required and enforced engagement with others' concerns with edits, especially with new articles and edits in the Israel-Palestine area.
• EMG may not revert edits permitted without consensus on talk page.
• Zero tolerance of PA in all interactions with editors.

Lack of acceptance of these measures will lead to suspension of editing privileges via timeban. Continued violations should lead to an outright block. MSJapan (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Continued victim playing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU by User:Mhhossein

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

---

Over several days, Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in disruptive victim playing and refusal to get the point in Talk:Nuclear weapon#RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views. He requested that I open a report here, so as to settle the issue.[12] The user was also asked by VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop the behavior.[13] I previously had requested intervention against his refusal to respect WP:BURDEN here.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While there has been tension elsewhere between the two editors, I don't really see what the problem is. The RfC was closed by Anders Feder with everyone's agreement (as far as I can see). (Technically, the initiator of the RfC should not close it, but since everyone agreed, it is ok here, WP:IAR). It was reopened due to a misunderstanding: it was closed while Mhhossein was writing his comment simultaneously (explanation here). The rest is some back-and-forth over politeness, but since everyone agrees over the content, so I do not see what is to be achieved by fighting over this. My suggestion is to simply accept that it was a misunderstanding and bury the hatchet here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by Mhhossein: First of all I really don't know the reason why Anders Feder wishes to increase the tensions by opening unnecessary topics here. However, he made the opportunity for me to have some explanations on this and I was not really willing to take him here in spite of his background.
  • Nuclear Weapon talk page: I opened a topic on the "Islamic views" on nuclear weapon, and for the beginning I wrote a summary of Khamenei's fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, considering that the section will develop later by other users and other viewpoints will be added from other scholars other than khamaneie. Unfortunately, Anders Feder apparently assumed my bad faith and opened a misleading RFC. In fact, he asked "Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"? while he could easily write: "Should the article include a section on "Islamic view" and should the section include khamenei's view?. The way he opened the RFC made almost every one think that a section is going to be devoted to Khamenei (read the comments) while it was not the fact . Anyway, almost every one agreed on having a section on "Islamic views" or "religious views", and Feder acted in a manner as if there's no consensus. He got angry and had some impolite comments and I asked him to be cool. He said that the section has the due problem and I answered (my previous comment) if there was a due problem why he had opened a RFC for inclusion? As Kingsindian said, I explained how I was writing my comment simultaneously when the RFC was being closed.
  • Warning by VQuakr: He made a strange warning on my talk page and I answered why the warning really did not apply there.
• Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "strange" at all about VQuakr's message to you. It was completely warranted and evidence that the on-going disruption is being caused by you and no one else, and is not, as Kingsindian erroneously and counter-productively characterizes it, "tension between editors". The sole source of disruption is you, and it will continue across Wikipedia until admin action is taken against you, as I correctly predicted in the previous ANI.

Your other claims are obviously false as anyone can see from the talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

His message was just strange to my eyes and it simply could have been not strange to yours! As it seems you believe that all what I said was wrong while all what you say is right. If you are sure that I'm the sole source of the problems, be cool because the admins know what to do by theme selves and don't need us to tell them what to do. Mhhossein (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to pretend that you are cool, no one has required you to respond. Admins often do not know what to do with tendentious editors like you until they become aware of the amount of disruption you are causing. That is the whole point of ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Another Comment by Mhhossein: Pinging @Sa.vakilian: as I had consulted him regarding personal attacks by Andres Feder. More about Andres Feder:
  • Andres Feder hounding me: On some pages, he appears just after I edit them. He even does the same on the talk pages. His edit in Nuclear weapons is an example. Assuming his good faith, he is trying to enhance the encyclopedia, but how can one call these edits anything but harassment ([14]-[15]-[16]?) and I had asked him to stop hounding me two times (one time on his talk page (which was removed by him) and one time on an article talk page where he had hounded me).
  • Andres personal attack over several months: There's a long list of personal attacks by Andres Feder:

1- here, this editor, Andres Feder, insisted on insulting religion by repeating the phrase "degenerate religious thinking", and here by referring to “all religious fiction” and saying that "all religious texts are fictional", even when I told him that Wikipedia does not care what our beliefs are. He further insulted me by saying, "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!", after which I warned him and asked him to respect the beliefs of others.

2- He always pretends that I am upset because of the policies, but I try to respect the policies and his behavior has irritated me.

-Me: "This is the last time you are insulting my beliefs, I respect yours so please respect mine."[17]

- Editor: "If these policies cause you offence, you are free to set up your own wiki and use any sources you want there". [18]

-Me: "Of course We are not talking about the policies. The policies are highly required for maintaining an encyclopedia. This is you who causes offense to one's beliefs."

[19]

3- The editor tries to use insulting sentences and examples even when we are discussing something else. When I asked "Lightbreather" to guide me on this, Feder came in and said " Not to support the Iranian dictatorship or any other church-state".[20]

Or here he used this example which is in fact an insult to Khomeini:

"According to Ayatollah Khomeini, God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment"[21]

4-I tried to solve the problem through his talk page, but he made more attacks and removed exchanges [22]

There he said, "you expect me to respect someone who everyone knows was a deranged madman?" (referring to the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini).

5- He was given another request to be polite, but he removed that message, too:

[23]

6- Some other insults are here: [24]-[25]-[26]. Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

When bad-faith editors fill Wikipedia with Iranian state propaganda, good-faith editors will naturally show up to remove it. If that is what you think "hounding" is, then "hounding" is completely fundamental to the way Wikipedia works: contrary to what you believe, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your favorite totalitarian regimes. (And please point me to the policy that prohibits "insulting" "Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini". Maybe you are confusing the policies that apply on Wikipedia with the anti-democratic authoritarian laws that apply in your own country, according to which so-called insults against the "Supreme Leader" is punishable with nothing less barbaric than death?)--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I know Mhhossein and Anders Feder very well and participate in many discussions with them. Andres is right when he says "Wikipedia is not the place to promote ... ", but I think he does not pay attention to WP:FAITH. He is suspicious about the other editors who have different viewpoints like Mhhossein, thus discusses in a way that looks arrogant and offensive.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please pay attention to WP:FAITH2. AGF does not mean that everyone on Wikipedia actually is in good faith, or that one must assume it when the contrary has been clearly demonstrated.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking over some of those links, and I'm missing an important element: where these "personal" attacks are against Mhhossein. Anders Feder is certainly insulting towards the government of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini, but as he correctly states, there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy requiring him to be nice to either on talk pages, except in so far as his edits on relevant articles must reflect NPOV. Nor does him editing some of the same articles as Mhhossein constitute "hounding."

That being said, Anders Feder is being unnecessarily caustic towards Mhhossein, and he ought to start practicing more civility before people push for an interaction ban. Ravenswing 11:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of administrator action against Mhhossein, unambiguous language is unfortunately the only language he understands. The moment he stops promoting his personal politico-religious causes on Wikipedia, I will not even need to interact with him.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: It is ok to disagree, even vehemently, with sourcing - but I fail to understand comments like "Sayyid Mahdi Modarresi is no more a professional than a dancer in the adult entertainment industry is a professional". For example, I don't go around calling Israel a "ethnocratic colonial imperial warmonger state", even though I have a POV and edit a lot in WP:ARBPIA. There is no need to use such caustic language, especially when talking about religious beliefs, which people are very touchy about, when you can simply make the point that the source is not WP:RS. I see your actions otherwise as mostly right in insisting on WP:RS. I see Mhhossein as in the wrong in this particular instance, but willing to improve. You are of course not forced to respond to everything which the other user says: if you are running out of patience/time, simply tell them to open an RfC/RSN discussion as I did here: Talk:Quds_Day#Sentence_from_Chicago_Monitor. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed no need for any one user to do anything on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not compulsory. There is no law or policy preventing us all from leaning back and letting trolls and POV-pushers take over. However, that is not my point. I have not implied that there is.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I am sorry that you don't see that comparing a religious figure to a dancer in the sex industry is gratuitous and unnecessary. It is of course important to push back against religious POV-pushers etc., but there is no reason to be gratuitously offensive in doing so. (This is irrelevant of whether Mhhossein actually is such an editor: certainly no case of him being one has been made here). I see mostly good faith disagreements on the talk page, in this instance you are correct about WP:RS and so on. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it isn't necessary for you, since you aren't one trying to do the pushing. It's trivial to sit sanctimoniously perched and tell others how "gratuitous and unnecessary" their actions are. It is another matter to actually do something to push back against religious POV-pushers etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Indeed, I have no experience whatsoever in contentious topic areas. This is why I choose to edit in WP:ARBPIA, which is free from trolls, POV-pushers, racists and sockpuppets. More seriously, every editor in this thread has flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments, while appreciating your work in trying to uphold WP:RS. You would do well to heed their advice. This is my last comment on this matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Can you prove your accusations? You would, if you could! Mhhossein (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be polite and respect the etiquette. Your overuse of exclamation marks amount to shouting, and does not make you seem more intelligent. I am happy to respond to anyone asks a normal question.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, they were needed uses! Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall remember that the next time you engage in victim-playing over something I said. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravenswing: Thanks for your intervention. Did you check the links like those in item #1? there he said "degenerate religious thinking" and "all religious texts are fictional", "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!" I would never talk about one's belief in such a place and he should learn to respect others view point. Even if those statements are right, they should be stated in related articles using reliable sources, as I have told him before. Thank you again. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian:Thanks for your intervention. I would even more thankful if you could tell me how I was wrong? Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As I told before in my talk page, focusing on the religious or political issues and trying to judge them with caustic language instead of discussion about improving the article is the main reason of controversy. --Seyyed(t-c) 12:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the sole reason of controversy is repeated attempts to promote religious and political agendas on Wikipedia despite innumerous reminders that this is direct violation of policy. Without these promotional efforts, no interaction would be required. And what's worse, those efforts damage real, mainspace content, whereas the kerfuffle regarding talk page commentary is mainly a sideshow.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Do you accuse him for WP:POVPUSH!!! Do you have evidence for it?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the words of Mhhossein, please "be polite and respect the etiquette" - unneeded overuse of exclamation marks is considered shouting.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but your case was the needed use of exclamation because as you see almost every one flagged your caustic and unnecessary comments. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was going to ask the same question. From this discussion it seems to me that User:Anders Feder confuses including a neutrally worded, well-sourced section on a mainstream religious viewpoint with promoting that viewpoint. Regarding the RfC itself, User:Mhhossein will have seen the "Edit conflict" message when trying to save his changes, and should therefore not have reopened the discussion; that said, as was mentioned above, arguably Anders Feder should not have closed his own RfC and with hindsight it seems the discussion wasn't entirely over.

I don't see any need for punitive Admin action against either user. I suggest the RfC stays open for now and that a request for admin closure is logged at WP:AN in a couple of days' time. WaggersTALK 12:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no confusion. Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject while masquerading it as a "neutrally worded, well-sourced section" is a well-known method of tendentious editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Waggers: I think the discussion is some thing beyond a RFC. One may be confused why he has opened a topic in this board. Andres Feder's harsh language disturbs the atmosphere and hinders reaching a consensus. As he is stuck in a systemic bias he can't accept a disagreement and instead expresses himself using uncivil statements (lots of them presented above). Most of the editors here asked him to practice civility but he ignores to get that. I'm asking you to prosecute the case of his being impolite, hounding and personal attacks. Also he should prove his accusations of POV pushing if there's a case. He considers everything published in Iran as propaganda and every one who holds a viewpoint in support of Iran to have a neutral text is promoting propaganda. I noticed his bias in my first encounter with him last year and I told him that. You can follow this section to get the point. At the beginning of the discussion he said "Yes, people on a crusade to promote their religion on Wikipedia unfortunately often indulge in edit warring because they are unable to have their propaganda included under regular standards of reliability and neutrality, as if being disruptive would somehow make them seem more convincing." Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please drop the ridiculous references to civility since you obviously are incapable of being civil yourself.[27] It is just an attempt on your part to distract attention from your tendentious editing in mainspace. The only thing that disturbs the atmosphere and hinders consensus is your political and religious agendas - I have done nothing in the RfC to hinder consensus. On the contrary, I proposed a close on what seemed to be the agreed outcome, but you—not me—instead continued arguing. As for the reliability of state-controlled media in Iran, see the closing comment at the top of this RfC.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything Kingsindian has written here (especially his advice to Anders Feder). While Mhhossein does clearly push his own POV to an extent it's on a relatively lowkey level (the whole adding a section on Khamenei to the nuclear weapons article was over the top though). If Mhhossein was topic banned for POV pushing we'd have to ban pretty much every single other person editing in the topic area too. Brustopher (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: I just found it necessary to remind you that per WP:POVPUSH, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas," and also "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously." Remember that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing." Did I aggressively tried to present a particular POV? How? Please read my "Nuclear Weapon talk page" comment. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Gah, too much nesting. Anyway ... in response to Mhhossein's comment to me, yes, I did see those links. Once again, I remind you that while being disrespectful towards your faith or nation might be uncivil (depending on the context), it does not constitute an actionable personal attack on you, and is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

  To Anders Feder ... eeesh, you're just digging yourself deeper here. Were Mhhossein a paid agent, here solely to push the nasty, nasty views of the Iranian government (sarcasm flag up), the situation wouldn't warrant your repeated language. If you think he's posting objectionably, open a RfC. What you don't get to do is claim -- as you did to me -- that his postings somehow exempts you from the civility rules. You're starting to sound like someone who would warrant an interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Then so be it - I am not going to pretend that tendentiousness is acceptable to avoid some phony ban.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite aside from that it's darkly amusing that someone complaining about tendentiousness feels the need to rebut every statement anyone makes, you're still bound by WP:CIVIL, however much you believe that Mhhossein is some great evil who needs to be stopped at all costs. I'd take a peek at WP:BOOMERANG in your shoes. Ravenswing 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's darkly amusing how certain people operating on these boards thinks there is some profound truth in threatening to shoot the messenger. A user who have now been blocked thrice pointed me to the same essay to inhibit me from reporting him just a week ago.[28] Seems its some kind of magic word that people invoke when they lack anything substantive to say.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder, we do have something substantive to say, and we have said it. The problem is, you're not listening. I agree with you that WP:WEIGHT is important, but you need to understand that WP:CIVIL is just as important, if not more so. If you're not prepared to tone down your rhetoric we need to address that problem. WaggersTALK 07:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You are saying WP:CIVIL in talk space may be more important than content in mainspace being encyclopedic? Maybe I just do not belong in this community then - too bad.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether content is "encyclopedic" or not is often quite subjective, and you can't be wearing blinkers so thick as to not realize that there are those who disagree with your take on things, or -- we would hope -- that disagreeing with you is not by definition sinister or suspect. WP:CIVIL, by contrast, is a policy of Wikipedia which all editors are required to follow. If you are unable (or unwilling) to follow its provisions, then you're dead on the money: you don't belong here. Ravenswing 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Then block me, or ask someone else to.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I said I will not comment more, but since this seems to be spiraling out of control, I should say something (A wise man once said: "there are no winners at WP:ANI, only survivors"). Anyone who knows me (of course nobody does here, not their fault) knows that I am in general not in favour of WP:CIVILity arguments (see here for an example), since they are often bogus. However, civility is important, and Anders Feder gives no reason why he insists on using incivil language gratuitously. See the exchange here, for instance. Note that Sa.vakilian also disagreed with Mhhossein about whether the source is WP:RS, but it was policy based, with no gratuitous remarks such as "God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment ref Ayatollah Khomeini /ref" by Anders Feder. From the focus of Anders Feder's work, I see in many places that his judgement and work are good, but this kind of behaviour does nobody any favours, least of all himself. If Anders Feder's record and work were not good, my judgement about his behaviour would be much harsher, precisely because I think that content is what matters ultimately. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Mhhossein's behavior continues unfazed.[29]--Anders Feder (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm looking at it. What policy do you claim those two statements violate? Ravenswing 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Where have I claimed that those two statements "violate" any policy?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the admin notice board for serious incidents, not the "I don't like the tone of his voice" board. If you're posting those diffs here, you're claiming that those are objectionable statements in violation of policy. If you're not claiming that they constitute policy violations, then you're wasting our time. So ... Ravenswing 10:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Am I really? According to what authority?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: Are you referring to a policy being violated? Mhhossein (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to the same as VQuakr: [30]. Do you need a policy to see that badgering is contrary to consensus-building?--Anders Feder (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to explain it here. I already did it. Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Already did what?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Solutions

Honestly, this is looking like a WP:BOOMERANG case to me; I've seen far more by way of objectionable postings and tendentious behavior from Anders Feder than from Mhhossein. I'm therefore proposing that Anders Feder be placed under an interaction ban with Mhhossein, and that at worst Mhhossein be cautioned to rein in the rhetoric and practice more civility in his own postings. Ravenswing 10:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Dutch Schultz and Arnold Rothstein

Hello. An IP user (or two) has umabiguously stated their "Jewish conspiracy" paranoia and is making edits to downplay or erase the Jewish history/ethnicity of two organized crime figures. The edits, while seemingly random and nonetheless absurd, are exceeded by the IP's(s') insistence. Best illustrated at Talk:Dutch_Schultz#Dutch_Schultz.27s_Judaism and on my Talk Page.

They started with edits like this and this by 50.174.10.195 and are now being made by 4.35.70.123.

Seems pretty clearcut and agenda-heavy to me. JesseRafe (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Stop creating and putting words in other people's mouths like "Jewish conspiracy." Where did I say "Jewish conspiracy."? You are inflaming the tension by creating words and sentences. I'm open to compromise. You are being absolutist. No change, all revert, back to 100% same. I'm open to change. I'm offering a solution, you are not offering anything. I disagree with your content on that article. Work with me, change it a little bit and move on. This complaining, whining, bringing up Jewish conspiracy is nonsense and waste of time. Reference for your future edits. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You may not have said "Jewish conspiracy", but when you suggest a group of Jewish editors is working together and further allege a specific editor is part of that group,[31] I think "Jewish conspiracy" is a fair description. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No one said anything about "Jewish conspiracy" until "Jewish conspiracy" was brought up on this page. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment I linked was made two hours before this ANI case was opened. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Also worth noting this editor's (on however many IPs they may be using) systematic approach to making unsourced name-changes as well as de-linking or de-emphasizing an article's subject's Judaism, cf: Isaac Steinberg diff using both the 4... and 50... IPs mentioned here. To say nothing of whatever he or she may continue to write on my Talk Page. JesseRafe (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Work with me and get 50-50%. I'm willing to compromise, but this blank revert by your part is not clicking with me. I'm making good faith edits. I'm trying to make the intro readable than "German-Jewish-American" Simplify the article and move on. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't and never has said that. Your true motivations are evident.JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cut down the "Jewish" talk by about 50% on that article. Let's make a change that is different from your total blank revert and my edit. So in other words, the change will be different from the previous version and different from my edit. This "Jewish" talk on that page is making it just very unreadable and uncomfortable to read honestly. The article is really becoming not about Dutch Schultz himself, but about being Jewish and how Jewish he was, which he was not. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish talk" is making you "uncomfortable"? I think we found the problem and the source in the same place... JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Gross insult of deceased person

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

---

See diff. Please block right-away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Cursing is not a vandalism or an insult. It is merely an invocation to God. All what i did is that i asked God to curse the soul of that person.--151.249.119.27 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please close this per WP:DFTT? John from Idegon (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please semiprotect User talk:Paul Barlow before closing this (and maybe block the IP for trolling, if anyone cares). Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

(Apologies for my edit summary) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy123 (Moved)

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

---

Comment - @203.173.186.163: Moved to the correct place. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't leave a msg on the User:Skamecrazy123 talk page. Some of the recent reverts being done by the editor are wrong and are unexplained. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's protected from vandals. And what exactly were you adding to the articles that I reverted, hmm?--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In one case I fixed a link that you broke and for the email client article I cleaned it up a bit. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you explain that in the edit summary, instead of wasting my time dragging me here? It didn't look like you were cleaning it up at all, hence the revert. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I explained one of my reasons in a hidden comment in the edit (which you should have noticed), and the rest of it should have been obvious. To say it is wasting your time is a spurious argument. I could say that you are wasting my time. Also, the quality of your edits had to be raised. If I saw two problematic edits in such a short space of time in=t calls into question all of you other edits. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is another bad edit from Skamecrazy123. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And the editor is not very collegial. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Another recent poor quality edit. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's hilarious. Seriously, I am laughing my ass off here. Thanks for the laugh. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what is funny. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This whole farce. I'm out. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as farcical at all. I am just trying to sort it out. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for you. Let me know how it works out for you. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But I cannot do that since I cannot edit your talk page. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you cant edit another users page it is possible to start a section on the articles talk page then add this {{u|EditorsName}} to the post. Just replace EditorsName with the name of the editor and sign it with ~~~~. This will only work on a new post, you cant add it later. They will be notified of the post. AlbinoFerret 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some questionable edits here, but mistakes happen. The only problem I see is Skamecrazy123's attitude toward an editor raising a concern. I urge them to assume good faith and take comments in the spirit they're given, but no action is needed here. ~ Rob^Talk 23:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Skamecrazy needs to be a little more careful in their vandalism fighting. In at least 2 of the edits sequences I looked at, he reverted obvious vandalism, but by doing so restored previous vandalism, which should have been removed as well. BMK (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You could always use {{ping}} on the talkpage of an article to begin a discussion with a user whose page you cannot edit. To be honest though, I think I might have made this edit and this edit. IDK about this. I would suggest Skamecrazy123 check the recent history of the page to be sure that there is nothing left over that you didn't miss. It is an easy thing to do. These edits are WP:NOTVAND. Per Rob, WP:AGF may be a bit lacking but no action is currently needed. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:@Orduin: My whole editing history got called into question for a couple of mistakes (hence the attitude). Where is the assumption of good faith there? I will take BMKs advice to heart though. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest we close this, nothing is going to happen here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Unjust bans on fallacious grounds

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

---

I've been banned for two weeks, now extended to three. I made edits to Microwave auditory effect and because there was disagreement about them, some in my favor, some against, User:Dennis Brown has now blocked my IP address and is accusing me of meat puppetry i.e. other users agreeing with the edits, and ban evasions, i.e. other users agreeing with the edits. The grounds for this ban and extension are completely fallacious and have no foundation in truth. 75.137.124.104 (talk) i.e. User:Baphy93 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Any admin want to block for the admittance of socking as this IP??? Murry1975 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The IPs have been adding ludicrous sources to promote fringe theories. This is edit-warring, block evasion and clear sockpuppetry. Block. GAB^Hello! 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP myself. As for my crimes, I welcome a full review of my actions and I will accept whatever the community feels is appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

BiH failing to disclose paid edits

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

---

BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked repeatedly to disclose which articles they've been paid to edit but four months after it was first raised at COIN and an SPI (no confirmed socks) they have still not disclosed and have continued to add promotional and copyrighted material e.g. at Draft:Canada’s_Ecofiscal_Commission. There is already a consensus on their talk page to block indefinitely, at least until they comply with the ToU, but I would like some fresh eyes as we have all been involved in tidying up the mess. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely need more time to do the complete list. I will do the latest projects today as they are fresh in my memory. For those COI users mentioned on my talk page, I have no idea who they are. I will update my COI list with the format agreed on my talk page. --BiH (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree that an indef block is appropriate until they complete their disclosure. It has been well over a month that BiH has been saying they will do this, and they are making other edits in the meantime. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please see User:BiH#COI. I really have some personal struggles that keep taking my time, but I will definitely complete the disclosure ASAP. I came fully honest with the community and I would really appreciate some understanding. I will need more time to do the full list, but what I had in memory and my logs is out now. I hope some good faith is shown. --BiH (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If not an indefinite block, at the bare minimum there should be a topic ban from all Wikipedia pages except his user page until he has completed the list. The amount of editors' time he has taken up in trying to get him to comply with the ToU is inexcusable. This editor has created 140 articles, of which at least 75% are pretty obvious paid editing candidates. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block. The editor claims they don't have all the details in their emails to fully disclose. We've been trying to get full disclosure for a year. Widefox; talk 17:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Block until all COIs are disclosed, and then a topic ban on any articles directly related to those COIs. That is the only way that this user's edits will ever be acceptable. Keeps saying "I'll do it", but in the meantime just keeps making edits. The feet dragging and clearly promotional edits are not filling me with confidence that the editor is here to be anything more than a shill, so removing the ability to be a shill will be a true test of their value as an editor. And it even one undisclosed COI edit is found, he's out. To be blunt, I'd rather just outright ban anyone found to be paid editing for good, as using Wikipedia to promote a company is against both the ToU and the fundamental spirit of the project. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Indef blocked. We don't have to tolerate this indefinitely with its attempts to stall the inevitable. Recommend also procedurally deleting all articles per G11. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a commercial networking site or the Yellow Pages. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform and a source of income for those who think they can game the system.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Indef until full disclosure - Article scan be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. BMK (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Resolved. Note that Kudpung says "blocked", not "block". Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Article creation needs to be blocked

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

---

Can administrators find out who created the same page on 26 July?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suvrat_raj&action=edit&redlink=1

-- Action Hero Shoot! 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This probably belongs at WP:RFPP, where you can ask for the page to be creation protected. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Probably not a candidate for WP:SALTing until one more bad version is created. Bringing it here was fine, however, as I was able to tell that the two people that created both accounts were the same person. (admin access required to know that) The first was blocked for WP:HERE and the second was a sock, now blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the main reason why i came here-Dennis Brown's last comment. Close this thread after tagging them as sockpuppet. Most likely he will create Suvrat Raj and Subhrat Raj or Subhrat raj with new socks. Thanks. Action Hero Shoot! 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xsonu_kumar&diff=680867267&oldid=680783520 Action Hero Shoot! 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User repeatedly recreating article deleted at AfD

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

---

User:MrMojoRisin71 has ignored the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Hinzie Kersten. After the AfD this editor recreated it, then after that was deletd created Herbert H. Kersten which was also speed deleted. Today he recreated "Herbert H. Kersten" as Herbert H Kersten - without the full stop, and again reinserted him into [{Georgia Guidestones]] as their creator.[32] This seems to be his main purpose. User:Tokyogirl79 blocked the editor for 72 hours at some point during this (the editor's second block). Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't Herbert H Kersten been speedied yet? BethNaught (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Verified it's the same content and deleted it G4. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Arkon on Weatherman articles

Arkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just appeared on, and begun edit warring the descriptor "terrorist" into,[33][34][35][36][37] two related articles, Bill Ayers and Weather Underground. Their dismissive tone on removing my two cautions,[38][39] and continuing to edit war after those cautions, are a break-down of editing process. I bring this here rather than the BLP notice board, page protection, or an edit war report, because this article space has a particular issue with this kind of WP:BATTLE approach to the WP:TERRORIST label. Many accounts have been blocked and banned here. If you look at the historic RfC on the matter at Talk:Weather Underground Organization/Terrorism RfC, the three main proponents were all blocked as socks. So this needs some extra oversight as a result. Content disputes we can handle just fine on the talk page; incorrigible edit warring to call a well known figure a terrorist needs some attention. Incidentally, although it's important to quickly revert these sorts of inappropriate edits once or twice while giving appropriate requests and if necessary cautions, to bring content matters to the talk page, I'm not going to do that any further now that Arkon has made it clear they will simply edit war any attempt to keep the status quo. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Check my contribs in the last 24 hours for any necessary response. Feeling awfully Australian in here. Arkon (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The deceptive editing of the WU article (stating things don't exist there, that do, then editing to remove them), and then strange comment formatting here (changing my ident to a lower level after a subsequent response, then claiming it was an add (after a response no the less), is enlightening. Arkon (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this editor is ranting about. This is a simple matter that shouldn't get off track. Best not to bluster into high conflict topic areas in WP:BATTLE mode with an unyielding determination to edit war. If so, collaboration comes to a complete halt and we need help to end the jam. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't recall your edit to the WU [40] to remove the terrorist descriptor after you said that such a thing didn't exist [41]? That's rough. Arkon (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a reference on the Bill Ayers article supporting the claim that the Weatherman group was a terrorist entity. I'm sorry to say it took three attempts because there was a mandatory underscore preceding the 012904 in the url and I made a typo or two. Akld guy (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Have done the same on the Weather Underground article. Akld guy (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated, though not sure it's necessary cause those refs were in the body. Either way, it's an improvement if it stops things like the above. Arkon (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I'm thinking he/she is closely aligned with the people or entities in the articles, and therefore has WP:COI. Should never have been brought here. Akld guy (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(ecX4) Akld guy, what gives with the bizarre accusations? And Arkon, what's with the accusations of lying? If you want to discuss content in good faith you'll have to start, on the article talk page, respecting that there has been both a local and global consensus about the terrorism label for about seven years, and also a policy against edit warring. You may wish to question or challenge consensus, which is your right, but that consensus did take into account all of the arguments and sources you appear to be presenting. Working in collaboration rather than reflexively slinging accusations to defend bad editing practice is also a must. If you're having trouble understanding what I am saying, you might just try asking me instead of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But back to the point, if I or another editor restore the long term consensus version that doesn't call people terrorists will you respect that and bring any concerns or proposals up on the talk page? If yes, we're done here. If no, you're vowing to edit war and we need administrative help. Your call. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem understanding you, we've known each other a while (or at least I remember our previous interactions). What actually matters is the content, which you seem to be trying to argue here. I warned you of the futility of that. You're just wrong and need to be wary of the boomerang. Arkon (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No boomerang, don't be ridiculous. Sorry, I don't remember our earlier interactions but I'm sure you're a fine upstanding editor and I hope we had good spirits, I get along with nearly everyone here. Regarding content, I'm asking for help with your little editing hiccup here, not the substance of what it regards. By the BRD approach, and almost any other constructive way of dealing with these things, the burden is on you to make a proposal, explain why, and convince the community. And especially not to try to win content arguments by edit warring, particularly where there are strong BLP concerns. The arguments have already been made, hundreds of thousands if not millions of bytes of them by dozens of editors, available one or two clicks away on the article talk pages and archives. Some of the viewpoints in the RfC are very thoughtful and convincing, despite all the socking and process games. If you want to discuss on the article talk page, other editors and I can certainly respond to specific points. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

[42] Arkon (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And I responded in detail[43] while cautioning you about edit warring, but you continued edit warring, so here we are. Again, if I or another editor restore the status quo version of these articles that omits the terrorism label, will you revert them again or will you wait for the outcome of the discussion? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: Look, the FBI classifies the movement a terrorist one, and I added their url as a reference. There's no question but that it's a reliable source. If you and others want to debate on the Talk page that living individuals have seen the error of their ways during the past 40 years, go ahead, I agree that they have but don't expect me to be sympathetic to your latter-day revisionism. It was terrorism then and the passage of time cannot change that. Akld guy (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The FBI does no such thing, but any discussion about that particular web page as a source can be had (and has, at length) on the article talk pages. I'm not asking you to take any particular point of view about who is a terrorist, only that editors not edit war to enforce theirs. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a reasonable debate. Articles should not take a position on whether people are terrorists nor should they summarily attach labels of "terrorist" just because the application of that label can be reliably sourced. These guidelines exist for a reason, people. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are textbook examples on the correct approach to this. Swarm ♠ 06:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  The edit was not labeling the person as a terrorist. It was correctly labeling the organization, which is done similarly to the Al Qaeda article you reference. So yes, this isn't a reasonable debate. Arkon (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, but can you explain precisely what part of the Al Qaeda article you're referring to which is similar to the example shown here where Weather Underground is simply labelled a terrorist organisation in wiki voice [44]?

I had a look through the entire article by searching for terror. Ignoring direct quotes, there are plenty of mentions of terrorist attacks, terrorist plots, terrorist acts, terrorism convictions etc. As well as various organisations and countries labelling it is a terrorist group. What I can't find is where we did anything similar and label it as a terrorist organisation in wiki voice. Probably the closest is "Al-Qaeda decided to step in and assumed control of around 80% of the terrorist cells in Bosnia in late 1995" and perhaps "U.S-led efforts to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing" (although this seems to more be referring to them as financing terrorism rather than them being financed as a terrorist group). There were also "terror outfit's latest advance into India" and "primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia", but both of these can be read as the views of the people quoted, even if the wording wasn't a direct quote.

In any case, the situation in the Al Qaeda article aside, if there was a previous RFC and an attempted change was rejected, it would probably be best for a new RFC.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely a content dispute. I was speaking of this part:

"It has been designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India, and various other countries (see below)."

The wording wasn't exactly the same, but I'd certainly be happy with using that page as a template for a solution. Quibbles over that don't bother me, the correct descriptor for the group is the point. Arkon (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's an extremely different wording. One is fine in the article on the group is factual since it's only saying what other significan entities have called the group. The other is far more problematic since it's calling the group a terrorist group point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually our article already says "The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a "domestic terrorist group", but no longer an active concern" so what you're saying you need to add is already there. Whether or not this belongs in the WP:LEAD would have to be discussed on the article talk page, probably with an RFC if this was dealt with in the previous RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if you don't see why the wordings are very different and that this matters, that's a problem. In itself I wouldn't say it's something for ANI, but if you've been edit warring over it, that is quite concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know, my edit was to the lead, and I opened a section on talk. Kinda preaching to the choir here. As to the wording, that's part of the edit process, as I said I am happy to mimic the AQ article. Are you reading my responses? Arkon (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am and you're making me more and more concerned. You shouldn't be editing articles where it comes up, particularly not BLPs, if you don't understand the difference between the two wordings. You particularly shouldn't be edit warring. Opening up a discussion on the talk page is not an excuse for edit warring. Discussion does not require edit warring. If you don't learn quick, I would support a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Good lord. Now I'm concerned. Where in the world are you getting the idea that I "don't understand the difference between the two wordings". I've explicitly stated the opposite, what, 3 times now? Arkon (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did you do so? The first thing you said here when I brought up the fundamental difference between the Al Qaeda article you were comparing this to, was:

The wording wasn't exactly the same, but I'd certainly be happy with using that page as a template for a solution. Quibbles over that don't bother me, the correct descriptor for the group is the point.

Where you basically told me you didn't understand the difference. You seemed to think it was only a minor quibble over wording that "doesn't bother" you, when it's actually fundamentally different and completely non comparable (despite being brought up by you as an example). One was potentially a serious NPOV problem, the other provided it was factual, would not be (at least in the article, not necessarily in the lead). And if you understood this fundamental difference between the two wordings, why were you trying to add the other wording earlier without apparently having anything close to sufficient sourcing?

Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's terribly bad reading between the lines. I've been agreeing with you for the last 20 minutes, make the edit with your suggested wording and you have my support. You act like I was editing out the attribution. Leave the poor mind reading to the carnivals please. Arkon (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne observes: Actually our article already says "The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a "domestic terrorist group", but no longer an active concern" so what you're saying you need to add is already there. Whether or not this belongs in the WP:LEAD would have to be discussed on the article talk page, probably with an RFC if this was dealt with in the previous RFC.

Arkon suggests: ...make the edit with your suggested wording and you have my support.

Yeah, Arkon definitely isn't hearing Nil Einne. Does that help? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nil has stated that the correct way to make that edit (to the lead, btw, which should summarize the body which you just pasted), would be to attribute it. I agree with that. If they were to make that edit, yes I would support it. It's gonna be funny to read 50 different groups/magazines/papers/books that label them as such, but if that's the way it's gotta be. Does that help? Arkon (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Nil didn't state that. While Nil Einne did point out to you the difference between an assertion of fact and an attributed assertion, he also clarified "(at least in the article, not necessarily in the lead)", and rather than offer to suggest lede paragraph wording for you, the suggestion was for you to make your case as to why it should be in the lede. Is that a little less confusing? I'll be happy to try again and again if you need me to. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so apparently now you think it shouldn't be attributed in the lead? Or you think Nil said that? Or are just taking out of context pieces of sentences and framing them in the manner you wish? Or are you just trying to derail this into something other than the disagreement over inclusion of well sourced material that exists in the body of the article? Either way, I have no wish to follow you down this rabbit hole that has nothing to do with aligning said articles with WP:LEAD. Arkon (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a behavioral report asking for administrator attention regarding edit warring on a high-conflict article, that you are responding to with content claims and reckless accusations about other editors' motives. If it is going off track, that is your own doing. All you have to do on the behavioral end is to promise you do not intend to further edit war, and hopefully keep that promise. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

^ This right there. A complete lack of awareness of the fact that they were on the other side of these edits. This is the IDHT behavior that summarizes this situation. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you possibly talking about? You hit 3RR trying to call a living person a terrorist. I cautioned you not to do that and took it here rather than reverting as a last resort, when you made it clear you would not leave the articles in their stable version. Two editors reverted you and five or six editors and a bot have reverted similar edits in the past. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I did 3 reverts, yup. How many did you do again? Also, that's a lie that I tried to call a living person a terrorist. I was following WP:LEAD. So yeah, again ^ this right here. You should be ashamed. Arkon (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have carefully followed procedure here, so blowing smoke will not help you. You did 5 reverts across 2 articles, after I urged you to stop. I reverted the first three of these, and another editor reverted the final two. If it hadn't been us it would have been someone else. This is the fourth time you have accused me of lying by the way, which is rather offensive and its own behavioral problem. I can't tell if you believe your own rhetoric, but you need to cool down and stop playing games. You wanted to call Bill Ayers the leader of a former terrorist organization in the first sentence of the lede of his bio article. I've never heard of the head of a terrorist organization not being a terrorist, but again you go off track. You're done edit warring, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's first time I called you a liar, and it was a lie and continues to be. I supplied diffs for facts(that is the other times I called you a "liar" according to you) above [45], which you don't dispute btw, cause you can't. You were deceptive, and now you are ramping that up with disparaging remarks that are patently false. I correctly labeled an organization, which is labeled as such in their article (in the lede and body, until you removed the lede). Your behavior has veered from funny into unacceptable. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, five or six times now, depending on whether calling me a liar twice in one comment counts as one or two. For seven years consensus has run against calling the organization or its members terrorists and the articles were mostly stable on that point. Other editors have corrected you about that history and I had to demonstrate it to you[46]] after you refused to check. Look, that's neither here nor there. You're having a meltdown. Refusing to admit you're wrong is hard, and nobody is asking for that. Just please stop edit warring, and now that you've started lobbing accusations against me and other editors, cut that out too. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not going to add anything to the article. As I already mentioned I'm not sure the wording belongs in the lead. That's a content dispute you should discuss that in an appropriate RFC. The lead summarises the article but whether description of WU as a domestic terrorist organisation on the FBI website is significant enough for the lead will need to be established. By definition, a summary will always miss a number of stuff. For a long article, it's going to miss a lot.

Even if you were to start an RFC, I don't care enough to get involved. What I am concerned about is your apparent inaibility to understand that the wordings are fundamentally different and why this matters. It matters because you therefore made a major error in edit warring to preserve the other wording which could easily violate NPOV would need very strong sourcing support it. You can call it reading between the lines if you want but when asked for justification, you pointed to an article which did not use this problematic wording. When I pointed this out in the first instance, I hoped that you would understand and at a minimum undertake to be far more careful in the future. But instead all I see is a continued fuss over the content dispute.

This is a big deal particularly when you are messing with articles where BLP come up. If you still think I'm reading between the lines, I assume this means you have an explanation as to how you made such an error even though you did understand the wordings are not comparable. You're welcome to provide it. In the absence of that, I can only go by what was actually said here and as mentioned you've said nothing to indicate you understand the problem or more importantly, are unlikely to repeat it. Hence why I'm seriously pondering whether to propose a topic ban on editing BLPs which unlike a content dispute, is something for ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not a reasonable debate, and the efforts to edit-war the label into the lede sentence contravenes multiple Wikipedia policies. As noted above, the label insertion goes against long-standing consensus developed after multiple discussions and wide RfC input. Consensus can change, or at least be revisited, but that is to be done on the article Talk pages — not with the 'Undo' button on the article(s). The repeated insertion of the label in Wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:LABEL, the erroneous "There's no question but that it's a reliable source" notwithstanding — that source is only reliable for the opinions of that source. Also erroneous is the argument that the contentious and disputed label was only being attached to an organization, not a person; that organization is a very small group of identified individuals, and therefore subject to the extended sourcing requirements and considerations of our BLP policies. The information about how the organization has been perceived and described by different sources is already present in the article. The attempt to morph that disputed description into a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice in the article lede will require serious discussion and a strong argument to reverse community consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'd certainly be interested in the conversation if you brought your BLP concerns up at the correct noticeboards. Arkon (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  When I have BLP concerns, I do indeed bring them up at the correct noticeboards. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  Sweet, shoot me a link when you open one if you please. Arkon (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  If I open one, of course. But it is far more likely any comment by me on BLP matters related to this issue will be in the form of a response. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Any way to conclude this?

• The only thing to resolve here is avoiding edit wars in some difficult article space. I think this is degenerating into mud slinging I really don't like being called a liar when asking for help. If anybody's up to it can we resolve this? I would hope just an admonition not to edit war (I've already said I won't) and not to call other editors names or other WP:BATTLE approaches to resolving conflicts? If it flares up again we can always re-open. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  This should definitely be closed, however your deceptive editing [47] should at least be addressed. I'll let the personal attacks and casting of aspersions slide for now. Arkon (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I let that, your second accusation that I was lying, slide along with the first. I thought it best, then as now, not to let you drag the discussion off the subject of your edit warring by making retaliatory accusations against me and other editors. The solution to an edit warring problem is usually to stop edit warring, not to accuse people of lying. In case anyone is daft enough to take that seriously, I've dropped an explanation of it on the article talk page, where you repeat the accusation.[48]

• Arkon, quit trying to reverse the topic. Your behavior has been consistently uncivil and combative and you're obviously either unable or unwilling to accept or even acknowledge the other editors' concerns about why imposing the label as you're trying to do is inappropriate, regardless of the citations. The problem here is obviously entirely rooted in your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between an article saying "X is a terrorist organization" and "X is considered to be a terrorist organization by Y and Z" and your refusal to civilly discuss the issue with editors who are opposed to implementing the former, in line with fundamental policies and practices. By all means, if you want to add the contested label "terrorist" you may attempt to do so through civil discussion, consensus-building and dispute resolution, but if you continue down this current path you're likely to end up blocked sooner rather than later. Swarm ♠ 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Captcha

Can anyone successfully create a new account on Wikipedia? The CAPTCHA appears to be broken, though that may just be my computer.

I wanted to have a look at how we introduce new users nowadays - I've been a member long enough I haven't seen any of the new stuff. Thought the best way forwards, since the Wikipedia Adventure thing seems to post a lot of stuff was to make a new account, then ask for it to be deleted afterwards. I wasn't expecting a major bug. 86.149.118.126 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The CAPTCHA seems to work fine for me. If you're still having issues with it, you can request an account be created for you by following this guide. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Joseph A. Spadaro

I just blocked Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for WP:NPA per this edit, as part of looking into a WP:BLPN discussion in which it became apparent that he was trolling with a BLP violation. Looking at his history, he has form. I wonder if a longer block or perhaps an editing restriction might be in order? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What editing restriction do you think would be appropriate? He was clearly trolling the ref desk (a popular target for trolls, SPI anyone?) so maybe a ban from the ref desk for six months? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Given the user's overall contributions, the block length seems about right for the trolling, misrepresentation, and personal attacks. What I see at the reference desk is a lot of forum talk and some trolling. I think an indefinite ban from the reference desk might be a good idea, but would defer to the folks who actually spend time there. - MrX 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Of all the contributors to the RefDesks, Joseph is the least likely troll possible. The diff Guy used to justify the block was simply an angry response to some very stupid comments that appear to me to have been designed to wind him up. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also observe that Guy forgot to post a block notice on Joseph's talk page, and also "forgot" to tell him that he was opening a discussion about him here. As it says in bloody great big letters on the edit screen "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read Guy's post to JAS' talk page, you will notice that it includes a block notice and a mention of discussing him on admin noticeboards. This is just WP:DTTR. —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

One real block in five years? Hardly a "history". Leave it at a week and see what happens once that block expires. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But the first one was indefinite for harassment and incivility and at least one was for BLP violations, which would likely have got him blocked this time had it not been for the expletive-ridden outburst getting there first. I see a distinct lack of ability to cope with even quite mild pushback. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But the first one was more than seven years ago. And was lifted in 12hrs. I'd like to see more about the first one rather than making a sweeping statement of "well he was blocked indefinitly for harassment and incivility..." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• JAS posted at least twice on different ref desks regarding the Hillary Clinton email controversy: see user's talk for some links on the current issue, and August 2015 for a computing question. The latter includes the poster's opinion that "A question posted on a help desk does not have a limited scope." A minimum resolution would involve the user agreeing to not use pages on Wikipedia to "discuss" Clinton until the current election cycle is over. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have found that Spadaro often engages in very tedious discussions about the exact nuances of the usage of specific words. But this is the first time I can think of that he's gone ballastic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I went through some of his contributions there, what you are kindly calling 'very tedious discussions' I would call 'no one is that pedantic, its trolling'. I see a lot of time and effort of other people being wasted for no good outcome. Can you think of a plus-point to *not* banning him from the ref desk? (Not rhetorical, I am actually finding it hard to think of one.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Looking at his block log, there's certainly a pattern. I also ran across Joseph Spadaro (talk · contribs), a sock account, although I don't think it was active during the main account's blocks. Also, his last block prior to December 2014 was in 2010. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewed hostilities by Doc9871, after warning at ANI last month

This is a followup to my previous ANI report about this user for personal attacks and threats to harass, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871, which closed without action in the expectation that the behavior would stop: "The problem has been solved for now. Doc9871 has been warned, has accepted the warning, and has agreed not to continue. If this recurs we can come back here. --John (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)". It has recurred after a short break.

Immediate background: Some but not all of this relates to previous disputation regarding the essay that was formerly at WP:Don't feed the divas, presently at Wikipedia:Don't be high maintenance (a title not everyone is happy with, either, for related reasons). My reading of the close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Wikipedia:Diva is that the consensus to mark these titles and shortcuts as historical and soft-redir them, because "diva" is a [mostly] gendered insult, and was felt to be offensive, is a consensus against these terms being used henceforth or "advertised" with active shortcuts; both the discussion and the close make this clear. (This overturned a previous close to delete them all entirely.) I noticed that the talk page versions of some the page titles in that RfD were still going directly to the current talk page and, so I changed Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas to match its non-talk page, as a historical soft-redir to the current talk page, and WT:DIVA to redir to the former, so that both are also effectively "retired", per that RfD consensus.

Uncivil, OWNish, POINTy reverts: The most vocal opponent of any changes to that essay or its name, Doc9871, has reverted this change [49], with a rude, WP:BATTLEGROUNDing edit summary (cf. previous ANI), and then similarly reverted [50] my notification of the essay's talk page that the RfD was closed. Neither of these revert edit summaries make any sense, demanding that an uninvolved admin should close the RfD, but that's precisely what already happened. This follows immediately on the heels of another pair of unrelated, WP:POINTy reverts of my disambiguation hatnotes [51], [52] (his reverts assert an opinion not a fact, about whether two California serial-killer cases involving cousins might be confused; I DAB'd them because I actually had in fact confused them, thus disproving the idea they cannot be confused). This revert was "justified" [53], using the same arguments that seem unaware of WP:OWN / WP:VESTED principles, that Doc9871 has pursued vigorously in the discussions about the essay: he treats incoming editors as having no right (or a lesser right ... it's hard to follow his reasoning on this) to edit a page if they haven't worked on it before, or as much. The civility problems appear to be habitual. See, e.g., this recent example, and pretty much the entire RM debate at the essay's talk page, regardless with whom Doc9871 was arguing (often Ihardlythinkso).

Incivility, renewed harassment threats, and battlegrounding: Note that both that post, which is mostly a weasel-worded accusation of bad faith, and this one, contain barely-veiled further harassment threats of the you're-gonna-be-sorry-you-messed-with-me sort, that closely follow the previously reported pattern. As in the diffs given in the earlier ANI report, Doc9871 likes to use other editors' block logs and such as weapons, and conveys an attitude that he is utterly immune to any repercussions for anything just because his own block log is clean. I was content to never exchange another word with Doc9871, but he falsified multiple facts about my statements, intent, editing history, and off-WP history here (I've explained, again, why they're false here in the top half), and he then pursued these further (sometimes incoherent) hostilities. See also Doc telling me what he "told me to do": [54] (another of these I-have-more-editorial-rights maneuvers) in a message that is also re-re-re-hashing something we've been over many times, a continued WP:IDHT pattern adhered to throughout the entire debate about the essay. When it's pointed out to him that it's an IDHT pattern [55], he just indicated he's tired of hearing it [56], kind of proving the point.

Requested remedy: I suggest again that a one-way interaction ban is justified, based on Doc's I'm-gonna-make-you-pay battlegrounding stance, as well as a topic-ban from the essay and discussions relating to it, since he's revertwarring about it in ways that obfuscate consensus regarding it, and it is the locus of his present most incivil behavior, for several months running.

PS: The WP:MR about that essay, here, remains open after over a month, yet the discussion has moved on since then because of the RfD; the MR should be closed so that the final name and wording of the essay can be discussed, as explained here. MR just closed: No consensus to overturn.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Updated: 10:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor should be banned from these boards. Massive ABF battleground mentality when things don't go his way. Currently under a topic ban from MOS for edit-warring, violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and IDHT.[57]. Doc talk 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Not being verbally abused and menaced by you has nothing to do with "things not going my way". Every closure of every discussion related to that essay has, in fact, actually gone the way I proposed (including the MR, earlier today), so I'm not sure what this odd response is even supposed to mean. I've alleged no bad faith of any kind here, simply reported statements and behavior, supported with diffs. I have no idea at all what your reasoning is behind this behavior, other than that, judging from your previous pointed statements about "PC crap" [and many similar statements, diffed in the previous ANI], it's actually pretty clear that you have a WP:GREATWRONGS-style stance that "political correctness" is some kind of menace that WP needs to be protected from (e.g. per WP:NOT#CENSORED). And I actually tend to agree with that, when hypersensitivity to alleged "microaggressions" is taken to an extreme. But two closes of the RM, and now of the RfD, concluded in consensus against the "diva" language as offensive, whether you want to call it "PC crap" or not. Not all "PC crap" is actually PC, or crap. You don't have to have a bad-faith motivation to do unconstructive things like engage in months of personal hostility. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." I'm going to bed now, and will let the ANI editorial pool deal with this matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: The the fact that I got a temporary topic ban from a guideline page, due to being a WP:JERK in that dispute, has zero to do with the matter at hand. See Handwave.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You are every bit as abusive as you claim others to be. See: you've been blocked and topic banned for it. I have not. What makes you the expert on IDHT again? Right. Go to bed. Doc talk 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Both parties in that unfortunately heated argument (which was about a guideline, and OR at a topically related article, were to receive exactly the same sanctions, but the admin found that, due to a loophole (the party's Template:Ds/alert had expired), all the other party could be given under WP:ACDS was the alert, and a warning. That dispute is not comparable to this one. The fact that some discussion elsewhere, unrelated to this one, became mutually heated, does not mean this one is, or that the same issues are involved. They're not connected in any way, I'm bringing no heat or incivility to this report, only observations and diffs to support them. Doc9871 has provided nothing but "don't look at me, look at this irrelevant thing over there instead".

• There is a Great Wrong. (see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_August#WP:Don.27t_feed_the_divas)

User:Doc9871 was maintaining an essay. User:SMcCandlish proposed a drastic rewrite. In closing an RM, User:JzG imposed a creative solution greatly offensive to Doc9871. It is a GREATWRONG. This upsets people.

I suggest that SMcCandlish & Doc9871 be forbidden to address or reference each other until the past is dust, after the Move Review is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WP-space essays don't belong to anyone in particular. Doc was not even a principle author of that essay, but made major undiscussed changes to it long after the fact, to which multiple editors have raised various objections. Completely separately from that, I suggested renaming it, and that its focus on labeling and casting aspersions on other editors was inappropriate. Others agreed. Two closers at the RM (the first of whom reopened it to settle the name after finding consensus against the "divas" name, both found consensus to move, and the second of the two also found change to the approach. The MR clearly has also found consensus against the original name (and just formally closed that way, with no consensus to overturn either of its findings), but the discussion there indicates that what the eventual name should be is uncertain, as is what exact approach the page should take. The RfD also came to a consensus against the old name. So what's the great wrong? I see at least three four closures in favor of the rename (which also directly affects all the "diva" content in it), and one too-long-open discussion, the lack of closure of which a) is was preventing getting on with settling on the name and approach, and b) is was providing a stimulus for further hostile behavior (and other disruption, like revertwarring against the RfD consensus) by Doc9871. I have to go to work now, no more time for this, and not much interest in arguing about it either; I've provided the needed diffs. An interaction ban could be mutual, I suppose, since I have no interest in interacting with him, but that would in fact be purely punitive toward me, since I have not accused Doc of bad faith, personally attacked him, denigrated his views as "crap", threatened to hound him, tried to use his old track record against him, called him names, misrepresented facts about him, etc., etc. That's all coming from one direction. Same goes for a mutual topic ban; I proposed a rename, and I reverted one time to the version that the second closer chose (note: the "no consensus to overturn" MR closure today technically reinstates it, BTW), because Doc replaced it in the middle of the MR, after it was already clear that such actions would be seen as disruptive. I haven't done anything to prevent Doc having his way since then (though the MR closure certainly has). Opening an ANI report about what I've opened these two about is not disruptive, it's standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about punishing me, not preventing disruption! Plus, that would mean both of us were somehow at fault, which I think would be most unacceptable to... what's-his-name. Both AN/I's that he's opened on me (which, I might add, are the only two in my tenure here) are focused in the "remedy" on some form of punishment. I'll take excommunication by catapult, please. Doc talk 12:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is self-evidently about prevention. That's why both ANI reports have been in direct response to unreasonable incivility and related behaviors. In the previous ANI, I already admitted mutual fault in the WP:BLUDGEONing complaint and making the argument heated, so the claim I can't admit such a thing is more aspersion-casting and falsehood. Dispute resolution, including ANI, is about prevention of such behavior, last I looked. Reversion rather than discussion of the hatnotes I added to unrelated articles that Doc seems proprietary toward (see OWNish diff), however, does look rather like "punishment", and perhaps the beginning of the hounding that Doc9871 has more-than-hinted at pursuing against me, doesn't it? See 2 diffs in this regard above above, plus the "until the bitter end" comment here, and of course this one: 'Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will "Wikilawyer" you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me.' ANI regulars know what this indicates and what to do about it.

At the last ANI, Doc was warned to stop, and acknowledged the warning, but has not stopped, just laid low for a couple of weeks. What else is there to it? I did nothing to provoke this new round of battlegrounding, other than comply with an RfD, post a notice about its conclusion, and suggest that the MR finally be formally closed, which is overdue (and which was acted on today), and I corrected several false statements he made about me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I reckon you probably don't need to correct the false statements, we are nasty suspicious bastards and will generally check such things and trout anyone who tries it on. It does seem clear to me that Doc is the problem, not you. It's quite important that you demonstrate that here. I think your tone has been measured and his has not, but I am very obviously an involved party so that may just be a reflection of the fact that he's spent several weeks going on and on and on and on and on and on about how I was wrong, evil, violating policy and probably responsible for the murder of Rasputin :-) Guy (Help!) 18:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your wry optimism, but I'm frequently character-assassinated with impunity on WP, and virtually never is anything done about it. I think you are more popular than me. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you suppose that you are "frequently" character-assassinated (or, more likely, your behavior is questioned and you don't like it), and virtually nothing is ever done about it? There's probably a good reason for both. You're very clearly trying to make an "example" out of me now, possibly righting "great wrongs". Your interactions with many other editors leave a bad taste in their mouths. In my over 7 years here I've had heated disputes from everything from banned users to admins held in the highest esteem; and I've never had a worse experience than with you. It would be an miscarriage of justice if a one-way interaction ban were imposed on me, an editor who has never needed any sort of ban for anything, against you, an editor who received a one-way topic ban on the MOS less than a week ago for some seriously battleground-ish behavior with another editor you tortured through filibustering and ABF. But I'm the bad guy who must be punished. Doc talk 01:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish conveniently forgets to mention that we were both told to stay away from the issue and let others handle it.[58] Not just me and not him. He has not only not stayed away, he has tried to rush it through in his favor. The recent close states: "My personal suggestion would be for everyone to walk away for a bit and maybe come back later. " That's everyone, not "Doc9871 but not SMcCandlish" And that was the same exact sentiment the first time. Doc talk 21:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

More "don't look at me" handwaving. I was not administratively warned about incivil behavior; Doc was, and kept it up anyway, while I have not, taking the warning against him as if it were mutual. I have walked away from the issue. Posting notice of an MR closure and complying with it (and correcting false statements about me) are not getting reinvolved in the issue, it's just standard operating procedure; Doc's continued ad homimem ranting about it clearly is reinvolvement in the matter as an "issue". (But "both told to stay away from the issue and let others handle it" is another misstatement of fact anyway; a non-admin suggested that we were both commenting too frequently (WP:BLUDGEON) at the MR, and should let others get their say, which both of us did. This is unrelated to the one-way warning Doc received in the previous ANI; only one user was warned in that ANI action, even if I also chose to treat it as if it applied to me as well). The "he has tried to rush it through in his favor" thrashing is yet another unsupported and unsupportable casting of aspersions. The MR ran its full course and then some; it's normal and routine to request closure, as I did at WP:ANRFC (which responded rapidly for a change), because multiple respondents to the MR wanted it closed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish & Doc9871 need to stop talking to each other. Nothing good will come from alluding to perceived past injustices that don't affect any current matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 abuse/harassment

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

---

User:Sergecross73 has threatened, assaulted and slandered me and prevented me from getting any work done. He hides behinds false claims -- slander -- of me being an "edit warrior" despite the fact that none of my edits are based in changing genres, but adding sources to already existing genres. This is my focus and my goal - and my work has been prevented. I told him not to leave any messages on my talk page and he continued to disregard my warnings. He had me blocked from editing on false pretenses after I agreed not to edit a page he is trying to take possession of. This is an unruly and disrespectful, hateful person who should not have the privileges he abuses. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In my experience Sergecross73 is a reasonable person with good advice to new users. These are serious concerns you are bringing up, could you please provide evidence as to where this "slander" has occurred? Chillum 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And explain how this edit, this edit, and this edit are adding sources to genres? KrakatoaKatie 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• You failed to notify Sergecross73 of this discussion, despite this page saying for you to do so with {{subst:ANI-notice}}. I have done so for you this time. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not harassed this user. I blocked them because they repeatedly violated policies.

• Disruptive editing - He continued to revert people, while discussion was taking place, and against the forming consensus.
• He is the textbook definition of a WP:GENREWARRIOR. Literally every edit he has made up until this point has been tinkering with music genre or arguing with other editors about it. Check his contributions.
• He has dropped a ton of personal attacks at other editors.
• His discussion have some serious WP:IDHT issues.

I blocked him because he refused to change any of these traits. Two Admin declined his unblock requests, confirming my claims were true. He was gone for 2 weeks, and how he's suddenly returned and keeps making bizarre threats at me, telling me how he's going to destroy me, "my ass is grass", and that "I require him". (Not even sure what that last one means...)

I have not said anything remotely "hateful" or disrespectful to this person. I tried to facilitate discussions when he started causting trouble with other users during his genre warring, and when he repeatedly refused to listen to policy, he was blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Sergecross73, we won't be banning you without carefully checking that the concerns are legitimate first. I am thinking this is either a new user with a bit of an aggressive attitude or perhaps it is a not so new user in the end saga of genre warring. Either way the response is the same. Unless the JuggaloProghead presents something even resembling evidence of their claims of abuse then all this ANI post will do is draw attention the the user. Chillum 23:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I know, I'm just try to clear things up right away, I've seen things get out of hand with ridiculous ANI accusations on innocent people. Anyways, I have my suspicions that this is a past troubled editor who was blocked for not following policy. He knows of policies/guidelines/essays, but doesn't quite know how to cite them properly. Also, he posted an unblock request before I even had the chance to post a block notice/template for him, so he certainly seems familiar with that, to know the unblock template in the matter of like seconds... Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang

JuggaloProghead has shown a complete lack of faith attempting to bring about some block on Sergecross73. Sergecross73 attempted to mediate the situation by talking with the user, only to be threatened that his editing rights would be taken away. JuggaloProghead's removal of genres on articles is also completely unhelpful and needs to be stopped (it is also very similar to User:Lachlan Foley's past activity but I won't connect any dots). I propose a 72-hour block on a user that has shown he/she is not new here and has experience with AN/I warnings and blocks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - He was honestly due for another block anyways, as one of the many things I gave him a final warning on was all his bad faith accusations towards other editors, and all he has done since he's returned to editing has been to issue random threats and baseless accusations of slander, hate, etc, when all I've done is tell him to obey the rules. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support When I saw that Sergecross73 was an admin, I thought "Woah". But this alone just cringes me. "[...] you would have to be on meth to think that I deserved blocking." What the actual hell? The user talk is actually horrifying. Threatning to have OhNoItsJamie banned from Wikipedia, calling Serge an idiot and a childish brat; the list goes on. WP:NPA is definitely a huge issue for this user. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Sergecross73 is one of our better admins, and he doesn't deserve this kind of drama. That's not a reason to block someone, but the vicious personal attacks against him are. Accusations of slander are just so over-the-top that it seems like trolling. That he hasn't lived up to the accusations against him ("hateful", "disrespectful", etc) should go a long way to showing that this is a retaliatory strike made by a disgruntled user. If JP is not going to stop his disruptive behavior (genre warring, insults, retaliatory ANI cases), then we need to block him before he wastes even more of the community's time. He doesn't need to apologize; just promise to stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked for two weeks. He really shouldn't have been unblocked so soon given his behavior during the block and he was fortunate that no one extended it. The fact that he returned to Wikipedia many days later with the same terrible attitude and a bad-natured vendetta against the blocking admin is unacceptable. If he can't get it together real quick I'm thinking an indef is warranted. Swarm ♠ 04:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was strongly considering taking the same action based on recent personal attacks and battleground behaviour. Good block. Chillum 14:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose Trout slap

Looks like I'm going to disagree with everyone, but I don't think this whole case of affairs has been handled particularly well. JuggaloProghead has not made an article edit since 29 August, which suggests to me the recent block is a bit punitive. The only time I've interacted with him is a good faith edit on The Yes Album which stuck. The conversation from Sergecross73 and others comes across to me as "Go ahead punk, make my day!" and I think with a little more tact and compassion, we could have sorted this out without needing a block. In particular, Sergecross73, you seem to have been badgering JuggaloProghead on his talk page when there was no need; similarly, I think your comments on ANI were unnecessary. While people shouldn't hurl insults at admins, granted, it kind of comes with the territory of being an admin and people tend not to be aggressive for no reason whatsoever. We have to think about what's best for the enyclopedia and in this case, we could have taken one move back and just focused solely on the content without increasing temperature on the block threats. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I went in so hard defending myself here despite the fact that this was a clear example of a boomerang for a disruptive editor breaking policy right and left. There's always someone on ANI who is so far off base, it's scary. I don't think you looked very closely into his edits. I was not "aggressive for no reason", I was firm with him because he insulted and started trouble with everyone he came across. It was impossible to discuss with him. Ask him to explain his source, and he's parrot you and ask the same, even though no source was being counter-proposed. Accuse him of reverting his edits, and he accused me of the same - on an article I hadn't edited in 3 months, to protect it, 2 months before he even started editing here. There is no getting through to him. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: the "not to be aggressive for no reason" was referring to JuggaloProghead, not you. And from the conversation I saw, you were taking a side on the debate, which always leads to problems. Just sayin'. I'm not asking for any sanctions against you, that would be silly, rather just a caution to be a bit calmer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to take a side though, I was trying to mediate the discussion, and kept on having to question him because of what hed say. His comments wouldnt align with his sources or policy, and when you'd question him on it, it ignore it or get belligerent with insults. I was trying to keep the discussion on-rails. I didn't do that to the editors on the other side because they're arguments were rational and easy to understand. It would have been badgering them to ask them, long-term editors with policy-based arguments, the same sort of questions. It's just the direction the discussions took naturally when dealing with such a difficult person. Please note I did not revert him at all, and the only reason I keep an eye on any of the pages JPH edited was because genre warring issues of a similar nature were posted at WP:ALBUMS a year or two back. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is punitive. You give the reason that they have "not made an article edit since 29 August". So? The continuing disruption was right here on this board. I suggest you grill that trout and eat it instead of serving it up to someone else. I also think your accusation of badgering is off base and without justification. Serge has only acted as an administrator. Serge has only responded to conversations initiated by Juggalo. I think you need to reconsider your position. Chillum 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely not meant to be punitive. The fact that they haven't made an article edit is not only irrelevant but further serves as justification for the block. This user's only purpose in returning to Wikipedia was literally to harass the blocking administrator, stir up old drama and violate every one of the policies and principles I've cited in the blocking rationale. This is disruption, plain and simple. And this was not emotionally-charged, heat of the moment nonsense, it was almost two weeks after everyone moved on and they returned with a vendetta. Absolutely unacceptable. Thanks for assuming bad faith and the trout slap remark though. Great form there. Swarm ♠ 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop getting upset when people disagree with you and suggest the way you say things can be as important as what you say. Now, I'm off to improve an article, have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm has shown no indication of being upset. It is not helpful to guess at the emotional state of others. I think the block was a fairly common response to a fairly common occurrence of genre warring and battleground behaviour. Chillum 18:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack from User:Silver seren

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

---

[59] Where he suggests that I "shouldn't be allowed to edit at all" and that "they are editing in bad faith and trying to POV slant the article because of personal biases against the subject". This is for the removal of COI edits by the subject of the article, specifically the removal of an editorial written by the subject's superior.

I take these accusations very seriously and trust that administrators will handle this effectively. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to look at my full in context comment, everyone. I pointed out that this edit by Winner 42, which removes a sentence and source on the claim of "Jack payne is not notable to be included as a signficant viewpoint", is a concern in a number of ways. First off, notability of sources is not how Wikipedia does things, we use WP:RS and the Tampa Bay Times is most definitely an RS. Second, that edit and others by Winner 42 in the article are clearly trying to POV push the discussed in article campaign against the BLP subject. The COI of their editing is apparent and I called it out in a comment. Calling out their editing as POV slanted is not a personal attack. It is a comment on their actual actions, their edits. Silverseren^C 01:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Now you are making further personal attacks. Please stop, it not nice and it is detrimental to the overall editing environment. Accusing me of POV pushing and having a COI are "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You are welcome to look over my 20k+ edits and attempt to find some connection between myself and anti-gmo views or Folta, but you will not find it. This whole situation is ridiculous because even though my personal views should be irrelevant, I consider myself to be extremely pro-science and pro-gmo. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you immediately came here to ANI rather than just saying that on the talk page or in a message to me or anything says otherwise. And, again, I don't care about personal connections, I care about the type of editing you've been doing in the article. It is your edits that are the problem. Regardless of your personal stance, your edits have been POV. That is the issue here. Silverseren^C 01:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Making personal attacks against me, means that this is no longer a content discussion, it is a discussion about your behavior. Your continued casting of aspersions on me, making personal attacks, and suggesting that I should be indeffed are extremely hurtful. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"suggesting that I should be indeffed" Um, what? Did I miss something here? Silverseren^C 01:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying that I "shouldn't be allowed to edit at all" means you think that I should be indeffed. Consider the amount of work I've put into this project over the last five years and tens of thousands of hours of effort, you can imagine how hurtful saying that is. Good job, you have gotten me into tears. I accept a voluntary GMO topic ban, just please leave me alone. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you rather severely misunderstood my comment. I pointed out that you have been an editor for years and written a number of articles, but the edits you made were like someone who just started editing. And that you should know better, especially because of your experience. I'm sorry that I upset you. I honestly don't see how I was being hurtful at all, considering I was discussing the edits you made. If you disagreed with my description of your edits, which you clearly do, then you should explain why you made them. It's as simple as that. Not complicated at all. I'm rather at a loss at what else to say here. Silverseren^C 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors, so far this whole thread is just you two arguing. If you want to bicker with each other do it on one of your talk pages. Otherwise just wait for the administrators here to look at both of your behaviour. I am going to bed. Chillum 04:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Chillum beat me to it. My questoinquesiton is, what exactly could not have been dealt with on Silver seren's talk page? Looking it over, Winner 42 pretty much jumped the gun and came straight to ANI speaking to Silver seren about the what they took exception to. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• If Winner 42 wanted to attract admin attention, then that has been achieved. Looking at the matter at issue, I find Winner 42's editing to e self-evidently tendentious. Complaining about talk page comments in order to obscure tendentious editing is a common approach and one we do have some experience in seeing through. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I merely thought that WP:NPA was policy, but now realize it is perfectly acceptable behavior, even for admins to partake in! Apparently casting Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, is totally allowed and encouraged, especially if it allows you to bully people away from Wikipedia. I thought this site actually gave a damn about this sort of behavior, but I now realize I was clearly mistaken. If this behavior is considered acceptable, I no longer wish to be a part of this toxic community. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen (that's ANI). Not every bit of critique is a personal attack, and if one can't open one's mouth without being accused of bullying, then we should all zip it--but don't forget you cast the first stone by coming here. If an editor with Guy's experience says your editing appears to be tendentious, it might be a good idea to to some introspection and see if there is something to it, or to ask him to provide evidence if you disagree. Complaining about being bullied (which is nonsense) does not help your case--and surely you know that coming to ANI always means one's behavior can be investigated. By the way, I don't know you from Adam, and I don't know what topic area y'all are fighting over, so JzG, can you give some indication of what you found so immediately troubling? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose Indefinite ban for User:Burst of unj

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

---

• Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following a topic ban relating to Alan Kurdi, Burst of unj received a temporary ban for editing under I.P 46.15.33.165, only to start up again under another I.P here and here. This editor is clearly not here to contribute meaningfully to the project and shows no respect for the bans in place. Flat Out (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. This editor seems to hardly care for anyone besides himself (herself?), and Flat Out is correct that the bans in place were completely disregarded. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A sock investigation is now open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Burst of unj. User has been blocked two weeks by User:Black Kite. I suggest this thread be closed, and we wait and see what happens after the two-week block expires. No objection if another admin feels that the block should be extended to indef. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Two editors knowingly disruptively misquoting references to advance a position in an article

(Moved from AN. BMK (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC))

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

---

User:Andy Dingley and User:Mario Castelán Castro appear to be fans of diesel engines and are repeatedly writing that they are The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine. I've questioned both the reliability of this statement, and checked the actual text within those sources, and that phrase appears nowhere in any source that they've given. Even those sources question it's veracity, for example combined cycle engines are described as having higher efficiency. I also found references elsewhere that said that gas turbines can have 63% efficiency, and that's not a diesel engine. Every time I try to tag the article to query it, or soften the language with material that can be reliably sourced, or otherwise deal with the questionable material, they revert it out of hand. I wouldn't mind, but they're basically lying to the readers who deserve more than this; if it was true, fine, but they haven't backed it up with a source.

For example of the things I have had to put up with Andy Dingley recently wrote:

""I for one am completely fed up of GliderMaven's technical ignorance across a wide range of articles. This is the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, so it's hardly surprising, but you appear to have a greater ratio of self-confidence to actual understanding than almost any other editor I can think of. " - Andy Dingley"

Another example they said that a particular Warsilla engine was the most efficient in the world. That sounded cool, so I tracked it down and it turned out that Guinness records had indeed awarded it a prize, but only for being specifically the most efficient four stroke, diesel engine, it wasn't for being the best engine of all types, internal or external, in the entire world.

Is it just me, or are these two acting very improperly by Wikipedia's norms? Am I expecting too much? Should I expect my dubious tags to be removed without referencing? Is that OK?GliderMaven (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You've described what you believe is happening, but you have provided no evidence of it, such as a diff of one of their edits and a quote from the source cited to show that they're misinterpreting it. I don't believe any admin is going to act on your complaint without a bunch of comparisons like that.

Also, you are required to notify both editors of this complaint. Please do so. BMK (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did it for you. Please notify the subject of a noticeboard complaint in the future. BMK (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I already did so on the talk page at Talk:Diesel where they were both active, they would have been notified at the top of their screen.GliderMaven (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history, [60] They just revert war everything. I actually went through the references they've given. That particular phrase never appears anywhere, they've 'interpreted' it, and the references are basically commercial sales material, it's not in a book or a published paper or even an independent journal.GliderMaven (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What part of "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." did you have the problem with? Or is this just another of those silly little rules that you're above?

For those interested in the technical arguments, please see the long (albeit one-sided) discussion at Talk:Diesel engine.

You have provided nothing to contradict the claim here on the virtues of the Diesel. You have done nothing to refute those claims. All you've done is to strip refs on the basis that MAN diesel engines are not RS on the subject of diesels. That is (again) nonsense.

It is not easy to provide a source that states "This engine is the most efficient type" because there are too many variables. I'm looking at my usual go-to reference for this (Ricardo) and I can't give a WP-friendly ref from it by citing anything less than a chapter. This is not an easy question with a compact answer. Yet you have done nothing to discuss the subtleties here, you've merely argued that you are right, vs. the world, and you strip any source to the contrary. Nor do I even have confidence, from your efforts on this article and others, that you have the technical competence to discuss in any real detail. Yet when you're given the simple and straightforward version, a clear statement from Guinness, you refuse it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My position is that, while diesel engines have many virtuous features, what has been written in the article is not referenced, and I believe, cannot be referenced, presumably, because it isn't true. I've asked for references from reliable source, but you have failed, repeatedly to provide them, and you have repeatedly removed tags from the article, I've added reliable sources to the article, and rewritten the article to match them, that was reverted also. You have done this repeatedly you are personally insulting me as well. I believe the readers deserve not to be lied to with made up 'facts', and so you are clearly being disruptive.GliderMaven (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement from Guinness was simply that it was the best diesel ever. I have no problem with that, but that isn't what you claim, which is that diesel engines are better than all other 'practical' engines, internal or external.GliderMaven (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I do have a MASSIVE problem when you misrepresent sources, like you just did, even here in this thread where you would be expected to not, lie. If anyone wants to see the certificate that Guinness gave them I can find a photo, that says what I say it says, and not what Andy Dingley says, I can by all means dig it up.GliderMaven (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are these sources that you have added? I can see only this, where you add the Guinness claim, "The recently launched Wärtsilä 31 engine has achieved a Guinness World Records title for the most efficient 4-stroke diesel engine. " Whilst a rather bounded claim, in what way does this disprove the efficiency claims for the Diesel? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you are editing in a very highly disruptive manner, and you or User:Mario Castelán Castro have not, ever backed up the phrase in question with ANY reliable reference, ever, while removing any and all tags, and reliable sources and corrections. Apparently in the article, it's a clear statement of fact which you have revert warred back in many, many times, but here in the thread it is "This is not an easy question with a compact answer.". That's funny, because that sentence looks pretty compact to me. Which is it?????GliderMaven (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that this is quite ironic. It is GliderMaven whose behavior could have been reported for several reasons since more than 2 weeks ago; however, I had refrained from reporting him because (like I said in the relevant talk page (1, 2)) I hoped that he would reconsider his course of action by himself.

1. Personal attacks:
   1. “Look just get reliable references to something, anything, and STFU.” (emphasis added)
   2. Again after having been warned: “You're a total, total disgrace.”
2. Edit warring: He has removed the text several times against consensus notwithstanding that he was warned for this by an uninvolved editor.
3. Disruptive editing: GliderMaven removal is based on a series of misunderstandings which I described and addressed individually; this message provides a summary of the whole discussion as GliderMaven just repeated the arguments objections he already made up to that point, so it may be useful to consult to have a quick initial perspective of the discussion. Of course, the whole discussion is there for anyone to read and ascertain the summary for himself.
4. Refusing to work productively, instead of destructively. I suggested several times and an uninvolved editor suggested once that GlidenMaven stopped removing text and instead worked to improve the article; he never replied to either suggestion.

Note that I warned GliderMaven explicitly about his behavior in that message. I will quote 3 examples:

1. In the aforesaid summary-like message: “This insistence on removing the text based on a false premise (without providing anything to back it up) is a sign of disruptive editing. Please reconsider your course of action.”
2. Again shortly thereafter: “It is not productive to discuss if you refuse to back up your arguments and are not willing to listen for the counterarguments. This insistence on removing the text based on a false premise (without providing anything to back it up) is a sign of disruptive editing. Please reconsider your course of action.”
3. The last one before he reported this in the wrong place: “Removing does not improves the article; if you are interested in improving it, then expand it or change it for good. There are several editors telling you that in different ways. You will notice that all of us will stop objecting as soon as you stop removing and instead work on improving the article (or just do not edit at all); I hope that the outcome of this discussion is that, but given your current course of action, the outcome may be that you end banned or otherwise sanctioned; I do not want that you get banned; so please reconsider your course of action.”

The dispute is because GliderMaven insists in removing sourced content from the article, based on objections all of which have been addressed at least 2 or 3 times each (see the discussion). His objections to the text itself do not match what the text says. I describe his main objections next and why those do not apply:

• This is GliderMaven's main argument to remove the text: “THESE ARE UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND NO STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE USING THEM IN WIKIPEDIA!!!” (note the equivalent of shouting), and he quotes policy. I explained to him that the policy he quotes says the contrary of what he pretends: “You removed the references themselves based on your statement “They have not gone through peer review, and they are not published in reliable, independent, journals!!!”. Again, it is not required that sources are like that. Read the guideline you invoked (WP:RELIABLE), it says: “The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.”. I am restoring these sources.”. He made the same erroneous argument again and again; I just noticed that he was repeating himself and referred him to my aforesaid message (to make it evident that I already explained that).

• His second most repeated argument is based on a misinterpretation of the very same text he insists in removing; he pretends that the text speaks about all engines: “In addition, the contention that diesel engines have the absolute highest efficiency of ALL engines is actually false.” (quote of GliderMaven). However, the text has always said: “The diesel engine has the highest thermal efficiency (engine efficiency) of any practical internal or external combustion engine” (emphasis added). He refuses to acknowledge this, and has removed the text based on that objection.

There is more that can be said about GliderMaven's behavior. However, it is mostly monotonous details about the same base point: GlidenMaven refuses to read what he should, raises erroneous objections, and refuses to acknowledge it when he is corrected, just like he did not read, did not pay attention, or simply did not wanted to follow the instructions in the “Administrators'_noticeboard” and (1) failed to notify us (2) placed his compliant in the wrong venue. That is precisely the reason of why the discussion in the talk page is as long as it is.

I have wasted many hours of my time discussing with GliderMaven which otherwise would have been spent adding highly technical knowledge to Wikipedia. I have been working on the article GPS signals since more than 1 month ago. I have added 32,250 bytes of highly technical information so far, amounting to 55% the current size of the article. Of course, I have no obligation for this. Like almost all contributors, I contribute as a volunteer. The point is that GliderMaven behavior is much more expensive to deal with than vandalism (which is dealt with in seconds, literally), for whoever undertakes that endeavor.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User "Sanadate" changing character names to bogus names

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

---

In short: Sanadate (talk · contribs) is running around changing character names to what he perceives to be the full name, e.g. Seth to Sethaniel, Paul to Paulthaniel, Adam to Adamowicz, etc.

I first noticed this user at American Psycho (film) a few months ago, changing the name "Paul" to "Paulthaniel", etc. I reverted the user and didn't think much of it. Yesterday he changed it yet again. Looking at the edit history of the user, this seems to be something that they've been doing in different articles for several months now. The Blob (1988 film), House of Wax (2005 film), The Thing (2011 film), Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, List of Jurassic Park characters, etc.

The user is also edit warring the above edits.

Any attempts to communicate with the user is just meant with blanking and "Bleeping trolls. Check out wikia", "Bleeping troll", "Goddamn rules here are outta control" etc.

Nymf (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The user also blanked this thread. It's hard to see how repeatedly changing a character named "Wade" to "Waderick", "Waderich" and "Wadeland" could be considered to be in good faith, especially after several editors have asked them to stop. They've moved on now to articles where I can't tell if the names they're rapidly changing are fake or not, but if they are then it seems pretty obvious this user isn't here to contribute. Refusing to communicate is another red flag. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will give it a rest. Just please don't block me.

Sanadate (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the hell shouldn't we block you? You have clearly been vandalising articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll stop. I'm sorry. I was wrong. Sanadate (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever why we should trust you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's edits, I agree with Ivanvector that this isn't innocent mistakes. They have been repeatedly warned about it and yet have continued, even edit warring over it in some cases. This editor's edits should be scrutinized for other errors, whether they are intentional or unintentional. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was cleaning up his edits when I was struck by a rather idiosyncratic change. In this diff, he changes a fictional character's name from "Kyle" to "Kylerick" in a horror film. Puzzled as to why he would do that, I did a Google search on "Kylerick". That brought up this change in another horror film, made by Wooeyparks (talk · contribs). Looking further, I saw that Wooeyparks was blocked for disruption and a long-term abuse case was opened about him. The evidence that this is a sock of the LTA case seems pretty strong to me. I mean, who else on Wikipedia would go through direct-to-video horror films and change "Kyle" to "Kylerick"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a likely sock of Wooeyparks; two unrelated editors making the same bizarre hoax edits from the same town and ISP belies belief. I would have blocked the account even without the technical evidence as sneaky vandalism such as this takes up far too much time from helpful editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Unfortunately the account has 1600 edits under their belt that will need review.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to research every one of his edits to see if it is correct? For instance[61] he adds nicknames or "real" first names to the characters' nicknames in movies and cites it to the movie credits. This would require finding the movie and viewing it to verify the character's name. Also he changed the status of many films, such as "filming" to "post production." How about just rolling back all edits? We would lose some which are correct and some which are plausible but difficult to verify. Edison (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe he was more of a time-sink for good-faith editors than he was a danger to the veracity of the encyclopedia. Some of his edits, such as changing "filming" to "post-production", are so subtle that even if they were vandalism, they probably don't even matter in the grand scheme of things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just rollback any of their edits that are current? There's a pretty decent chance they are all bogus, and they are all block evasion anyway. I don't know if mass-rollback allows for edits which have already been corrected, and this user has been editing for quite a while. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a prudent thing to do. A quick survey of this user's edits suggest that a majority of them are unconstructive and some are outright falsification/vandalism. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has returned as 2600:1017:B408:EB9C:98B7:448D:C65A:7595 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Gnome de plume (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like BMK took care of it. Should we alert WP:ANIME about this guy? I guess if anyone can tell if he's hoaxing anime articles, they'd probably know. I cleaned up the horror film stuff, but I don't really know anime very well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like Twohourslater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest account, restoring the edits of Sanadate that were reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is Twohourslater, and I am claiming not to be a sock puppet of Wooeyparks. I don't know who that is. I only put those edits on those voice actors from Hell Girl in because I've watched the anime and it even says their names on the Japanese wikipedia. Twohourslater (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Blocked and reverted. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, he's back again as 2600:1017:b423:30d5:90f7:d0aa:796c:263d (talk · contribs · WHOIS). All of his edits have been reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And also 70.199.77.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Maybe we should just semi-protect these articles. I don't think he's going to stop. I don't have time to examine his edits right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotection seems prudent, but that's a lot of articles. Anyone up for it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought this might happen. He just came back as Kyleoconnor (talk · contribs), an old sock of Wooeyparks. I guess we could move this over to SPI, but it's blindingly obvious what's going on. I guess we can be thankful that this guy is not subtle when he creates sock accounts. If I'm not mistaken, Kyle's user page used to redirect to Wooeyparks' before User:Kyleoconnor was deleted and recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC) At the very least, there's some funny business going on with his user talk: diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it, all recent socks known to me have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive AFD behavior by UDIK12

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

---

UDIK12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for interfering with the AFD process on an article he has created. Now that his block has ended, he has resumed removing the AFD tag from the article. He has recieved three additional warnings since his block has expired, including a final warning. Please see diffs: 1, 2, and 3. Thank you. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the behavior is happening on other articles such as in this diff. I think it is becoming clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 02:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked him for one week. It's hard to unilaterally label him as NOTHERE short of a consensus that his articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Swarm ♠ 04:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Conflict Resolution - Premature Arbitration Committee Filing

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

---

I am an uninterested party that was reviewing the GMO case on ArbCom when I came across a request. User:Whiteboyrobot has made a premature arbitration committee request after a short edit war on Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016 with User:JesseRafe. The request on ArbCom is incorrectly formatted and I removed it, [62]. I am opening the discussion here, although I believe that User:Whiteboyrobot needs a cool down period. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) The account looks less than a month old by looking at the contribs. Its possible they were not aware that Arbcom is the last step in the dispute resolution process. AlbinoFerret 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

...The first step in the dispute resolution process would, of course, be WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has gone far and above out of their way to target and harass me, and I think does not know how Talk Pages or histories work as I haven't undone a single of their edits. I was not even in that edit war. I made one neutral note on their Talk Page as they may have been in GF a new editor. Then the user completely unloaded on me, so I left a harassment/uncivil notice in case they targeted others so it would be known they weren't the only one. The stalker then accuses me of stalking? Unless they are actually a puppet master, and then, yes, I may have warned "them" multiple times. To boot, the user makes zero sense and is somehow delusional enough to see where I was interacting with and undoing some troll who was removing Jewish topics and references (and was called a member of the vast "Jewish Media Conspiracy" for my trouble) to then infer that I am myself an anti-Semite. It's truly rich in irony. JesseRafe (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing premature about it, actually. A cool-down period is indeed needed, for the stalker.

I have made it fully clear and gone far and above to express that I want to be left alone by JesseRafe. As you can see, this has not happened. This user is a serial harasser. I can guarantee they have done this to other users, are still doing it now, will continue to do so in the future, and must be stopped. There's no reason why one bad apple should affect the entire Wikipedia experience for all. The user has clearly been banned before, as can be seen from their talk page, and they are well overdue. I saw your talk page, obviously, and I know how a talk page works better than you do.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment

This user is a classic example of a harasser.

Look at the user's poor excuse for professionalism and how they edit. You don't need an in-house historian to see which user was the very first to resort to personal attacks. The user's only purpose, as demonstrated by their online behavior, is completely FAKING good faith as a poor, transparent excuse to get their little digs in and making their weak little insults. Take a closer look at what the user says and you can see that they can't say a single thing without taking lazy shots at me. That is a fact. So, I am left to ponder, what integrity does this user have left? What possible reasoning could this user pull out of thin air to claim the moral high ground? The user has now gone far and above the unacceptable, into the territory of lawbreaking and slander, by calling me a stalker. How ironic. Let me tell you, ignorant one, what a stalker is. A stalker is a truly low subhuman form of individual who dedicates their entire existence to following someone all over an internet page and attempting to harass and intimidate them, as you have clearly done. Don't dish out what you can't handle.

When desperate and cornered, of course, predictably, the user resorts to one of the last tactics they have left: accusing someone else of that which you are. It’s too late. I called you on it first. You are a harasser and a stalker. Otherwise, you would have left me alone when ordered to do so in the first place. Leaving someone alone and not giving them undesired attention is not optional, it is not a request, and it is not a suggestion, it is an order and a requirement. Otherwise, that's when you cross the line legally into harassment. You have crossed that line. Now you've added slander. Do you have a lawyer?

I will now also be making a report of illegal defamatory behavior. I don't mind the extra work.

I can guarantee that I will be making a harassment/uncivil notice of my own. There is simply not enough that can be done to you. Now the world must know. I consider it a tremendous public service to expose a keyboard warrior acting out of contempt for the other users of Wikipedia, an online community and encyclopedia which belongs to all, not someone with severe problems who’s trying to project them on others, strangely enough, by attempting to eek out a little victory online. Your existence should not depend on me. You will not succeed.

My response has been to not back down to the cyberbully, to stand up for myself, and to not let you get away with it. That's not how bullies learn. You have done NOTHING neutral while mentioning my name, your entire online existence is a poor excuse for your sad little insults. Your contributions to the free encyclopedia don't seem to be many. Despite this serial harasser's many indications to the contrary, their insult of choice is not true, I have been editing Wikipedia for a grand total of eight years. All of a sudden it's a crime to open a new account? I didn't think so. I've been contributing for eight years altogether with no problems until now, when Captain Stalker here decided to try and make my life hell. You have failed. Unlike the individual who has devoted their self to following me all over Wikipedia, all day every day, I have a life outside of here, I make a living, I keep the lights on, so this hobby only takes up a miniscule single-digit amount of hours of my time every week. That does not mean I am a pushover, so watch out. It is ridiculous for someone with no grasp whatsoever of reality to begin throwing around that word "delusional". I do not think you know what that word means.

I am led to believe that YOU ARE INDEED an anti-Semite, based on your actions and your actions alone, bullying, harassing, and slandering a Jewish user, going to extreme lengths to edit and present the Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016 in a negative light. I do not feel the need to disclose personal details because they are not relevant and I do not wish to give thugs like you a reason to further harass me. Your actions and language make it extremely clear to me that you are nothing more than a hatemonger stuck in an old way of thinking. The only thing you have to show for yourself and the only thing you have brought to the table at Wikipedia is your own anger and hate. Otherwise, if you do not understand your own words, maybe English isn't your first language. Do you read your words before you edit? This can't come as a surprise to you... This is actually a little fun for me, putting you in your place, but you have to stop. It wouldn't be necessary in the first place if you weren't harassing me. You've been told to stop multiple times. You have no right to harass and slander someone without being responded to. I feel sad for you. Your creepy, stalker-ish obsession with me must end. I'm not looking for a relationship, or a mommy to watch me online. I'm an adult, I can tell someone when to leave me alone. You must leave me alone. Get a grip. Forget that I exist. Capisce? That is your best option, before you go further overboard and your slander begins to carry legal consequences.Whiteboyrobot (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert, I may have forgotten to mention the legal threats in my note accompanying the templated indef-block notification. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I request that this user's edits, or at least the ones with my name in them be deleted like I somehow see some users' edits completely wiped out? Not even a week has gone by without me being insulted as part of the vast global Jewish Media Conspiracy as seen at Talk:Dutch_Schultz#Dutch_Schultz.27s_Judaism and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Dutch_Schultz_and_Arnold_Rothstein. Being continually called an anti-Semite on top of that is going to confuse all the future trolls and vandals, not to mention also stings a little. Also, in the unlikely event this user forgets my name in the very likely event he creates a new account, it may make a de minimis contribution to preventing his future stalking of me. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't think this qualifies for revdelete. Maybe Georgewilliamherbert and/or Newyorkbrad feel differently... BTW, that IP (this one, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Dutch_Schultz_and_Arnold_Rothstein) probably deserved a block, but it's a bit late for that now. I suggest that if there is a "next time", don't respond but revert, claiming NPA or something like that in the edit summary and alerting an admin via ANI or whatever. Early blanking is better than considering mopping up afterward. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Drmies. For what it's worth, there's a strong likelihood User:65.189.198.128 is the now-blocked WBR. Not worth my time and the backlash from this user for me to instigate an SPI on it. Just a note for any current or future-ly interested parties. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good lord. Most justified indef I've ever seen... and I've seen a lot. I'll keep a look-out. GAB^Hello! 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Racially/ethnic charged statements

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

---

Reporting 77.11.38.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for [63] and [64] which could be interpreted as Jew- and Ukrainian-baiting comments. — Brianhe (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Um ... contributing to a section titled "Jewboy censorship"? Claiming Ukrainians control The New York Times? — Brianhe (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• No one controls existing section titles. Starting such a section might be a problem, but the comment itself doesn't look like it supports the contention. The second comment might be perhaps interpreted as questionable, but I've seen a lot worse forms of criticism of journalists than that one. Sorry, at least the two quotes indicated don't look to me like much cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also, please re-read the actual section! The title certainly sounds like it might be race-baiting, but it's actually about the purported censorship of the word "Jewboy" that was used by one of the characters in a novel. And I will join Drmies in bafflement as to how you're getting Ukrainian-baiting from his second comment. --Ashenai (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you guys are OK with stuff like this, fine. To me it looks like baiting. — Brianhe (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, lol! Brianhe, is this when I claimed Chan to have not-so-much investigative journalism you started looking up my contributions? 1) Ukrainian Media is full of trash, proof - google Supersharij and watch over 999 fake debunking videos, most have subtitles. 2) I never claimed Ukrainians to control New York times, I claimed that there is huge amount of anti-russian stuff published on purpose. Articles like Vatnik, Putin Khuilo, Russian Troll Army - articles that are self-referenced or edited by the very same circle of people, which are anti-semitic, inflammatory, non-encyclopedic. What is called "street trash" and has its place in yellow press. 3) "10 small Niggers" is the original story name, which is changed in English version to be "politically correct". Just for lols, I opened up the discussion section and found a claim for "10 small niggers" to be offensive, but "10 indians" not. I couldn't resist not to contribute, of how "10 small *anything*" could be seen as antisemitic, given the right view angle. Brianhe, in case you disagree: "10 small brianhe's" would also be anti-semitic. Come on, man, you should probably take a break, there are no angry mastodons :) Unless you are Ukrainian, hehe, just joking =) But, Israel Internet Defense Force on the other hand, aren't they official Israel troll army? That one got me by surprise... unless thats product of raging Ukrainians netizens again. Putin must follow their example and create Internet Force of Green Men :), ofc invite Mr. Chan to interview them, this time officially. Exposing included. I love you guys! 77.11.38.141 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to be a WP:DICK, at least get the original title correct: "Ten Little [add whichever variant here]". Gawd, given the IP's knowledge of Wikipedia, I smell an old sock... Ignore it until it gets genuinely disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This IP seems to be engaging in a breaching experiment by trying to find legitimate ways to be offensive. This IP does not seem to be new here either. Chillum 13:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, most definitely not. The user certainly knows their way around policies, guidelines and wikispeak only a long-time regular would be au fait with. We'll see what happens when their short block is lifted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Vsauce

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

---

Kids-"raid" in progress on Vsauce: They write repeatedly about the death of the hoster (ref just links to his latest video). Same on his youtube videos and twitter. A rollback and temporary protection would be nice --RicardAnufriev (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent original research over WWE pages

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

---

User:81.136.117.81 over the last three days has persistently entered unsourced information about the buy rates of WWE pay per view events over a wide range, and refuses to stop despite being warned on his talk page. After being warned formally last night, two more edits were found demonstrating that this IP is ignoring the warnings and advice and not discussing them. It would appear that these edits are based in original research. A couple of edits also seek to change the times of matches against the sources already noted - again appearing to indicate original research. As this IP seems to be stable I ask that the IP be blocked for a period to be decided by an administrator. It appears that other IP's in the same range may be engaging in the same behaviour so this would need to be watched. 1.152.96.193 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Swarm ♠ 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Sport Club Corinthians Paulista

Hello. The mentioned page has been a target of vandalism, probably from unregistered Brazilian users who support another club. Corinthians is widely a target of such thing in Brazil due to its importance and let's say some jealousy from other supporters. Anyway, this user seems to think that relating the club to something homosexual is cool and a mockery. He invents a group of supporters and add it to the article clearly mocking. I've reverted it before and he added back. A registered user probably restored them in good faith due to not comprehending what was happening. I told him and he's not supposed to revert those edits. But the unregistered IP returned and once again thought he was doing something awesome. I suggest his block as there was no good faith at all. Here are the links: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94: - IP warned. In future I suggest you please use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Move-war at Eastern Arabic numerals

An admin assistance is needed to stop move-war. User:Filpro is repeatedly moving Eastern Arabic numerals to Arabic–Indic numerals without a discussion taking place. The stable title (before yesterday, 13 September 2015) for the article before Filpro started move-warring was "Eastern Arabic numerals". In addition he is also vandalizing other pages like Indo-European languages, for which he has been warned on his talk page. Khestwol (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to the old title and move-protected for a month. Haven't looked in to the other issue. Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding plausible, but false, unsourced information to articles

Editor DN-boards1 has the bad habit of adding unsourced, plausible, but demonstrably false information to articles: [65] McNair did not remove Brooks. [66]. The Tsar Bomb stuff is not in the Kitchen Debate transcripts. BLP issues in Brenda Garow, info/accusations I can't substantiate: [67],[68]. Some kind of intervention is needed, unless we're going to factcheck everything. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sergeant at Arms removed Brooks, and the person holding that position at the time was McNair. So unless he WASN'T at that post, then it's in fact the case that he escorted Brooks. Khruschev stated he said the quote at the Kitchen Debate, etc. Apologies for any incorrect info. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

False. This book, page 10. [69]. Factchecking is necessary for DN-boards, and also a waste of editor resources. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. It states on that page that a page, the Sergeant of Arms, and Morgan escorted him out. I think you thought Morgan was the SOA, but he was a different person. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it says that the sergeant and a page helped Sumner "stumble into a cloakroom". Further, it says that Brooks found his own way out, flanked by Keitt and Edmundson. Use sources, DN-boards1. Geogene (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I was mistaken. It should be changed to mention him aiding Sumner into a cloakroom. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks more like you made it up, and that, perhaps, you have a habit of making things up. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEFIELD threats and constant edit-warring at Turkey

• Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Heimdallr of Æsir has been consistently edit-warring at Turkey with very offending and threatening edit-summaries. Even after I opened a discussion at the talk page, and told him to participate in it, the user kept on edit-warring. The edit-summaries are also entirely non-constructive and aim to demean those users he comes across. For example:

Is it Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia? Both of them have the same map. You guys should better make up your mind, or you will start fighting each other over your conflicting irredentist dreams, which will never become true.

In another edit-summary:

Don't worry, we'll come for "all" of you, including Greece

Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Three reverts in the space of minutes. He's clearly not going to stop. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

24-hour block. He seems to have a good point, that we should hesitate to use "Kurdistan" in this context because other countries have official jurisdictions named "Kurdistan" and Turkey doesn't, but of course that's not a reason to keep edit-warring after someone else tries to start a discussion and asks him to participate. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend The user is now socking with the use of an IP address. Please see the talk page of Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR time here. The block was placed because he refused to talk; if he's using an IP address to talk, why should I block him? It's a matter of breaking the basic rules in order to fulfill a bigger purpose that we already wanted him to do in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend Then what's the point of blocking him if he's just going to sock his way out of it? Might I add that the IP is continuing his insults (i.e. "proves how DELUDED you are on this subject." or "Would you like to have some Turkish coffee for waking up?"), the same ones that got him in trouble in the first place. Besides, per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking:

If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone is saying that the user who is edit warring is a sock puppet of some sort, the best thing to do is to contact someone who has CheckUser privileges and they can investigate the case. For example, User:Bbb23 is one of the CheckUsers who is able to investigate the case. Sorry for mentioning it out loud, but I'm sure he can get the job done. BigSportsUnion (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Then what's the point of blocking him...?" The point was to get him to stop edit-warring, and if 88.251.whatever is discussing but not edit-warring, I don't care. No problem with [70] or [71], and [72] doesn't by itself warrant an NPA block. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Heimdallr of Æsir has a name from Norse mythology. (To see the connection to Lord of the Rings, Google for 'Heimdallr Tolkien'). Based on his choice of user name and his interest in Turkey, this editor is most likely the same person as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to use admin tools based on your accusation, because it's not blatantly obvious, but I will request checkuser. Thanks for picking up on this! Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Telstra, Australia IP vandalism

The last month or so, there has been a long list of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, Australia, vandalising the Israel/Palestine articles. Look at User talk:McSly, Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Talk:Judea, Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:German Colony, Jerusalem, Palestinian territories. He reminded me of my old friend, due to edits like this, but, AFAIK, "my old friend" is still in the US.

However, I wonder, is it possible to block a range of Telstra-Ips? Or would that catch too many innocents? (Btw, he is active as I type) Huldra (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:NeilN. I have made a list of (some) of the Telstra socks, used in July/ August this year (not a full list):

• 58.168.146.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.123.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.34.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 60.230.39.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 101.160.19.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.129.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.137.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.148.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 110.149.115.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 120.144.30.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.144.129.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.144.134.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 121.214.15.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 121.214.48.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.214.137.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.214.145.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.62.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.134.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.110.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 121.220.10.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.80.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@

• 124.176.153.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@
• 124.180.155.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.180.215.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@
• 124.180.198.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 137.147.7.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@ (discussed here)
• 137.147.152.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.164.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.169.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs with @@ after them have issued Grawp-like threats, mostly rev-delled. Feel free to add more IPs, as you find them, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by 60.230.0.0/17. Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that some of these are proxies, not all are in Australia by the looks of things. While blocking Australia may seem a good solution, I don't think this will be productive - partly as there are ways to easily get round this. Now, I can tell you millions of people will be caught up in any rangeblock with this - and it is incredibly hard to tell who is and isn't vandals when it comes to people like ACC dealing with requests like this. Rangeblock is the easy solution, just not the best one here. Depending on what is being inserted, a note to the ISP or police (I haven't seen the edits, but the police are likely to be interested if they are death threats) is likely to be the only solution, unless we want large swaiths of Australia waking up and wondering why they can't fix one typo or suchlike, leading to the problem building up elsewhere. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit of poking about and came across |this site. While it deals with some nasty business with regards to anti- vs pro-vaccination groups not relevant here, but what was relevant was the inclusion of part of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Quick summary of this is that it is an offence in Australia to use a "carriage service", such as phone, mail, but also including electronic services, to make threats to kill or threats to cause serious harm. You could turn such evidence as you have to police in that particular state. Cybercrime reporting is somewhat in its infancy in Australia but police do respond to it. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment The IP's largely originate from around Melbourne, Victoria with one geolocating to a town 50km north of Melbourne. This would put it in the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Police, although depending on how they respond to the threats it may escalate to the Australian Federal Police (our version of the FBI) if it is viewed as a Commonwealth crime. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra extra comment Range blocking Telstra basically means you block pretty much the whole country. Telstra is the largest telecommunications company here but it used to be government owned till its privatisation. As such, most of the other ISP's here piggy back off their hardware. Far better to report to the abuse team on irt -at- team.telstra.com. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, User:Blackmane. I will email irt -at- team.telstra.com. I contacted WMF, they could confirm that this was, most likely, *not" my old friend, but some copy-cat. Besides that, they were basically doing nothing; just telling me that I should contact local police. I´m on the other side of the world, I doubt police here would do anything about a threat "down under". Also: if I went to the police, my RL name would get known, and could possibly be leaked. (Yes, I´m a bit paranoid after 5 years with constant death and rape-threaths, I´ll admit!) Lets hope the telstra-team does something; if not, I will be back in a short while asking for you to range-block the whole area: *that* would wake them up, I´m sure! Huldra (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep us informed User:Huldra; while I'm not in Victoria, I'm still interested in seeing that this situation is dealt with, preferably without my own access being blocked! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

User:Lankiveil : I emailed them a couple of days ago; and I have still not received an answer. It is week-end, though, so I think we should give them a few more days. However, if they totally ignore any request, I seriously would suggest blocking Telstra IPs. And no, that would *not* be of any concern to registered editors, (like Lankiveil), it would just stop any Telstra IPs from editing, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you imply that you would seek to have the administrators here begin blocking, if not range blocking Telstra IPs with the attendant consumer complaints that would inevitably arise? Telstra has a bit of a reputation for somewhat poor customer service. I suggest drawing some hard lines in the sand to give them a prod. I'm not in Melbourne so I am at no risk of being blocked. I suggest waiting no more than till Wednesday, Australian time, that's UTC+9 at this time of year. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Still not even an answer.. Huldra (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In That case, the admins should move to start blocking these IPs/IP ranges. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprising result, Telstra are always useless to deal with. If any admin things they can make some reasonable range blocks that don't hit too much collateral I say go for it, but as noted above rangeblocking the entire ISP would be massive overkill – it's the biggest ISP in Australia and there are plenty of areas where it is the only ISP available. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just checked my email, again, and no response yet from Telstra. Range-block away, I would say, (it would not affect any of you registered users, in any case). If there is a public reaction to this, then we should throw that straight back to Telstra´s court, so to speak. Huldra (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose some in this thread should be happy I don't know how to do a rangeblock, since I wouldn't give a damn if I block half the continent. I've seen the comments from that racist, and if that's the price to pay to wake someone up over there, that's fine with me, just fine. Philippe, please tell me that it's not up to one single harassed editor to get in contact with the police and ISPs half a world away; please tell me that you and Jimbo Wales and everyone else there take this kind of stuff seriously. Jimbo, you're an admin: put on your admin goggles, if they still fit, and see what I and others have had to revdelete. It's nice that we want to keep women editors and stop people from saying "cunt"--well, here you have an opportunity to stop one person from saying shit that's infinitely worse than that. Pick up the phone, Philippe and Jimbo, and call someone. You two have weight that Huldra and I don't have. Or wait for the call you'll get, when I accidentally block a million people for three months for racist abuse. Actually, Huldra, that's starting to sound like fun. I wonder if Malik would approve. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• If we don't get any sort of additional requested response soon, go for it. From what little I dealt with Malik, I think what you are proposing is something that someone with the guts he displayed while actively editing here would need. I am not an admin, but, if I was, I would myself in an few hours, even if I knew it would be the last thing I would ever be likely to do as an admin. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies: I believe Philippe has "left the building", so to speak, (see this), my understanding is that he is replaced by User:Mdennis_(WMF). It was, however, User:Jalexander-WMF who basically told me to contact my local police. Besides the fact that I live in a country where English is not any of our official languages (we have two), I am not an admin, and all threats are rev-delled. So, I could go to the police, and tell them that this is a rape threat against me and here they want to kill me, ...both comes from an IP at the other side of the world, writing in a foreign language (for my local police), ...and both edits are now over-sighted, so I´m sorry, they cannot see it! Yeah, sure. I would say I have a larger change of winning jackpot in a lottery, than getting the police to act on such a report. So I´ll say range-block away, and then leave it to Telstra and/or WMF to take the response.... Huldra (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Jalexander-WMF, Jimbo Wales, Sj, Phoebe, Raystorm, LilaTretikov, Mdennis_WMF, isn't this an odd situation? (I'd ping everyone but I don't know where to find our upper structure's Rolodex.) We have nothing but volunteers and a couple of computers, while you have money and phones and lawyers and translators and clout and connections with the media and suits and fax machines and endowments and grants and corner offices--and you all let "us" deal with something that should affect you also? Can some of you at least acknowledge that you were pinged here, that you read some of the comments, that you read some of the revdeleted comments, and that you will do something about this? Sorry, but is that not somebody's job? Isn't that part of the surplus value of our (free) labor? Drmies (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, I strongly recommend you contact the Legal team. I am not an admin here and cannot see what was revdeleted, but protecting an editor is my main concern. The rangeblock could be a useful temporary solution (I understand your reluctance to go to the Australian police especially if you cannot show them the threats. I wonder if you could be given the admin flag temporarily for that here. Or maybe someone from the Australian chapter with the flag could provide support?). Legal has an emergency email for these kind of threats in the link above. Contact them, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Fyi Drmies: Phoebe, Sj and I are no longer affiliated to the wmf. --Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted material, so can someone explain what is so important about preventing the abusive user from editing? I get the impression from the above that he wants to threaten one editor, who he has already threatened, so what difference does it really make if he threatens some more? Why block a big chunk of Australia over it? (@Only in death: I don't see what difference it makes if Telstra has a monopoly, either - do you really expect the average user is going to change his ISP to avoid a rangeblock laid against somebody else?) I also think Wikipedians would be very short-sighted indeed to make any effort to get Australia's overzealous censorship infrastructure focused on our site - it would be a classic case of releasing the rattlesnake to catch a rat in your basement) Wnt (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Raystorm, I did exactly that, I contacted [email protected]; they told me to contact Jalexander-WMF, who told me to contact my local police. (Who is located on the other side of the world.)

Wnt, AFAIK, it is not only me, anyone who revert him, too. Try McSly. And *if* I knew he would stop, that would be fine with me. But from my long experience with vandals (I think I have had death or rape threats every single month for the last 5 years), I know that these guys don´t stop before there is some intervention. Sadly, it is as simple as that. Telstra could very easily stop this; (Together with some (un)-deleted diffs from this place ): instead, they do nothing. Let *them* take the heat. Huldra (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has commented on his user talk page about this matter here, suggesting a call to Telestra first, threatening to go to the press, and then, if that doesn't work, go to the press. Then, presumably, if that don't work, block the whole damn company if we have to. He's also suggesting a clear and straightforward process to deal with such rare but potentially very damaging cases.

FWIW, I don't think Telestra is necessarily going to need to have the evidence in hand before taking action in the short term, although, not being from that country, I don't really know. But I do think that the threat of very negative media if they don't do anything will probably be enough. And, with most companies, if the threat isn't, the reality of very negative media probably would be. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies Yes, it is someone's job; it's my job and the job of my team as Trust & Safety and the broader job of CA and the WMF. There is no doubt that there are major issues with online threats like this and that shutting them down (no matter how many resources you have) can be incredibly difficult, given the frustrating realities of challenges to block (bouncing frequently around IPs/proxies), world wide abuse, and legal law mish mash (where exactly what is possible and what evidence is needed changes depending on where the victim and the perpetrator are). That said, the safety and well being of our users is incredibly important, and we'll continue to try and help users being attacked like this (and to shut down the perpetrators) for as long as it takes. Because of everything, sometimes law enforcement can do that quickly and sometimes it can take years, but that certainly doesn't mean we'll give up on it. In the end when people are making threats to kill or rape someone, these are threats of harm and abuse. Like all threats of this nature they should be reported through our Threats of Harm process as soon as they are found so that the on-call staff (and we're on-call 24-7) can help deal with it quickly, evaluating threats in the moment and getting them to law enforcement as soon as possible in accordance with their protocols. In addition, it's really important that users who are feeling threatened also go to their local police. I know that not everyone likes to do that, but it's an important step that can help provide immediate protection where necessary and also contribute to long-term solutions. In this particular case I'll be reviewing all of the data now in order to report it to the proper authorities, but if more threats come in they should definitely be reported to us so that they can also be actioned. In general, the more evidence and information we have (and the faster we get it) the better, because even if people are trying to cover their tracks by using proxies, difficult-to-track ISPs or countries, they usually make mistakes, and the more information we can get our own contacts the better they can put together reports and investigations that get things done. While it isn't always possible (and I’ll be the first one to admit that from experience as an admin doing this before I was staff), it's also useful to report early so that threads like can close down. When the perpetrator’s main goal is disruption and anger, a long back and forth on ANI can give him a lot of what he's looking for. Jalexander--WMF 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Figuring out new approaches to harassment is a priority at the Foundation, and we're working together with concerned community members on how we might change things for the better. But as James notes, cases like these are a different beast - they are exceptionally difficult to action. Problem users such as this have no regard for policy or community norms. That said, we will certainly welcome ideas for solutions to this kind of thing as well. We’re putting together some research on harassment issues (you can see some of that here) now and hoping to hold a broad, cross-community consultation gathering ideas a little later this year. I’ll certainly let folks know as that progresses and would love for you to share in that work. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• James, can you telephone or email Telstra, with the dates, times and IP addresses? They might very well help if asked to. Sarah ^(talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin The ISP is definitely one of the angles we look at in addition to law enforcement (and like LEAs sometimes they help and sometimes they don't) but in general I won't publicly comment on exactly what we do in a specific case. Jalexander--WMF 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• James Thanks for the reply. I don't understand why you couldn't say whether you've contacted the ISP. That would seem to be step one. Admins do it regularly – it's what the abuse teams at the ISPs are there for. Asking the targeted editor in another country to contact their police force means the editor will have to out themselves to the police, and the police are unlikely to act anyway. What editors usually want in these situations is for the abuse to stop, and ISPs are in a position to make that happen. Sarah ^(talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sarah; thank you for asking that question. It is definitely one I would like to ask Jalexander-WMF myself. Who shall make that call to Telstra and when? I realise it is week-end now, but by Monday (Californian time) I would really be expecting some *specific* answers*, not just general platitudes. Huldra (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

James, @Huldra: is asking on Jimbo's talk page who should contact the company. I'm guessing you would probably know best what she should do at this point? John Carter (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Jalexander--WMF 19:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huldra, James has made clear on Jimbo's page that he has not yet contacted Telstra. I don't know whether anyone else has. But the problem now is that the abusive edits appear to have been oversighted. That makes them harder to report. The best thing is to leave them in place, contact Telstra, and show them the IP address, date and time. If it's bad enough or protracted enough, they are likely to act. They may not tell you what they have done, but they are still likely to do something.

  Ideally they need to be able to see the edits for themselves. Failing that, they will need someone from the Foundation to confirm the dates and times. Sarah ^(talk) 21:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• First off, no, I did not make clear on Jimmy's page that we had not contacted Telstra yet. I made clear that contacting ISPs is an option we always take into account and that we do not reveal what we have done or not done for any individual abuse case (including this one which is on going, including me being in the office as we speak on Saturday afternoon dealing with it). Second, it is never a good idea to leave abusive comments undeleted or unsuppressed. The assistance in reporting is minimal and the continued feeding of perpetrators and damage against the victims significant. The privacy policy allows both the WMF and the Oversighters (or admins when it's just deleted) to release that info for investigative or anti-abuse purposes and that is the appropriate way to do it. After working with an awful lot of law enforcement agencies from around the world they end up wanting screen shots and copies of the data anyway, links to Wikipedia tend to end up with them more confused and less likely to act. Jalexander--WMF 21:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jalexander-WMF, you wrote: "As I said in a response on ANI contacting the ISP is definitely something that we are looking into as one of the options." That sentence implies that you hadn't contacted them at that point.

I contacted several ISPs as an admin years ago when there was protracted abuse or vandalism. What they found most helpful was (a) links to the edits showing IP, dates and times, and (b) screenshots of the end result. With only one exception I can think of, they were very helpful. But that involves them being able to see the material for themselves. The more it's hidden (admin-deleted, oversighted), the smaller the number of people who can deal with it. Also, it's a separate issue, but I've found just leaving things in place tends to end them faster. Sarah ^(talk) 23:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, that does imply that it hadn't been done yet. I apologize for that. I had already sent emails to a couple groups at the time and (now from the office) am continuing to look at a couple other options. Re: Leaving things in place, while I understand where you're coming from and I can certainly understand the desire to do such as a way of forcing the issue I have found that the consequences of leaving it have a strong tendency to outweigh the consequences of removing it (though certainly not always) and so will never advocate for leaving it. Jalexander--WMF 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So should someone want to report an incident to the police, who should they suggest the police contact to view the edit(s) in question? Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire Law enforcement should generally contact [email protected] or, in cases of immediate threat, emergency@. Others (such as oversighters) can also give the edits in question (or screen shots of them etc) before the report is made so that they can be view them from the start and just have to contact for confirmation if they need it. Jalexander--WMF 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was expecting. For something like this, I would suggest just recommending that the police contact either legal or emergency mailboxes. It's probably unlikely that someone at the police would be familiar with Wikipedia and being able to give them an e-mail address and what information they need to request (edit from user ABC or IP 456 pm this date/time) would make it more likely something would happen. Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that someone with a "wikimedia.org" email address should be the one to contact Telstra. They're the very definition of a faceless mega-company and it'll probably take a fair bit to penetrate their bureaucracy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

Nah. All you need is a press release. Bad publicity from an entity having the public visibility and regard of WP will launch it straight over the bureaucracy to the People That Matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa

Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [73] and [74], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

This editors problems have not been altered by their recent block and warnings of further action being taken, and it seems to me that they are intent on going back over previous "flashpoints" and trying to elicit a reaction from me, and whilst I have performed a few reverts I have kept them to the most contentious edits and have done my best to remain civil, however I am coming here hoping to get this nipped in the bud before it escalates further with either an IBAN, and a TBAN on Gob Lofa or both of us or whatever action is deemed merited. It needs to stop.

Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [75]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

I deem a TBAN on Gob Lofa in regards to Troubles related articles is more than justified going by their actions I raised previously and the following recent edits:

• Despite previously being informed [76] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [77] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [78], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [79].
• They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
• This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
• This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [80] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [81] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

They also now seem to be trying to provoke/hound me:

• [82]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
• The following (ab)use [83] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [84]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me. Notified that it is actually misuse of undo and twinkle, not the rollback feature itself Mabuska ^(talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [85], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to elicit some form of uncivil response from me at Talk:Dromore,_County_Down they decide to do it instead [86]. They have also decided to follow me to the Ulaid article in an attempt to find something to argue with me over to see if they can get a reaction out of me, in this case removing a WikiProject tag I added [87], though my response discounts their reasoning in their edit summary for it [88]. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to revisit past "flashpoints" to push either their viewpoint or attempt to antagonise by restoring challenged edits:

• 5 September pushing an edit that was challenged back on 8 July, and continuing with misleading edit summaries, cites the talk page as if there is a consensus for their edit when none exists.
• 5 September, undoing a revert I made back on 6 July. Once again they restored their inaccurate and unsourced opinion whilst at the same time removing sourced information. Another editor has since reverting them [89].

Examples will keep being posted until something is done and as Gob Lofa is willing to keep providing them then this issue won't go away. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of times action just doesn't occur at ANI for various reasons. I'm sure in this case, people either feel they don't want to step on Callanecc's purview or it's difficult to dig into the long-term history of the dispute. I think you're going to need to wait for Callanecc on this one as they are going to be the best person for deciding what to do.

That being said, the one thing I checked quick was the interaction tool for these two.[90] Gob Lufa's only post to Ulaid was 35 minutes after Mabuska. Unless there's more to the story, it can be relatively reasonable to assume Gob Lufa was following Mabuska around in this one instance. The rest really needs someone who's followed the issues (or has a lot of time to catch up). Unless someone has more to add, I think it might be best to close this and let it be sorted out when Callanecc gets back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So your suggesting I let this archive and when Callanecc returns post him a direct link to here? That I can do. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at Talk:McGurk's Bar bombing#BA violence presents a good example of reasoned debate that seems to go well beyond the call of duty in terms of substantiation. In this light, if Gob Lufa continues with abrasively confrontational behaviour ... then some level of block should be applied. IBANs patently don't work in situations in which editors are working on the same content. GregKaye 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, a closer look at that talk page will show I congratulated Mabuska on his research on 25 August, and allowed his edit to stand. Why would agreeing with another editor and their edit entail "some level of block"? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa, it looks as though this ANI is going to be closed with no action, but just to comment briefly. Congratulating someone once, isn't a very persuasive defence for the PoV editing on other occasions of which you are accused. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:TheAnonymousCoward is not here to create an encyclopedia.

TheAnonymousCoward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not here to build an encyclopedia. The user is most obviously by their contributions a single purpose account, pushing their POV at Talk:Macedon and will not see both sides of the argument. The user is inactive and seems to watch the Macedon article and its talkpage, and when another editor makes a comment or edit that the user disagrees with, TAC removes it like here or argues it (there are many many edits).

Judging by the editor's contributions, the editor is not here to create an encyclopedia and I have warned the editor in the past to expand their focus. They seem to be unwilling to.

The editor has also been racist and launched a personal attack against me by referring to myself and Macedonians as "Skopjan" here (this is a highly racist term and despite saying I am Aussie the editor does not seem to understand) and also refers to Macedonia as "FYROM". The editor "dislikes" calling "state of FYROM" as "the Republic of Macedonia", [91]and this obviously shows the editor does not conform to a WP:NPOV and is inherently biased.

The editor is unwilling to compromise and simply says that "the academic community agree" even though I have provided sources to the contrary.

The editor should be blocked as they are not here to create an encyclopedia and as evidenced by their short contributions prefer to engage in a war and has made no edits outside of talkpages relating to Macedon.

Luxure Σ 07:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG here. Luxure has been goading TAC, insulting him as a SPA at every turn [92] [93] [94]. Here is is removing or editing TAC's talkpage comments [95] [96]. Here he is taunting Greek editors by calling Greece a banana republic [97]. If anyone is guilty of racism, it is him. After I warned him of discretionary sanctions, here he is calling me a "fuckwit" [98]. Here he is saying "you people make me laugh" at Greek editors [99]. Here he is calling Greek editors "insensitive wankers" [100]. This user has unclean hands, and an unhealthy obsession with this topic. I have already warned him of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, don't know what else to do. Athenean (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This user called Luxure should be banned instead in my opinion, as Athenean said he's been attacking the entirety of the Greek people by calling their country a "banana republic", I've personally seen him characterizing people he disagrees with as fuckwits as Athenean said or any other insult commonly used by children when they are just frustrated and reply with insults instead of arguments, and he's done this over and over and over in this single talk page I'm active on. Can't help but wonder if he's the same rude, aggressive and POV pushing person on any other page he edits or he's an entirely different person altogether outside of this particular one. As for my characterization of the people of FYROM as Slavs or Skopjans, some countries have accepted the term "Macedonia" which in my opinion and indeed in the academic community's opinion it belongs to the northern province of Greece as does its history, and some countries have NOT accepted the term to describe this country and instead use the temporary term "FYROM". So this user accusing me of racism when I'm simply using an already used and accepted term by many nations and the NATO itself and on the other hand he's the one calling Greece a banana republic. His ridiculousness and racism is extraordinary and therefore he cannot be allowed to continue editing by accusing editors of racism simply when he has a problem with facts. As a POV pusher he regards this fact as an insult and demands that anyone who uses this term is banned from a site that aims at building an encyclopedia so he and his like minded despicable excuses of "editors" can edit it as they please. As an editor who does not edit wikipedia frequently I am not aware if I can ask for his ban here or if I have to create a similar page so I would appreciate some help on the matter. If it's possible to proceed from here I'd like to formally ask for this users ban for the reasons I listed here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Banana republic as the term used by former Aussie Treasurer Paul Keating. "Insensitive wankers" delivered in Australian vernacular, not the other meaning (see here). I have warned TAC in the past about being an SPA (and other users)but seems to not have taken this on board. I have tried to make amends [101] (....I have taken on board your comments about my "aggressiveness" and I will try to be more civil. We are all human at the end of the day... Lets try to solve this asap. ). I have tried to maintain a sensible composure and yes, I have failed, in frustration with editors who will argue the point. For this I am sorry and I have promised to make amends and drop it [102] and unlike TAC I actually contribute to this encyclopedia and as for the "fuckwit" comment for that I am sorry. Luxure Σ 12:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments were refactored per WP:MOSMAC, however on reflection they should not have been due to it not being the main article but a talkpage. Comment was removed because TAC referred to Macedonians as "Skopjans", racist term. Both Athenean and TAC accuse me of having a "hidden agenda" despite numerous times of me telling them I am Aussie. The adding of the SPA template was warranted per WP:SPA. Luxure Σ 12:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Banana republic as the term used by former Aussie Treasurer Paul Keating. - So a racist term used by this person is ok to be used by you as well when you aim to insult a nation. Thanks for clarifying that you think Paul Keating whom I don't know, is the arbitrator of what is and what is not meant to be used as a racist slur, therefore absolving you of your misdeeds. As for you being an Aussie, I didn't know that the diaspora of that state that "should not be mentioned" by me by any other name than the name that doesn't belong to them, is not partly located in Australia. It's well known there are many people living there of that ethnicity as well, and I am sure that you're either one of them or you're otherwise affiliated with one of them. Otherwise your repeated disregard of what the academic community has to say on the matter in favor of using their own quotes out of context from websites such as "macedonia(dot)org" which you deny but you can't fool anybody, and your obsession with taking out of the specific article ANY phrase that could lead someone to think ancient Macedonia had much to do with Greece, cannot be explained. There's no direct way to prove that you're an extremely biased, one sided, POV agenda pushing and unethical editor but the clues which lead us to that conclusion are just too many. And now you've taken things to the next level by demanding users who "dare" to speak otherwise in talk pages should be banned. For those reasons listed above I ask that Luxure is prevented from editing any further, because all he's succeeded in doing is harass lots of people simply because they voice another opinion, arbitrate what is and is not racism and ask for the silencing of every different opinion. This is certainly not how you build an encyclopedia.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see the user continues their battleground mentality. Banana republic, as used by PK, is not racist. Luxure Σ 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wasn't even aware of your existence before YOU attacked me and others for having the "audacity" of voicing our opinions in the talk page. Proceeding into calling for my ban is not what I call peace offering, so I'll defend myself against this obvious harassment. And again, a racist term apparently previously used by Paul Keating, as far as I know is STILL racist. If you seek to absolve yourself this way you're mistaken.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see here Luxure Σ 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how does one harass so many, yet when he's dealt with the same tone starts crying "harassment". The epitome of hypocrisy right here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite Block: As the reporter said, the user who doing all this trash-talk and personal attacks is clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia. This site is not for any social media or any warring here. We want to keep this site as clean as we can, but it's not always been that way. I think it's time for TheAnonymousCoward to think over what it did wrong and maybe settle down for a while before contributing to this site again. Does that sound fair? BigSportsUnion (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering the "fuckwit" remark and other insults, I'd extend that block to Luxure. Both Luxure and TAC need to be blocked - TAC for being not here to contribute, Luxure for repeatedly breaking civility and making racist remarks towards the entirety of Greece. Both are in the wrong. Both should be blocked. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't think Luxure did anything wrong. Only TheAnonymousCoward should be. Luxure was telling exactly the truth about what went wrong and I think it's time for The AnonymousCoward should step down now. BigSportsUnion (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

BigSportsUnion the fact that you brush off every insult and racist remark he's made means you're not objective at all, so whatever. DN-boards1 I am not here to contribute only if you believe what Luxure has arbitrarily decided that my purpose here is. As far as I know the rules state that a user focusing on a specific article is not considered as a single purpose account. Here's what the "Single purpose account" article says about it: Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus. By contrast, 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, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction. As everyone can see about the Macedonian kingdom article, I've never once made an edit until very recently, after a user asked about the meaning of a specific phrase, I explained, he edited the article and then I made a minor change to his edit and said in the talk page that If anyone thinks it should be said differently I'm open to discussion. Then the user Luxure came, started attacking everyone there because we had different opinions on the issue, and then he deleted the conversation I had with the user who edited the article. Therefore since I have only made a single change to that article along with that specific user whose name I cannot recall, and the rest of my activity on wikipedia is limited to the articles talk page, I see no reason why I should be banned. As for what you said about Luxure, I agree. As you can see he's been insulting, attacking editors personally continuously over the course of months on this articles talk page, and I imagine he's not a saint in the rest of them he edits, and he has used racist terms continuously whilst trying to tell us it's not racist because someone else said it first, or that it's not racist because he didn't mean it as an insult to an entire nation. As for what he tried to do here is simply to silence a different opinion, particularly mine this time because I wasn't giving up on the fact that I am backed up by historians, archaeologists and professors yet I am wrong for simply daring to make a minor edit to another users edit, AFTER I discussed it with him on the talk page. For all the above facts I as well believe he should be banned.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see this editor is obviously not here to edit the wikipedia judging by their comments above. False claims: "and then he deleted the conversation I had with the user who edited the article" So a talkpage bot archiving talk sections counts as deleting the convo? You can see why my frustration has got the better of me at that talkpage. Also " ... have only made a single change to that article ... the rest of my activity on wikipedia is limited to the articles talk page, I see no reason why I should be banned." Incriminating evidence? Luxure Σ 12:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see this editor continues being provocative so he can get reactions out of people he doesn't like here. He talks about false claims and "bots", I admit I am lost there, don't know what he means by that. And of course he's unaware of what constitutes a single purpose account and a preferred focus account, calling incriminating evidence worthy of punishment the fact that someone he doesn't agree with has made a single edit to the article itself after having a discussion with another editor who edited the article too. As far as rules are concerned, editing an article is not "incriminating evidence" by itself. And with that statement I end my activity on this particular post created by this user, because he's either delusional at best, or deliberately provocative at worst. Either case indicates to me he's not worthy of my time and that's why he can continue this nonsense he started by himself. Please do consider banning him in order to save other users from wrongful accusations such as this. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced ideologies and controversial info for radical parties

Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs), and 3 "new" IP accounts ([103]) with a sudden interest in the topic, keep adding unsourced "Ideology" labels and other unsourced controversial content in articles of radical Eastern European parties (see Bulgarian National Alliance, Shiv Sena and other similar articles). They have received several warnings and information on the named account's talk page, several users reverted their unsourced edits in those articles. As I am close to 3RR (and a minor edit war is also happening at Shiv Sena), it would be great if someone uninvolved could look into this. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the named account and one of the IPs with an active talk page. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This pattern of editing is remarkably similar to that of the prolific serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. It's probably worth comparing this with identified socks, and opening an SPI. RolandR (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what 'Anti-Ziganism' actually is??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were some sort of online encyclopedia where one could easily look up things like that... —Wasell^(T) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that would be an innovation wouldn't it!!! Cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure about a possible connection, the focus on political labels is the same, but the edit pattern and style seems slightly different. There are likely more than 1 people obsessed about politics and simplifying labels out there. Not filing a SPI for now, but thanks for the suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And again just now here with another IP. Could an admin please look into this - maybe just semi Bulgarian National Alliance and Shiv Sena for a while? Doesn't make much sense to send additional messages to 4 changing IPs. GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing additions - I have requested page protection for both pages at WP:RfPP. GermanJoe (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose block

Propose block of Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs) - as WP:NOTHERE (new unsourced edits). Not because the user is against radical parties or is trying to write about them, a commendable goal, but Wikipedia is no place for unsourced soapboxing and crusades. It looks like all of their edits are entirely unsourced, and the user ignored multiple warnings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone look into this please? ([104]). Or close it, if the insertion of unsourced POV-pushing since 4 months is not considered a problem. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Everett Stern COI editing and supposed "extortion"

Following my first small edits on Everett Stern, on July 28th, I posted the Biography article on the WP:TAFI board, where it was voted down based on WP:GNG. I then nominated it for deletion based on the following input and opposition from several other editors on the grounds of WP:GNG. The article was kept, but I later noticed that several edits on the article and the article itself seemed to read like a political campaign ad rather than a neutral Wikipedia article. Another editor agreed with me and posted this on the WP:COI/N.

An IP editor joined the conversation on the Everett Stern talk page with regards to the evident COI editing with this, along with several attempts to blank the talk page between last night and today.

Everett Stern has now identified himself and continues to accuse me of having a "political agenda," following the earlier edits of the IP address editor (which also identified itself as being the 'Everett Stern' team after a series of comments threatening legal action) as well as continuous statements which claim that I am somehow involved with 'extortion,' and several cases of WP:Outing. _{(A minor note, these OUTING edits have been oversighted. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC))}

These accusations are completely unwarranted, are against Wikipedia policies and standards, and neither Stern nor his colleagues are conducting themselves in appropriate manners. I have contributed to discussions as to the progress of certain Wikipedia pages upon subjects with which Stern has personally involved himself with, and I do not appreciate his continuous comments as I have only brought to some attention the fact that Stern had paid someone to edit his article, which was previously undisclosed and questioned the notability and neutrality of the article, which are indeed appropriate in the context of Wikipedia, and especially so when the person in question is soon to be involved with a political campaign. Ladysif (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize but I have already notified the response team and am drafting another email to them. I will not engage in this conversation in a public forum due to its sensitive nature. Everettstern (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I further apologize but Ladysif making the following statements about the subject is concerning..."his website is a pay-per-use scam" "Honestly, apart from the HSBC scandal, he has not made national news or had any media attention, and his campaign has not been given any mainstream attention. He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam, more or less. You can see his attempts to draw his attention to himself here and I have reverted a couple of edits on at least pages where someone had gone in and added his "conclusions" Everettstern (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indent your comments and do not quote me without the context of my comment. A comment on my talk page in response to another editor's question is not damaging to your article - I was asked why I thought that the article subject did not meet WP:Notability standards and provided an answer. Ladysif (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Everettstern: If you are handling the matter through OTRS then stop making allegations on-wiki... just stop. I have explained to you about outing, not making personal attacks and avoiding even the seeming of making legal threats and explained how this can lead to loss of editing privlages. [105] Ladysif, the editor most effected by your behavior has started that process by opening this thread. Now un-involved administrators and other editors will examine the issue to see what, if any, action should be taken. Wikipedia is a community of volunteer editors and ANI is one of the way we enforce out norms of proper behavior. Whether and how you participate is your choice. Jbh^Talk 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@[[User:Jbhunley| I understand. Please understand this is a very frustrating experience. I do not mean any offense to Wikipedia. I just want this situation resolved. I will not be participating in anymore discussions as I am not familiar with the platform. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue came up at WP:COIN#Everett Stern a few days ago. There seem to be about 17 SPAs and IP editors involved, not all on the same side. The response at COIN was to trim the article back to verifiable facts (there was a big section on "Political positions", cited to the candidate's website; that's gone), and now it's a bare-facts bio article. Right now, I think we're OK on the content front; edits by experienced editors are now down to fixing stray commas. Semi-protection might be helpful. On the "extortion" issue, it's not clear who, if anyone, is extorting what from whom. Nobody has mentioned libel/slander issues, and there's nothing in the article that's particularly embarrassing. What's the problem with the article, exactly? John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Everettstern: I am sorry you are running into such difficulties and I fully understand how confusing and arcane Wikipedia can be. Rest assured there are many eyes on your article now and while I can not say you will always be happy with the content of the article it is very unlikely any actual vandalism or violations of our policy on biographies of living persons will last very long if anyone does such a thing. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}}. I will keep your article and your talk page on my watch list so I can keep an eye on things as well. Jbh^Talk 20:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to explain the entire situation so the community understands where I am coming from. Please understand I am not making any accusations or legal threats. On or about July 20th my office received a phone call from JJJJJJJJ with WWWWW Inc. We were told that the Everett Stern Wikipedia page was going to be wiped out. I refused to pay WWWWW Inc. Immediately, thereafter, a Wikipedia editor proposed the Everett Stern page for deletion for not being notable. I have had tons of press so this was a very blatant and outlandish claim. I sent an email to the Wikipedia response team and KF responded and took immediate action by removing the tags.

On or about September 9th, the same editor again added a Conflict of Interest Tag and stated that I wrote the article. My staff notified me of some concerning comments made on some of the talk pages. I was told that there was a very high chance that the editor was possibly part of the WWWWW Inc. group. I have tried on my own to repair the situation but it has become apparent that I cannot operate within the Wikipedia system when I do not know or understand the guidelines. My explanations on the talk pages are hurting me because I cannot give the full story and situation. I am not saying that the editor extorted me. I am not concerned with the editor. It could be pure coincidence. I am concerned with the company that threatened to wipe out my page. I have tried defending myself only to make the situation worse and for that I sincerely apologize. I have never dealt with a situation like this before and I am handling it personally. I am happy with the Wikipedia article if the Wikipedia community is happy with it. I have no influence over its contents. Please edit away. I am just fighting back because of the chances that this is related to the previous incident. Otherwise, please keep editing! It is just an honor to have a Wikipedia page on me. I do not care if editors want to make changes or propose tags. My concern comes in when it is being done unfairly and with a possible motive. Again, I am not accusing anyone. As of right now the talk page on my Wikipedia page is extremely damaging. I ask that Wikipedia removes the inappropriate comments. If Wikipedia wants to keep the comments then I respect that. I just want to close this chapter. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You've had press on one "notable" scandal. Everything else is self-published and does not meet Wikipedia standards, not to mention the fact that the article as it was was poorly written and biased. I have not been here long and will turn to older editors' opinions over my own. Frankly I'm concerned that the person who evaluated my tag apparently was connected with you as well, considering as that's not quite a fair analysis of the tag to begin with... Anyway, you keep saying that you didn't do X X and X thing, and yet the edit records are here in plain view. Lying doesn't really help anything at all and I hope the outside administrators recognize that this situation is beyond ridiculous. Someone "wiping out" a page would have been caught immediately... that is blatant vandalism and the editor would be warned and/or blocked. Ladysif (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ladysif: Sadly, it's not ridiculous. Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. Everettstern's situation has many parallels with the LTA case. KrakatoaKatie 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Now we have a coherent explanation of the problem. The questionable proposed-deletion edit is [106] by Ladysif (talk · contribs) (not an SPA, first edit March 2015). Previous editing by other editors did show strong signs of a conflict of interest from special purpose accounts. See [107], and especially [108], which has the edit comment "(Updated information about Stern and created a section for Tactical Rabbit as per his request. This job was performed by a freelance writer.)" At WP:COIN, deletion was discussed, but rejected; the article was trimmed of PR content instead. The actions there look routine to me. Anyway, at this point, nobody is going to wipe out the page, and nobody is going to be able to dump campaign material into it. It's now on the watch list of dozens of editors. I think we're done at WP:COIN for now.

I assume that more detail on the extortion issue has been provided to ORTS, which may help. Any other reports of similar events at ORTS? John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• People, I advised Mr. Stern to email OTRS after he mentioned the claimed extortion. What he is doing is, as far as I can see, precisely in line with the advice to biography subjects provided by OTRS. I wrote that standard response, though it may have changed since I stopped doing response work. We do not require people to understand our Byzantine rules and guidelines in order to correct a problem on a biography. Anyone who disputes sourcing of content on the article is at liberty to remove it and discuss it on Talk. Remember that WP:BLP applies in all namespaces. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a note at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody#Everett Stern, in case this is related to the Orangemoody mess. John Nagle (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recommend closing

• I recommend closing this thread with no action as it is the result of an unfortunate collision of coincidences: (1) Everett Stern is apparently being extorted regarding his Wikipedia article. This is apparently now being dealt with via the proper OTRS channels. (2) An uninvolved editor (Ladysif), with strong opinions about Stern but clearly uninvolved in the extortion [I've known this editor for quite a while via the Sweet Briar College article; she is a good-faith editor], prodded the article and/or placed a notability tag on it. (3) The article and its major contributors were listed at WP:COIN by me, who had Ladysif's talk page on my watch list. (4) Everett Stern and Ladysif have made negative comments or erroneous accusations about each other, because of all this mix-up. The upshot however is: The article is now neutral and properly sourced and has many eyes on it; the extortion will hopefully be properly handled (if not, Stern should let us know down the line); Ladysif and Stern should please stop commenting about each other at all, and should please just avoid each other if you would, thanks. Case closed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for admin action now, and we already did content cleanup over at WP:COIN. Thanks, everybody. John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate everyones help. May you please delete or archive the talk section of the Wikipedia article? It is not constructive and the accusations back and forth do not accomplish anything. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and archived the remaining talk page discussions. If WMF or an admin needs to view them they are in the archive. If an admin thinks the last two threads should remain, please un-archive them. To Everett: Talk pages are not visible to article readers (unless for some reason they click it), so there's no great harm in letting discussions remain for a certain period if other editors believe that is advisable. It's common for heated discussions and even erroneous accusations to occur on Talk pages, so this is nothing new on Wikipedia. That said, I recommend that Everettstern take Ladysif's talk page off his watch list and ignore her wiki activity. Likewise, I recommend that Ladysif take both Everett Stern and User:Everettstern off her watch list. There are enough people monitoring this situation on all counts and sides, and this misunderstanding simply needs to dissipate. Thank you. And whenever deemed appropriate, an admin can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Ladysif and all relevant talk pages from my watch list. I look forward to this being resolved. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis and page creation problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User:Dolovis must get mentor approval prior to creating new articles or requesting undeletion of article histories for a period of six months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Apologies for the length of this report. The tl;dr version is that I believe Dolovis (talk · contribs)' page creation habits routinely ignore policy, guidelines and past consensus, and represent a drain on community time that far outweighs what little value they provide. I recommend this be stopped. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Dolovis is an editor with whom myself and a few other editors have had a long and contentious history with regarding article creation. He first came to ANI back in 2011 in which he was creating and/or moving pages and gaming the system as part of a diacritics war that was brewing at the time. He was briefly banned from moving pages, and later re-banned from moving any pages related to diacritics after immediately breaching a promise to reform his behaviour in that area. To the best of my knowledge, that ban remains active. (He is also under a BASC imposed one-way interaction ban with Djsasso, whom Dolovis has targeted more than once, and most recently with scrutiny-evading sockpuppet - that condition placed as part of an unblock request that a clearly divided ArbCom reluctantly granted.)

I have long been an extreme critic of Dolovis' habits of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs of marginally notable or completely non-notable hockey players, often relying on the bare minimum allowed by the WP:NHOCKEY SNG (recent example: Simon Suoranta; literally a couple thousand more examples available) - inevitably using just a stats sheet or player profile page from a league site as the sole source. His other big habit is to create redirects for non-notable players to any random article that might kind of fit, pretty much just on speculation that said player might become notable someday. I have long felt that these creations are ego-driven efforts to simply grab the first edit for as many new pages as he can, and not done out of a true desire to improve the project. Or, as Ravenswing recently put it: "This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article 'creation.'" Dolovis' only real goal with Wikipedia is to create as many new pages as he can, and he has shown complete and utter contempt for virtually every policy or guideline that stands in his way. The result is that editors who also monitor in this space have to spend an inordinate amount of time curating and reviewing these articles, while his contempt for policies has caused a great deal of wasted time for editors and admins at WP:AFD, WP:REFUND, WP:RFD - By my count, Dolovis has had over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone; Ravenswing targeted about 75 articles of his for AFD in January 2014. Only ONE ended up as a keep. Four others were no consensus closes, the rest deleted. This represented a massive waste of time for those of us who had to do the research after creation because Dolovis clearly and obviously did not do any research before creation.

The problems with his creations go far deeper than just a disregard for notability criteria. He has created two speculative articles on NHL teams that don't exist - Quebec NHL team and Las Vegas NHL team - that, aside from being failures of WP:CRYSTAL, I have realized are unattributed copy-paste jobs from Potential National Hockey League expansion. In short, Dolovis is creating copyright violations because it is easier to rip off someone else's work to try and grab that first edit for any future NHL team. Another of his recent creation, 2014 KHL Junior Draft, is likewise an unattributed copy of someone else's article (in this case, 2013 KHL Junior Draft). He has also previously tried to speculate on future NHL teams as well - in this case, ironically, one of the few examples of his putting real work into something (assuming it wasn't likewise just ripped off from someone else's work).

Dolovis has deliberately created articles on non-notable players and failed to defend them when PRODded (most recent example: Pavel Karnaukhov), because he knows he can just run to WP:REFUND and request a history undeletion to get that first edit back if the player later becomes notable and someone else recreates the article. This is something that has been picked up on by others. This only wastes the time of three separate editors: whomever reviews the article, who deletes it at PROD, and who restores the article later. This is blatant gaming the system. In that thread, Ravenswing also shows numerous links of Dolovis misrepresenting sources to try and claim a player meets an easier criteria of NHOCKEY or misrepresenting NHOCKEY itself to try and justify these creations.

Dolovis is even worse when it comes to redirect creation. When he knows there is no chance of an article surviving more than a few hours, he just redirects pages to random, somewhat related targets with no regard for the fact that his actions actively hinder the search function. In fact, despite having these redirects deleted at least five times in the past two years, I STILL had to take two more to RFD this week, which are again heading to a delete. As of right now, he has 17 redirects listed at RFD, and every single one is leaning delete. And I am preparing to RFD dozens more for the exact same reason.

His non-hockey creations are no better, This article was clearly created as a synthesis of Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) - Dolovis obviously does not have those sources and never read them. He simply copied them from the latter article and reworded a couple passages to "create" his version. And then there is this. That might be the laziest article creation in Wikipedia history. He only expanded it (likely a cleaned up version of Google Translate) after someone else reviewed and prodded it.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying that Dolovis' page creations are of such a low value, that his continual disregard for policy and guidelines - including policies on copyright violations - and that the time wasted in cleaning up, PRODding, AFDing and RFDing is so high, that allowing Dolovis to continue creating pages like this represents such a drain on the community that I believe it needs to be stopped. This has been going on for years. As such, I would like to propose that Dolovis be indefinitely banned from creating any new pages in Wikipedia main space. Given he brags that he has started over 5800 pages, I would suggest that he could direct his future time into expanding those 5800 two sentence sub stubs. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dolovis. Indef-blocked after a drawer full of socks and unblocked with a minor edit restriction--see this note by Thryduulf. That seems to have come about quite easily. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I completely endorse all Resolute has said and support an indef ban on new article creation by Dolovis. Dolovis is not only a disruptive presence, who's created an appalling amount of work for those who've had to clean up his messes, but he's been extremely tendentious over the years, filibustering at great length to keep his edit count high ... often at times in complete contradiction to arguments he made the week before. As you can see yourself from his edit history, he's far less interested in improving the encyclopedia as in racking up his new creation count, and has found the creation of implausible, desperately obscure redirects an easy way to do it.

  Honestly, I would really appreciate hearing from those in the BASC process who felt that Dolovis' well-merited indef block ought to be reversed. Leaving aside the minor edit restriction to which he agreed (and which he just last week sought to overturn), what led them to believe that he had changed his ways, what assurances did they receive that he would do so, and what monitoring did they undertake to ensure that he did? Ravenswing 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to go too far into his SPI stuff since it is tangental to his article creation problem, and this was long enough as it is. But that was a hypocritical example of Dolovis using a sock in bad hand fashion to revenge target some of DJSasso and Ravenswing's oldest articles created using the exact same rationale as Ravenswing presented in nominating seven dozen of Dolovis' pages for deletion. Part of the reason why his deleted contributions list is deceptive is the fact that he knowningly creates articles that won't pass a PROD or AFD, but wants the first edit in history so he can request a history restore at WP:REFUND when someone else re-creates an article after the subject does become notable. But in short, he's had over 100 articles deleted at AFD, he's got about 100 redirects at RFD right now - he continues to create redirects of the type that have been consistently deleted at RFD for a few years now even though he is well aware of the consensus against them - and god only knows how many have been deleted through PROD, only to be restored later at REFUND. The long and the short of it is that we are at several hundred pages deleted or about to go, and what does stick, sticks only because they meet NHOCKEY or other SNGs by the skin of their teeth. Even then, those sub stubs themselves offer no value. Given his history of misrepresenting sources, it would honestly take more time than what any of us has to investigate and verify all of those pages as well. Ravenswing spent close to a month last year reviewing and AFDing less than 20% of his creations, at that time. And Dolovis is now getting into creating copyvios, which was the final impetus for this report. He's damned lucky I only picked up on those after his ill-advised request to have one edit restriction removed was archived, otherwise I would have presented this to arbcom in that process. As it is, it wastes our time to have to review this junk, it wastes an admin's time to deal with PROD requests on articles he knows won't stick, it wastes an admin's time at REFUND and it waste's everyone's time at AFD and RFD. Resolute 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Break

• At the moment, there are 103 such redirects up for "discussion" (read: deletion) at RfD:
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Pier-Olivier Pelletier (2 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#NHL Draft redirects (13 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects (88 pages, not all Dolovis)

as well as

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 23#Victor Rask (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Eamon McAdam (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Yan-Pavel Laplante (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Anton Karlsson (ice hockey, born 1996) (2 pages, both deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli (3 pages, all deleted)

Anton Karlsson is archetypal of the page creation problem. Dolovis created this as an empty redirect to a page with no information about the player on 20 February 2014. It was prodded; Dolovis removed the prod; it was listed and then deleted at Rfd. Another editor created a page about this player some time later, when they became notable. Subsequently, Dolovis requested the history of their redirect be merged with this page, and is now credited as the creator of this content, even though they contributed exactly nothing to it. This is an WP:EDITCOUNTITIS problem, but a problem nonetheless.

The bigger problem, of course, is that of the 111 pages listed above, none have survived a deletion discussion (counting the 103 currently listed which are very likely to be deleted shortly, their discussions are really formalities at this point) and this wastes the community's time (it takes, by my count, 312 edits to list the 103 currently listed, not counting the actual discussion, plus subsequently taking up admins' time closing those discussions and deleting the redirects, plus time wasted when Dolovis requests history merges when someone else creates an article). Banning Dolovis from creating pages will not harm the encyclopedia at all, and will give other editors the opportunity to be given appropriate credit when they create pages about notable hockey players, which will further encourage the creation of those articles, which greatly benefits the project.

Thus (tl;dr) I support banning Dolovis from creating pages in any space, because I'm sure they'll just find a way to game a more limited ban. I have no comment on the socking issue as it seems unrelated to the page creation issue, and doesn't seem to be a current issue anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support I am going to keep this pretty brief because Resolute has done a very good job of summing up the issue. Dolovis continually creates articles he know will be almost instantly deleted. And when he can't even remotely argue an article is valid he creates a redirect to some random remotely related page that often has no information on the subject. He has been an extremely disruptive editor in all manner of ways from his ban on diacritics editing to the sockpuppeting to the creation of clearly non-notable pages that are a waste to the communities time. I actually support a full site ban. But I am happy to accept a page creation ban as a first step to see if that helps the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support a six-month topic ban against Dolovis creating articles or redirects without having it approved by an administrator. Proposing a dozens redirects will just annoy someone but if there's a new article, there's a chance to get it approved. I'm going to give a bit of leeway to see if Dolovis can propose articles of any worth to be created which would give us support to remove the ban in the future. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if the problems have been resolved or not. If there's no examples or new articles of the right quality to base this on, we can evaluate extending this in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable response; certainly Dolovis should be allowed to create articles if they are worth creating, and not just redirects or stubs on players which they admit are non-notable. However, I propose that this restriction be placed for 14 months. Why 14? Because this will actually prevent Dolovis from creating the mass of redirects from players drafted in the next year's draft. Otherwise, it's not really a sanction, they will pretty much automatically wait it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In six months, Dolovis can either show that this restriction is no longer needed (by pointing to actual articles created after approval by an admin) or we'll see that Dolovis has done nothing in that way because Dolovis only wants to create stubs and redirects. If there are literally zero edits because this topic ban is essentially a de facto ban for that person (for a lot of editors, a minor topic ban causes a complete meltdown, but we'll see here), then we'll all better off I guess. The personality type that sockpuppets that much and argues that much just after agreeing to restrictions tells me it won't take six months for another problem to surface that this restriction won't matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. My worry, however, is that at no stage in his Wikipedia career has Dolovis embraced the premise of "You're right. I'm wrong. I recognize that I broke the rules, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." Over and over again, he argues for delay -- that some other appeals process be brought into play, that he'll agree to an entirely voluntary, short-term (and unenforceable) moratorium on objectionable behavior, that deadlines be extended for further comment. What would a six-month restriction solve that his nine-month block didn't?

Beyond that, who's the poor bastard admin who's going to get saddled with doing all the notability research on dozens of new articles, an area in which Dolovis is notoriously indifferent? Ravenswing 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship, is the route to take. We can't just destroy an editor, merely because he/she may annoys us. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• No one's advocating "destroying" anyone. Nor is any editor prevented from being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia by being enjoined from new article creation. Not counting redirects, I've created fewer than a half-dozen articles a year, and I've only created two in the last three years. Over 40,000 edits in, I figure I've found other ways to contribute. Ravenswing 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for butting into such an important discussion — I followed user:Resolute here. So this is where all the editors on Wikipedia are spending their time? Wow!

Anyway, I won’t stay around long (don’t want to get in trouble), but the opening statement by Resolute got me worried, because I also create a fair number of wp:stubs that end up in the wiki-garbage-can, but did not realize that this could put me on the wrong side of the wiki-law. I hope I am taking things out of context, but sorry, I don't have the time to investigate. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis

• Response by Dolovis: When I joined Wikipedia in 2010, I came across thousands one line stub articles about professional ice hockey articles. I found these articles helpful as they encouraged me to become active as an editor to work to improve such articles. One editor in particular, User:Patken4, had created thousands of stub articles about hockey players, (see Roy Mitchell (ice hockey), Randy Murray (ice hockey), and Darrell May (ice hockey) for just three of such examples) and I could see that much more such work was needed in this area. Following the example of Patken4, I volunteered myself into the IceHockey Project to create and improve articles about notable hockey players pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY. Working diligently as a GOOD FAITH editor, I created starter articles for not only NHL players, but also for other major and “Top level” leagues as defined by WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, including Swedish Hockey League, the Finnish Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, Czech Extraliga. I dedicated myself to creating articles for all 808 major league players who played in the now defunct World Hockey Association, completing this task on June 4, 2014 (see talk page “thanks” for my efforts). Along the way I have also made many thousands of edits to improve other existing articles.

I believe in and have remained loyal to the Wikipedia Project, despite what I have perceived as bullying from some editors, including Resolute and DJSasso, who I feel have been harassing me since first joining the IceHockey Project. I have certainly made mistakes. I used to be involved in discussions, and often found myself disagreeing with Resolute and DJSasso – but following such discussions, I always tried to follow the consensus - whether I agreed with it or not. I now try to avoid such discussions.

I firmly believe that creating stub articles encourages others to add, build, improve, and work collaboratively on on this never ending project called Wikipedia, and yes, I am proud that I have contributed over 5,800 new articles to Wikipedia. I am not concerned if some have been since deleted, because I do not own them and I welcome the efforts of others to contribute to Wikipedia. The harsh welcome felt by most new editors discourages the creation of new articles, but I believe that new articles are the life-blood of Wikipedia. If one takes a look at my edit history, you will find no disruptive editing (yes, I have made mistakes, but I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia). Despite Resolute's numerous and loud claims that I am a bad faith editor, I am not. Following Resolute's criticism that I was making one line “stub-stub” articles, I tried to take his criticism constructively to improve my stubs to be better. A look at my recent creations will show a pattern of making stub articles for notable subject pursuant to WP:IDEALSTUB, as a starting point for other editors to build upon. Resolute is trying to make the claim that I am disruptive because I am creating too many articles, so therefore I am creating work for the other editors. Following Resolute's thinking, if there were nothing there, there would be nothing to complain about. Look at his uncivil comment following my creating an article for CalgaryNEXT where he writes “As usual, someone else is left to clean up a lazy mess created only as an ego trip” [109]. This was not created as an "ego-trip". It was created because it is a notable subject pursuant to WP:GNG and deserves to have an article. That is but one example of the incivility that I have been forced to accept from Resolute for many years.

Concerning the redirects I have created: The redirects under discussion here were created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith. If there is a new consensus and guideline stating that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then I would happily follow it. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, stating that you have created 5800 new articles doesn't do much to tamp down on the concerns that you are game-playing everyone by creating nonsense stubs that get deleted and trying to jump back in when someone else eventually does create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just addressing the issue of “5800 articles” as raised above by Resolute above. These are not “nonsense stubs”. These are deserving articles created pursuant to WP:Stub. Resolute claims that I have had “over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone”, but what he doesn't say is most of those were AfD'd only after the IceHockey Project lowered its WP:NHOCKEY bar and then targeted such articles for deletion (only articles created by me, not the hundreds created by others). He also doesn't say that these articles were brought directly to AfD where they were summarily deleted pursuant to the new standards for inclusion (when a PROD likely would have been more efficient and less time consuming). I do not create article knowing they will be deleted. I create articles so others can build upon them. Dolovis (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They were AfD'd because they lacked any substantive coverage so as to pass GNG. We raised the bar on that one section of NHOCKEY because you were abusing the hell out of it and trying to use it as a shield to justify creation of articles on non-notable subjects. If you actually looked for sources to ensure a GNG pass before creation - rather than make the rest of us do it for you - the number of games a minor league player had in his career would never have entered the equation. Resolute 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dolovis, not buying it for a second. It is hilarious for you to claim there is no bad faith editing in your history given you have two active edit restrictions already, one for bad faith editing in the realm of diacritics, and the other for bad faith use of sockpuppets.

You claiming now that you will suddenly follow any "new consensus" about not redirecting to draft articles now is curious given I hauled you to RFD FIVE TIMES in the last 18 months or so with such redirects deleted every single time, only to have you come back with yet another run of such creations afterward. This promise today is only being made because you are staring down a page creation ban, not because you respect a consensus that has existed for a long time.

You have failed to address your cut and paste copyvios. You have failed to address your history of misrepresenting sources. You have failed to address the problem of you creating articles on subjects you know are not notable so you can have history restored later via REFUND. You have failed to address the fact that you will always do the absolute minimum per NHOCKEY - and in most cases, how you never even make the barest effort to look for sources beyond a website that is nothing but a stats page. I haven't mentioned it yet in this complaint, but in the cases where more stringent criteria has forced you to put bare effort in, I would also like you to address your habit of using blogs and other unreliable sources, WP:ROUTINE sources and sources with obviously trivial mentions while making little to no effort to find substantive coverage. This goes well beyond your habit of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs that are of no value, virtually never even bothering to look for sources that cover players in non-trivial, substantive fashion that WP:GNG requires. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you started here and offered to work with you. And even though you were creating conflicts with others right out of the gate, I still tried to offer constructive advice - the very same advice you are being given four and a half years later and still ignoring four and a half years later. If my attitude towards you is negative today, it is because I have five years of bad faith actions to judge you by. In the end, the ultimate question is still to ask why the community should be forced to spend so much time cleaning up after you. Don't you think five years of having to fix the messes you create is more than enough? Resolute 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolute's argument is false deductive reasoning. He argues that because he has taken my edits to RfD, therefore I have made disruptive edits. Again, what Resolute fails to mention is that out of the hundreds of existing redirect edits, he targeted only my edits for deletion - even going so far as to apologize to another editor[110] who he inadvertently RfD'd with my edits. If there are any copyvios, they would inadvertent and minor, and should properly be be addressed through copy editing or appropriate attribution. Clearly, his RfD campaign is a personal vendetta against me and not against my editing, which falls within the standards of what other editors are doing. Dolovis (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I apologized for Alaney for failing to notify him that one of his redirects was taken to RFD. My error there was simply assuming that they were all yours. As to the rest, you're just lashing out in desperation - much like you did the last time you were hauled to SPI and tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet that voted against myself in deletion discussions to try and distract the discussion. I will once again note that you have failed to address any of the points I raised above, and you failed to answer the questions at the end. So I once again ask: how long should we be expected to fix the messes you leave behind? Resolute 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis, can we resolve the current issue here now? Would you be willing to agree to even a temporary ban on creating articles and redirects? Resolute's argument is that he has taken your edits to RFD which has deleted the redirects in the hundreds, you have an incorrect version of policy. The point is that the redirects and articles you created before (even years before) have been brought to RFD and a number have been deleted. My proposal is simply that you get an admin to approve of it which isn't a terrible chore if you've completed a decent drafts. If the issues with hockey redirects have resolved with your acknowledgment of the current policies, then I see zero issues at all here with my proposal. Else, you currently came back from an block for sockpuppetry, with an edit restriction, which I see that you're currently arguing to remove already and for which the few ARBCOM members who allowed you to return have said you either need to follow or you can retract the agreement and go back to the ban. So if you want people to think that you've seriously reformed, it would be a good idea for you to pre-emptively agree to resolving the problems that got you in trouble before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather gross oversimplification of my argument, actually. His redirects are only one part of the overall problem which, in short, is to do as little work as possible while trying to gain a "high score" for article creation, and leaving behind a morass of sloppy work that achieves so little value that it cannot hope to make up for the time spent cleaning up after him in multiple venues. Resolute 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The only person who appears to be concerned with my edit count is Resolute, and I will be happy to remove the “Userboxes” from my user page if they are annoying to Resolute or any other editors. Until now, my understanding was that editors should be aware of WP:REDDEAL when creating redirects, and that RDs to draft lists were otherwise acceptable for nn players. But if this is no longer the consensus, then I will refrain from redirects to NHL draft lists, and even help to start tagging other such redirects for deletion.

As for article creation, I have long since demonstrated the ability to create sourced articles on notable topics (which is the benchmark for article creation). Viewing my edit history will confirm this. If there are exceptions, then please PROD them or otherwise bring them to my attention so the shortcomings can be addressed. Expecting me, or any editor, to create WP:Good articles on the first draft is not reasonable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As discussed at WP:Article development, creating sourced Stub articles is an encouraged activity. If the notability of a subject is disputed, then it should be properly PRODed, or otherwise dealt with pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Requiring Admins to move my drafts to main space will just create extra work for everyone. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is all pure BS. You know damn well that his argument isn't about the edit count on your page. It is the actions you are taking to boost it that are the issue. Creating articles that you know don't meet the notability requirement. That you have been told time and again don't meet the notability requirement. That are sourced to stat pages and blogs, which don't meet WP:GNG. All of this has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, your standard response to most people when they point it out is "Its not my job, its up to other people to come along and do it later". Except that it is your job, if you are creating an article you are expected to source it with reliable sources and to make sure they meet the WP:GNG. You have not demonstrated the ability to create sourced stub articles, a quick look through your created pages show that the vast majority are sourced to non-reliable sources. Then when the articles are inevitably deleted for non-notability you wait until you can ask at refund to restore your edit history once the person meets notability. I have even seen cases where you copy and pasted the content of deleted at afd articles (created by other people) where you then pasted the exact copy a month or two later as a "new creation". -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Resolute, I agree that it's a simplification of the concerns but given that ARBCOM very recently unblocked Dolovis and the little evidence that the actions are ongoing now, you'll be unlikely to find any admin will to block on that basis so I'm focusing on a resolution as to what can be shown now. Otherwise, Dolovis doesn't believe it's a problem at all. Just want everyone to be clear. We'll see from others but I still support the proposal as it provides the least amount of disruption to the project overall in exchange for resolving the largest number of concerns at the moment. And Dolovis, are you actually checking these sources in your hurry to create these articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very easy to see it going on right now. Here is one he created within the last month. Only added to it (weeks later) when notified of a prod. [111]. Resolute also showed current examples of his lack of attribution on copy pastes which are current copyvio issues. You can't just focus on the here and now, because that is what the problem has been, here and now we issue a new minor restriction of some sort and he goes on and finds a way to circumvent it or some other policy to flaunt. Perhaps its at the point where it needs to go to Arbcom for a full case. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree but it's not totally objectionable for people to create basic stubs and to pull the information from cross-wiki. ARBCOM is really the place for that kind of thing not ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No pulling cross-wiki is fine. But his creation of the article consisted solely of "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with the only reference being his staff profile. Fine if that is the first edit in a series of edits. But he didn't go back to it until weeks later and it was about to be deleted. Either way I was just using that particular one as an example of its on-going nature. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Marek Sikora (astronomer) was a listed as a hat note on the Marek Sikora article. Given that he appeared to be notable per WP:NACADEMICS, and had a Polish Wiki article, I chose to create the article rather than just wash the hat note (as I first thought to do). I agree it was a very weak start, and I have since expanded the article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. It is currently facing a PROD, and will be deleted unless another editor takes an interest in keeping it. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah so that's basically you guessing that there's enough notability, copying the Polish wiki text (without you independently verifying if it's true at all) and then leaving the really hard work for others, which is why I support the temporary six month topic ban from creating new articles at the moment. Do something else rather than create new stubs as it does sound disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly, and that therein is the problem. Guessing at notability without going to the effort of actually providing the sources necessary to prove it. Wasting other editors time who have to prod it, then admins who have to do their own research to see if it is notable and then them deleting it. Even worse if it ends up at Afd where then multiple editors have to do that. If you can't source it to reliable sources then you shouldn't be creating it, if you don't know its notable then you definitely shouldn't be creating it. -DJSasso (talk)

• @Ricky81682:. I'm not asking for a block - though I believe Ravenswing did. I am asking for an end to the time wasting caused by his mass creation of negative value pages. Due to his history, we already have to routinely check for both the existence of sources to meet a GNG pass, and to check that he isn't misrepresenting the paltry sources he does use. And now, given his cavalier response to the copyvio issue, we will have to check for that as well. And this rabbit hole still goes deeper than I have presented here. He routinely creates WP:CRYSTAL articles on potential draft picks a month or two before each year's NHL Entry Draft even though most of those players are not yet notable. For me, that is one instance where I just don't bother because I hate wasting the time of admins and editors at PROD and AFD when some of those articles would just be re-created a month later when notability IS achieved, but it is just another example of Dolovis looking for page creation high scores. In my view, the solution here is an indef ban from creating pages, to be lifted only when he demonstrates - via expanding a good number of his past creations - his willingness to (1) look for and accurately use sources that meet GNG before creation - meaning no more one-reference substubs relying exclusively on a stat sheet or blog ans (2) stop gaming the system via deliberate creation of bad redirects and of topics he knows aren't notable. Ravenswing, DJSasso and myself have been trying for years to hammer home the fact that GNG means non-trivial, substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Perhaps once he demonstrates that he will no longer ignore that via expansion and referencing of his past articles, and perhaps once he commits to follow that process going forward, such a ban could be lifted. Resolute 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support a six-month topic ban of Dolovis creating articles or redirects (uninvolved non admin) This is insane. It creates tons of work for others. Its inconsiderate and is simply gaming the system. I would also Support an indef ban on history merge requests of deleted pages more than a month old to stop the disruption in the future. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pursuant to WP:Notability a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (i.e WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ACADEMIC). Once created, an article may still face deletion pursuant to the deletion policy. This is how Wikipedia works. The Marek Sikora article is the exception to the majority of the work I do on Wikipedia. That article was well-intentioned, and I did verify the sources used in the Polish article, and I still believe he is notable. I fully intended to go back to build the article, which I have done. I believe that my good work far outweighs the weak, and in the interest of resolving this issue I will make a proposition; I will take a voluntary one month break from creating articles, with the hope that Resolute and DJSasso will stop their uncivil comments and harassment towards me. I am a good faith editor who is doing my best to build and improve Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You need more than a month off for those games. Your denail of a problem and trying to lessen the ban time is just IDHT. I think anyone who reads this section will support the bans. You are making work for editors and disrupting the project. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, Dolovis -- you are admitting to doing nothing wrong, and you make no stipulations that you won't start the same behavior all over again 32 days from now ... nor does anything enjoin you from doing so 32 hours from now. What leads you to believe this would be an attractive offer? Ravenswing 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per AlbinoFerret, I likewise support an indef ban from the WP:REFUND process. For anyone following this discussion seeking evidence concerning Dolovis' motives, he doesn't have merely several dozen requests at WP:REFUND, he's featured in several dozen archives. [112] I am very hard put to find an unselfish reason for such Wikilawyering, nor one justifying the time and energy spent by those active in that area to go through his requests. Ravenswing 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that a possible contribution history problem? I mean, that's assuming there is actually is a connected history, a refund request would have to required. Isn't the issue that WP:REFUND policy be so liberal (just any request) rather than asking if the request is actually related on a separate editor from the current history which is a different problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was a article that had some long term editing that was recreated maybe. But whats being merged is redirects and tiny subs. It takes away the incentive to create them in the first place. To make sure that he is creating articles likely to survive an afd. If it looks like a problem the exception can be added that he ask an admin and point to this section as the reason for asking and an admin can decide if its a real article or just more "Im first" games before asking for a merge. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support temporary article creation ban, also endorse indef REFUND ban. It looks like Dolovis has a long history of creating articles that have some serious issues with notability, so I think that a temporary ban from creating any new articles in any space (draft, mainspace, redirects, etc) is reasonable. Dolovis, I see you trying to justify your article creation but at no point do I actually see you really owning up to the fact that you've made several articles that had a lot of major issues with them. I feel that giving you a temporary ban will give you the incentive to go over policy and learn how to properly source articles for notability giving purposes. I'll be extremely blunt with this: this has been a long running problem and if things don't change after the temporary ban, you'll likely be facing a permanent ban from creating new articles - if not from editing altogether. I also endorse a permanent ban from requesting article history from REFUND, as I do think that the others make a good case showing that you're really only requesting the article history so you can have the article creation credit - not so you can improve the article. The thing is, numbers mean absolutely squat on Wikipedia. You can make a lot of pages but that doesn't necessarily make you a good editor or even really an asset to Wikipedia if the article quality is poor and others have to run behind you in a struggle to prove notability or delete the articles. Case in point: I remember a user named User:MoonMetropolis that created multiple pages that had serious notability issues. While they were ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry, their poor article creation history definitely gave people another reason to indef them. This is not your first time at ANI, as you've been reported multiple times in the past - and you've already been banned from moving pages. Heck in in 2013 you tried to ask for a topic ban to be removed but everyone successfully argued against giving you these permissions back. You really need to shape up because right now all you're doing is giving yourself enough WP:ROPE to justify someone arguing for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. To be honest, I'm actually mildly surprised that they aren't asking for an indefinite ban, considering that you've repeatedly been reported at ANI and other boards since you signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd actually endorse a longer article creation ban than six months. I'd actually endorse a year, followed by a year's probation where he's only able to create articles via AfC. Considering that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, I'd actually also support an indef ban on mainspace creation and then after a year, he can create articles via AfC. As far as REFUND goes, that's still an indef since it looks like he's only doing this to grandstand, not to actually improve the article - a process that I think could really, really be disheartening to the people who took the time to create a newer version of the article that did pass notability guidelines. If someone other than him requests restoration then that's fine, but I don't think that Dolovis should be allowed to request article restorations any longer. But yeah... the more I think about this the more I support an indef on mainspace creation until he can prove via AfC that he can make a quality article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well a new indefinite ban is unlikely since ARBCOM just unblocked Dolovis back in June. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like he was unblocked from an indefinite block, but I don't think that this would prevent us from giving him an indefinite block from creating articles in the mainspace. From just what I've seen here, it looks like there's plenty reason to justify restricting Dolovis to AfC for the time being (after the year's block is up), until he proves that he can responsibly create articles. The way he's going, if he keeps getting reported at ANI like this then I'd like to think that ARBCOM would likely approve a new block. (BTW, do they need to approve any future blocks on this user? I always got the impression that if the user kept causing trouble and refused to play nice, they could always be re-blocked.) But seriously though, we've restricted other editors to AfC for far less than this and I think that an AfC restriction and a block from REFUND is a reasonable outcome here. He's abused the system and now we need to make sure that he can edit responsibly before giving him the keys to the car/mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79 Keeping in mind that a previous editor we referred over to AfC for remedial page creation scrutiny eventually gave up the topic space that they were precieved to be disruptive in and give up new article creation entirely because AfC didn't review the submissions fast enough for their taste. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm aware that this might be a problem, but I'm not sure what else will really be beneficial overall. I think that they need to have their work scrutinized before it goes into the mainspace and a temporary ban from mainspace article creation might not solve the issue. I think that turning him to AfC is probably one of the best case scenarios here. On a side note, if he wanted to ask for people to review his submissions (and anyone would be willing to volunteer for that), I have no problem with him asking qualified editors to review his work after he completes an AfC article. The way he's going, I think that a little one on one will likely be quite helpful. I'm willing to volunteer to shoulder part of this load, if he's limited to AfC only for the time being. I'm just worried that if he's allowed back into the mainspace he might do this without actually having learned anything, given that he doesn't seem to really understand why people find his editing habits problematic and even in violation of part of the spirit of Wikipedia. (IE, the landgrab nature that you referred to below, since Dolovis seems to feel that there's a contest for who gets the most entries created.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note to Delovis: Basically while I know that you're trying to say that you're operating in good faith, if a large amount of people believe that you're doing this for your own personal glory, then that should be a sign that you should stop, pause, and look to check to see if maybe you're doing something wrong. You've been on ANI a lot for various things, all of which tend to center around the same things: creating poor articles and potentially unnecessary redirects and the general consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that you're creating these because you want your article creation numbers to shoot up, not because you're here to edit in a beneficial manner. At some point you really just need to take a look at your editing pattern and ask yourself "maybe it's not them - maybe it's actually me?" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support your version willingly, Tokyogirl79. And as Ricky81682 suggests, the art of the possible is what's in play. Ravenswing 10:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support If we're going to be shunting this editor over to AfC, we probably should make sure they're aware of the influx they're about to get. Also I'd like to see some way of allowing editors reviewing this to have a pre-approved "This submission is not qualified for inclusion" deletion process to deal with these in a more rapid timeframe than CSD:G13 (6 months unedited) or many WP:MFD nominations. If we're going to put pressure on the editor to change their behavior with respect to these creations, we need to not allow the editor to keep the crystal ball collection and then make the land grab of "created the article" once someone else did the work of properly creating the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AFC allows pretty much any autoconfirmed user to move articles and numerous articles have been accepted with very questionable results. As such, I propose that Dolovis be restricted to six months unless an admin approves of any drafts in the user's draftspace. It's a higher restriction and a greater burden but it then creates a single point of accountability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is unfair and punitive to ban me from using WP:REFUND when I was only following the lead of Admin Djsasso who demonstrated to me that such was the encouraged practice when he undeleted the histories of several recreated articles including Anthony Nigro (he now argues such practice is gaming the system). I have never been warned against using WP:REFUND to restore edit histories, and in fact I was under the impression that it should be done for proper attribution. Dolovis (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Restoring an edit history, and creating articles you know will be deleted only to just so you can have the history undeleted to claim the first edit are two very different things. If nothing on the page is from the old version of the page then there is no attribution necessary as I am sure you know. If you are not copying anything why would you need to attribute to authors who didn't contribute to that version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Beyond that, Dolovis, I'll bite: why would you care? What is the benefit, to the encyclopedia, for one name over another to be cited as creator of an article? Our interest should be in complete articles, not in the original one- or two-sentence sub-stub that might have been there in the beginning, right? We're not in this for the glory, after all. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you sought to restore an article history that wouldn't wind up having your name listed as the first edit?

  That being said, "unfair?" It is not "unfair" for us to check your abuse of a process. No one gets gets a free pass to abuse a process just because someone else suggested it to us, in good faith, and expecting us to employ it in good faith. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It matters because there's a userbox on Dolovis' page to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count (and as a "tool"). Currently at 111 although the userbox claims to be 43rd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on creation of new articles, based on my random look at five creations: 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [113]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• His mass creation of two sentence sub-stubs of European elite players is annoying, but ultimately not at the root of my complaint. Also, given he has created thousands of these two sentence sub stubs, the odds of you finding many of them at random are high. To give you a good idea of my complaints, and perhaps the scope of what you need to look for should your offer to mentor come to be, I would point you to his most recent creations:

1. Santeri Vuoti - Source does not explicitly support the statement it references. Probably would be WP:ROUTINE anyway. (Player is barely presumed notable for having played 15 Liiga games last year, however. No indication a search was done for substantive coverage in reliable third party sources though).
2. Vladimir Eminger - Source is basically the hockey team's main page. In short, source does not support the statement it references.
3. Quebec NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
4. Las Vegas NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
5. Chris Durand (ice hockey) - WP:XY-violating redirect of a non-notable player, created to get a first edit, and despite having links of this exact type deleted multiple times at RFD. This is routine.
6. Pier-Olivier Pelletier - Same as above; 100 more at RFD now, and I'll be nominating 33 more later today (Mostly, but not entirely, created by Dolovis)
7. NHL coach of the year and NHL Coach of the Year - not a great concern as they are marginally plausible search terms. He may not be aware that the search engine ignores capitalization, so didn't realize he didn't need to create both.
8. 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs - Unnecessary redirect created massively prematurely and only to score a first edit. This is routine.
9. Self-portrait without beard - WP:SYNTH as he clearly has not read or used the sources, and only copied from another article while rewording statements from that one.
10. Flower Beds in Holland - Standard redirect to an alternative title. No issues there.

• Going a little farther back, we have the one-sentence, CSD A1 eligible creation of the astronomer that he was shamed into expanding via a PROD tag. Without people there to PROD him into putting bare effort into things, he does things like this, where he simply throws an {{Update}} tag on one of his own articles because he can hardly be bothered to update his thousands of creations himself. And given he creates articles on not-yet-notable players (like Pavel Karnaukhov) and then fails to defend them at PROD because he knows he can just abuse WP:REFUND later, I would say that bans from various processes, including and especially REFUND and redirect creation, are strictly necessary. But as demonstrated above, even when he creates articles on players that strictly pass SNGs, he misrepresents sources and makes no effort to find substantive coverage. That is something I would like to see him demonstrate he is capable of without being watched before I would back down from requesting a page creation ban entirely. Resolute 16:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not wanting to spend my whole day on this, #2 above (a clear SNG Keep) could have the fact of first season documented from one of the external links showing just as easily. #3 above (and presumably #4) could be de-crystal-balled with a retitling to 2015 Quebec City NHL bid, which would be a GNG pass. Agreed that the "2017 Stanley Cup playoffs" is massively premature, but all this all smacks of gross exaggeration of the actual problem presented by what seems to be a good-faith editor... Carrite (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Passing a SNG does not automatically mean a keep. If they fail to prove the notability when challenged (and a player that close to the bare minimum likely would be) they still can end up getting deleted. It specifically lays this out in the SNG. Not to mention the external links to stats pages are not reliable sources to proove notability. But as Resolute points out he creates thousands of articles so its not surprise you would find some two sentence ones, no one is claiming every single article is bad, just that a significant percentage to the point of being disruptive are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be entertained if you could show me a couple times when a bio of a hockey player in a fully professional league has ended in deletion at AfD. It simply does not happen. If he was doing stubs of professional croquet players, those might be close. But hockey? Uh, no. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure I will look some up. Dolovis, himself has had a number deleted. Non-North American professionals are very frequently deleted due to the varying coverage of fully professional players in different countries. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I respect that you wish to AGF, Carrite, but I've been seeing these for years. These mistakes are not new, and they are not going away because Dolovis does not care. He is not here to improve the project, he is here to get his high scores and leave the clean-up to others. And that has been his MO for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian. And for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian, the only times his behaviour has been altered is through either community imposed restrictions, or a block for sockpuppetry. Six separate RFDs were not enough to cause Dolovis to stop creating bad redirects. It was only after this report and the risk of shutting his game down entirely became apparent to him that he suddenly decided that he would honour "a new consensus" - which is actually a year and a half old, at least. Ravenswing, DJSasso and I have been dealing with the mess he makes for years, and we'll all tell you the same thing: He will abuse any process he can as far as he can abuse it. And I think Arbcom recognizes this as well, given his attempt to have one of his restrictions lifted ended with a blunt "you can be restricted, or you can be blocked" response. To respond to your comments above: #1 and #2 above could be fixed by finding non-trivial sources that properly cite his claims and then properly inserting those sources, but he won't do that. #3 and #4, could have just waited until teams were actually announced - but that risks his not getting the first edit (and the expansion bid stuff is already covered at Potential National Hockey League expansion). They are also plagiarism. And his massively premature examples are ongoing and annual. It's all about getting first edits. Always has been. Resolute 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Carrite, you're missing the forest in favor of picking out a handful of stumps. Quite aside from that notability is a dynamic process -- someone who hasn't achieved notability might well do so years down the road -- of course Dolovis has created some articles that pass notability muster. It would be astonishing if, with the several thousand articles and redirects he's made, he hadn't scored the occasional hit. And I know this as well as anyone; when I filed those 75 AfDs on sub-stubs he'd created a year or so back, there were several stubs I didn't file on, because I judged they passed notability muster.

  That's not the point. You've been around the block, and you know that any number of banned or indeffed editors made some productive edits along the line. Some have had many thousands of productive edits -- people like Betacommand and Mick McNee come to mind. They were sanctioned because the disruption their antics caused not only outweighed the productive edits they made, but caused good editors to quit the project out of frustration.

  Never mind the effect they have on editors who don't quit. Take a look at my contribution history from January of 2014 [114]. I made over 500 edits that month, and easily two-thirds of them involved AfDing non-notable sub-stubs Dolovis created. That time spent didn't count, of course, research I did to ensure the ones I AfDed weren't notable. That time spent constituted time I didn't spend building the encyclopedia; it was time spent cleaning up after messes. Frankly, I don't consider the occasional sound contribution Dolovis makes worth that much time. I don't consider it worth your time as a "mentor," or worth the time it's going to take you to review a subject's notability, not when it takes away from article creation you could be doing. I don't consider it worth the time it sucks from the likes of JohnCD at REFUND. I don't consider it worth the time we've had to spend tightening the NHOCKEY guidelines you cited because despite overwhelming and frequent consensus in a number of discussions, Dolovis routinely ignores consensus where there isn't an explicit black-letter rule.

  I'm unhappy enough at a six-month ban, because just like every other time, we're going to have this all to do over again seven months from now. I think he's had too many chances as it is, over too many years. Ravenswing 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban on article creation, unless pre-vetted for notability as Carrite has helpfully offered below. From working at WP:REFUND, I am aware of much time wasted on the following often-repeated cycle: (1) Dolovis creates an article about a hockey-player, (2) it is discussed at AfD and deleted as non-notable, (3) months or years later the player becomes notable and an article is created, (4) Dolovis comes to REFUND to ask for his deleted edits to be restored to the history beneath the new article. Steps 1,2 and 4 of this cycle are pure waste motion and do nothing for the encyclopedia. Examples here (3 instances) and here (another 4) on just one archive page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been through the ropes at AfD and if it is judged that Dolovis needs a pre-check on notability of new creations from a mentor before being able to launch them, I hereby offer to serve that role for a six month period. I will report back at the end of that period with the results. Ping me if you wish to go this route. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Quick reference to the Special Notability Guideline for hockey might be of use for this debate:

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
[1] Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
[2] Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
[3] Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
[4] Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
[5] Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
[6] Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

[7] Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

A large percentage of the recent work by this editor has involved the creation of stub bios of young professional players and prospects. There seems to me to be good faith, given how low the SNG bar is set (just one game played in a fully pro league is a Speedy Keep at AfD). Carrite (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how SNGs work. They do not cause a "Speedy Keep". It lays out right at the top of them that meeting these does not mean an article must be kept. Not to mention these particular ones don't mention "fully pro" as a number of fully pro leagues do not meet them as explained in the note below the list which you didn't copy over. Some fully pro leagues require 200 games, other fully pro leagues require a first-all star award win etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's not reality. SNGs are special "low bars" to inclusion (or "high bars" in the case of politicians) to be considered in conjunction with GNG. And trust me when I say that a nomination which clearly passes a SNG criterion is almost invariably shut down at once with a Speedy Keep. One NHL game played and the debate is shut down, regardless of what it says at the top of the page. This is also true for baseball, soccer, American football, and basketball — one game in a top professional league and we're done... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I'm unsure as to the relevance of the point. We're not talking about sub-stubs that Dolovis has created for players who've played in top-level professional leagues -- although I grit my teeth that he seldom, if ever, bothers with anything more than the two sentences of fact and the bare reference or two that's the irreducible minimum required to clear WP:BLP. We're talking about articles he creates of players who do NOT qualify, over which there's been many a tussle over the years, followed by the inevitable PROD, followed by Dolovis' inevitable removal of the PROD with a bald "Is notable" (if he bothers with an edit summary at all), followed by the inevitable AfD, followed by Dolovis going straight to DRV or REFUND should the subject achieve notability down the road.

And here's the effect on our workload: in the last two years, judging solely from the edit summaries on his talk page history, he's received notification of seven CSDs, seven copyvios, nine prods, 81 RFDs, 131 AfDs ... and despite his suggestion that the fuss is due to a vendetta a couple editors have against him, these have been filed by over two dozen different editors. After five years, over 50K edits, six blocks, multiple topic bans and edit restrictions, and several hundred articles going through deletion processes, at what point do we admit that this isn't a case of him not knowing any better as opposed to a massive IDHT? Ravenswing 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out on my talk page that I inadvertently omitted the word "top." We are speaking of TOP fully professional leagues: NHL, not AHL, for example. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think that there is general agreement that there is a problem. I do think that a process of "pre-approval" of new starts for notability which does not tax the bogged down Articles for Creation queue should be sufficient rather than destroying the editor's usefulness to the project, which is making sure that our hockey coverage is as complete as it can be. There is a pretty clear consensus that his redirects of drafted players with no biographies needs to stop. The inclusion rules are fairly definite for specific hockey biographies and AfD outcome can be projected with great accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggested he get an admin's approval so it's not just one person and it's not just a giant slog at AFC (which lets some problematic things though anyways). I can't recall where but that's been done before. It's mostly been redirects being created anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support six-month article creation and REFUND ban, mentorship notwithstanding. This has some unpleasant similarities to the events leading up to this Arbitration case: wildly prolific creator of stubs refusing to work in a more cooperative fashion, long-running, apparently trivial dispute, and well-meaning but ineffective attempts at outsider intervention, which ended in disaster. This goes well beyond the question of "are most of his articles notable or not?" It's about the strain being placed on community processes like REFUND, PROD, on the hockey project due to litigation over guidelines, and so on. In the big picture of hockey coverage, it's more important to keep the project healthy and editors in general happy and active than it is to write a lot of poor-quality stubs, because they're much less likely to get expanded if the people who could improve them have reduced their activity or quit in disgust. Dolovis says he became "active as an editor to work to improve such articles". Great. Let him do that for six months and let's see where we stand. Carrite, I know your desire to help is sincere, but I suspect that as a mentor, you're going to wind up being drawn into the role of champion for Dolovis, ("But, see, that turned out to be barely notable when I dug up a bunch of sources. Don't pick on my mentee! He needs help!"), which is only going to increase the emotional temperature here. (This isn't a reflection on your personality, but on the difficulty of mentoring in these situations.) Having Dolovis stand down on the stubs for a while won't prevent the articles from being created, and it looks like it will save a whole lot of process wrangling and/or administrator time. Choess (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban in either AlbinoFerret or Tokyogirl's version. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure?

Discussion seems to have reached an end point. Is there perhaps an uninvolved admin that might close this one way or another? Resolute 12:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis has accepted mentorship, so hopefully an administrator will close this report on that note. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think consensus has clearly gone to some sort of restriction. But yes, an uninvolved admin will make the call. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That an admin another editor has offered to mentor Dolovis, and that he has accepted the offer, is very well and good. For my part, I'm not mollified. An offer of mentorship from a non-admin -- especially in reference to overseeing an admin-dependent new article approval process -- is scarcely grounds to say "Well, that's alright then" and forget about the whole thing. I stand on my support of an unconditional six month (or, if possible, indef) ban on new article creation and a permanent ban on using the REFUND process, which I believe remains the consensus opinion. Ravenswing 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That, and he's only jumping at mentorship to try and skate by any sanctions. Resolute 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If Dolovis were to ignore or go against his mentor's advice? a ban on article creation can always be imposed. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Or the ban on article creation can happen now, and he can work with his mentor to improve his editing overall. Personally, I think his interest in having a mentor would rapidly diminish if his games were ended against his will. Resolute 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Darn, beat me to it, Resolute. Honestly, GoodDay, if this was just a matter of him needing to be trout-slapped in order to edit in an unselfish and productive manner, this would be an entirely different proceeding. But Dolovis is a smart guy who's been around for years. I'm firmly convinced, through years of seeing his interactions and how these conflicts spin out, that it's not a matter of him not knowing any better; I give him more credit than that. It's that he doesn't care, when consensus, guidelines or the spirit of the law conflict with his goals. Do you really think he's going to be any better six months from now, when he's still up to the same gamesmanship just a couple months after coming off of an indef block? When he's already operating under two topic bans, an interaction ban and an edit restriction? Ravenswing 05:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The mentorship is fine but I still believe Dolovis should still be banned from creating any articles without the approval of any administrator. Since his mentor is an admin, good that's works out but I don't want to hear in six months that the mentor took a break or didn't say "NO" and there was nothing else Dolovis could do as an excuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If the reference is to me, I will point out that I'm not an administrator and have no intention of becoming one. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually ... this might work to our advantage. While I'm of a mind with Resolute that Dolovis' interest in a mentorship will vanish quickly if it doesn't come with a softening of sanctions, this is his chance to prove us wrong and demonstrate good faith going forward. Putting the work in on his end for six months, without any direct tangible benefit, would go some way to convincing people that there's been a genuine change. Ravenswing 05:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone close this, discussion has been pretty much dead for awhile now. -DJSasso (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Dolovis hasn't been around for over a week, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admins around to formally close this thing? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 04:46, September 14, 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for a close on WP:ANRFC here is a link[115]] AlbinoFerret 06:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring history of deleted articles

This discussion has made me think about our practice of restoring the history of deleted articles on request when they are re-created. That is clearly necessary when the new article is based on the old one, but different author(s) of the old one need to be attributed; but where the new article is not based on the old one, or where its author is the same as the only author of the old one, it seems pointless.

I suggest that we should restore histories only when necessary for attribution. That would remove the incentive for the practice described above, of writing premature articles about non-notable players in the hope of getting "first-author" credit if the subject eventually becomes notable. Unless there is strong disagreement, I shall propose this at WT:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges there is that Dolovis was abusing a combination of PROD and REFUND. Without changing the policies around the former, I'm not sure how you mitigate issues such as this with the latter. This is one of the reasons why he whined earlier in this thread about Ravenswing's AFDs and said they could have been PRODs instead - PRODs are easier for him to have restored. Resolute 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring PRODs at REFUND is not a problem - they must be restored on request (unless they are speediable as copyvio or attack), but they can be taken to AfD. If one knows the article author is likely to dePROD, the answer is to save time by going direct to AfD. The issue I am raising is about requests to restore the history of deleted premature articles about non-notable persons who later become notable. A discussion has been started at WT:REFUND#Denying refund requests to avoid gamesmanship. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Boaxy behavior at Sailor Moon

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

---

This whole drama started when Boaxy attempted to add several LGBT categories to Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (anime). However, several editors, including myself, disagreed with the broad interpretation of the categories and opposed the addition. Boaxy then began to edit war over the categories' inclusion until the articles were protected. An RfC was opened at Talk:Sailor Moon by Sjones23 about whether LGBT was a main theme of the series, which concluded that it was not. Boaxy then immediately opened a second RfC about the categories, during which Boaxy threw fits and began attacking other editors for being anti-gay and insisting that Wikipedia be "politically correct".[116][117][118] AlbinoFerret closed the second RfC as no consensus for including the categories.[119] However instead of excepting the outcome of the RfC, Boaxy throws another tantrum, attacking other editors opposing his position, and add the categories despite the closing of the RfC.[120][121][122][123] The editor is clearly here to push a political viewpoint on this particular set of articles and is unwilling to accept that consensus was not in his favor. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, second time this morning that the word "petulant" comes to mind. This is obviously editing against consensus and needless cussing. If Boaxy has been here this long they should know the difference between a block and a ban--the former is what they'll get if they continue. Boaxy, drop the stick please. This is silly. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand. I'm sorry for going off, but I'll give a cooling down period before I venture on with this again. This is far from over. I apologize for not controlling my temper, but I still feel those categories should be added to the page. That's like not adding a US Presidents category to Obama's page. It just doesn't make sense. You have a pop culture television series in which four of the eight or so main characters are homosexual, and you don't add LGBT categories? This is some Twilight Zone crap. Boaxy (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Boaxy: Argh. Instead of threatening to edit war indefinitely, why not find a few reliable sources that discuss LGBT themes in Sailor Moon and add them to the article? According to a quick Google search, there is discussion of them. Since you know the show, I'm sure you could find even better results than I found. Don't get yourself blocked over this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is what it is at this point. I'm not going to sugar coat my attitude over something I feel strongly about. I apologized for disrupting the talk page and that is that. This is the place where I plead my case and justify my actions, so I need to be sincere. If you challenge a geologist on the Grand Canyon article, he will be defensive about it. You challenge a pop culture enthusiast, (which is myself) on an article related to a television series he grew up watching and is a big supporter of, he will be defensive. To me there is already enough sources and references on the article to back the categories being added. But for the sake of Wikipedia, I will try to contribute more. In the same token, I have to go through this all over again, and again it has to be in consensus to be included which even then they still might not be. Ugh. Do you see the issue now? Boaxy (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Boaxy statements above and complete refusal to accept the outcomes of two previous RfC should be enough to warrant a topic ban on all Sailor Moon-related articles. This editor has clearly crossed over into WP:TENDENTIOUSness. —Farix (t | c) 18:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: Boaxy is becoming both tendentious and point-y. Dragging people to repeated RfC's that are bound to have the same outcome as the previous. Their own words ("I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand.") indicate that he will not stop disrupting the project until they get their own way. A topic ban seems more than appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• In this message left on Boaxy's user talk in July, someone said that to include the categories would give readers the impression that all Sailor Moon fans are gay. Also, when he attempted to add a WikiProject banner, it was reverted. I don't think it excuses his tendentious behavior, but I can understand some of Boaxy's consternation and frustration over this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether you feel strongly about it or not is irrelevant. You are yet to present reliable sources to back your claims and an RFC produced a consensus not to include the categories. Until you can produce sources that will convince the other editors that your have a point, your refusal to drop the stick is only going to get you blocked. Blackmane (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough, we spend more time than we should hand holding and babysitting users who refuse to edit in a collaborative manner.--Adam in MO Talk 11:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Boaxy immediately violates topic ban after being informed of it

After being informed of his topic ban by TomStar81, Boaxy immediately posts to the talk page of Sailor Moon complaining about the ban. Seriously, this guy has no clue. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

From that post, he is asking whether or not the TB applies to the talk pages too, and is threatening to leave Wikipedia if it does. AFAIK, topic bans apply across all space, unless specifically excepted, don't they? Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:TBAN, "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic," so, yes, article talk pages are also included. I've left a message to that effect at Boaxy's user talk page here. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems the message still didn't get through this morning: [124] Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Still posting to Talk:Sailor Moon after he was directly informed that doing so was a violation of his topic ban. Still complaining about the same topic for which caused his topic ban in the first place. Still name calling other editors that disagree with him.[125] —Farix (t | c) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanction on Boaxy

Sorry for starting this as a separate section, but it looks like Boaxy ain't got the message yet, and some sort of block seems required to keep him from further violating the topic ban. I'm not going to say how long I think the block should be, but I would think a slightly longer one would be at least reasonable. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Boaxy for 24 hours. Given that this is the first violation of a very new topic ban, and that they have a clean block log (outside of a name change issue from 2010), I don't see how a longer block is warranted. I did, however, leave a warning that further violations would lead to increasing block lengths.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Taunting at 3RRN

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

---

Some admin please take a look and stop this. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. AlbinoFerret 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by whom? QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That you ask that question says more than anything I could say. AlbinoFerret 03:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked you a direct question, yet you are unable to provide a specific response. Can you try to be specific? Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The AN3 request mentioned is quite a mess. First of all, I see no talk page discussion on Fat embolism, nor much of one on Hypocalcaemia (CFCF did post one here). The diffs provided, as well as the history of both articles, don't show a gross violation of 3RR. However, seeing no talk page discussion on either article is concerning. Looking at the evidence, I believe that there was, but I do not believe that any action is required at this time so long as a discussion is started on each talk page before any more reverts are made to either article by either user.

Looking at this AN3 from a taunting/arguing perspective: When Ozzie10aaaa was confronted about the possibility of restoring primary sources against WP:MEDRS, he avoided answering the question when asked to clarify, and even resorted to discrediting QuackGuru by mentioning his block log, when asked repeatedly to review his article reversions. QuackGuru, despite being given the same answer multiple times, continued to keep pressing, asking over and over, when it was clear that Ozzie10aaaa didn't want to interact with him or answer his questions, and instead wanted an uninvolved administrator to review the AN3 discussion. QuackGuru - I think it's time to step away from that discussion and discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Your consistent poking at Ozzie10aaaa in that discussion is obviously not going to get you the answer you're looking for. Ozzie10aaaa - Instead of resorting to the argument methods that you did, remember that it's best to focus on content. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reading over that "discussion," it sounds like both of them could use a good trout slap. It reads like the bickering of children: "You answer first." "No, you answer first." "Nuh-uh, I asked first." "Well, I'm not gonna answer you." "I want an answer!" Etc. Ravenswing 08:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Now thats funny, and anyone with more than one child can see the similarities.AlbinoFerret 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Without touching the merits of anyone's argument, they're both acting uncivilly. Ravenswing 15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There was also absolutely no reason for TracyMcClark to bring it here, since an admin was going to deal with it sooner or later at ANEW anyway. Not everything needs to come to AN/I. BMK (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN would have been a better place. AlbinoFerret 01:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a damn good reason for posting - It stopped the taunting, saved some time over there and gave those with too much time here the opportunity to waste the same. Outsourcing inside!--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, petty bickering like that is silly and childish, but it's not an AN/I matter when it takes place on another admin noticeboard. Somewhere else, maybe, it depends on the amount of disruption. BMK (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User continually reverts correct edits

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

---

User:Qed237 almost exclusively makes edits on football player pages reverting the most up to date version of their appearances and goalscoring stats. He does this because other editors have updated those numbers without correcting the timestamp on the page; however, given that he knows the timestamp is incorrect, any reasonable editor would simply update that. Instead, he takes counterproductive measures to ensure that the pages continue to be outdated and incorrect. I cannot fathom why anyone would behave in this manner. Use the Divock Origi page as an example. You can scour his edit history to find similar example. It's almost ALL he does. Admins, you know as well as I do the Wikipedia struggles mightily to retain editors and attract new ones. How can we ever hope to improve that situation if people like User:Qed237 force editing to be as complex and illogical as possible? I don't think this requires any punishment. Someone in a position of authority just needs to tell him to stop. Eightball (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - while I think the person above seems to have a contentious relationship with the reportee, I do think that User:Qed237 isn't necessarily adhering to the principals of WP:ONLYREVERT - i.e. there seems to be lack of assumption of good faith, and a default to reverting as a first resort rather than a last resort, such as [126][127][128]. The intention is probably good, but I think this user is perhaps a little over-zealous with the reverting. --  R45  ^talk! 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely accept that I have not handled this well so far. It is an immensely frustrating situation but I should have reacted more calmly. Eightball (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reverting good faith updates is arguably not the best course of action, especially if Qed237 can simply contact the updaters to simply ask them to correct the timestamp. However, just in my casual observations, keeping the stats in these types of articles correct, consistent and up to date is a constant and incredibly frustrating crusade in itself. A veritable hodgepodge of editors inserting formatting errors, premature or incomplete updates, vandalism, mistakes, falsehoods, and original research. If he's trying to keep these articles in a somewhat reputable state, updates that change correct information without updating the timestamp, albeit in good faith, are rendering articles incorrect in what they're reporting. It's perfectly understandable if he feels that slightly outdated but uniformly correct information is preferable to confusing and/or incorrect information. Also, he's not wrong. Do what you're supposed to do and update the timestamp, and this issue doesn't even exist. You can't expect Qed to magically know what the correct timestamp for any given update would be, so between leaving the article incorrect and reverting to a correct version, the choice is obvious. I don't see any good faith discussion about a reasonable alternative solution. Swarm ♠ 01:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Agree completely on the challenges of keeping stats reputable if folks update them without synchronizing the dates, however edits like this [129] where I'd suggest the revert was not done in good faith as it was clear from the comment what date it was based on. In that specific case, I think a revert was unnecessary and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems would suggest simply fixing versus reverting would have been more appropriate. Another example (and the reason I was drawn to this) were these two reverts done within a 24 hour period for the same content by 2 different users: [130][131] (that was a venue for a future game, not stats) - in that case, I think based on WP:BURDEN, considering that venues are not always cited in these articles (including a venue in the same article), the reverts were a little over-zealous and could have been handled differently. I'll say though that I appreciate the WP:FOOTBALL can be a difficult place to edit and maintain, so I do understand how someone can probably go a little overboard considering how frequent some of the hasty/unsourced edits are in that area can be very frustrating. --  R45  ^talk! 02:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  I myself have noticed this behaviour from Qed237... I think Qed just needs to slow down and consider his reverts, as has undoubtedly been reverting many good edits because the "timestamp" was not correct. JMHamo (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agree with JMHamo here. It's the same work just updating the timestamp. I know it's frustrating but it makes it easier. Just update it yourself and talk to the editors in question. If that does not help, seek help. But that kind of reverting is, for me, headscratching. Kante4 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have had some sleep and time I can try and give my view of this step by step form what has been written above. First off all am I perfect? No I am not, I am human like everyone else. About the allegation that almost all my edits are reverting caps and goals, that is false (and probably written in rage). Football articles are heavily exposed to vandalism due to a lot of different fans and the nature of rivalries between clubs. Due to the high level of vandalism I update my watchlist when I am not currently doing something else and I revert a lot of detected vandalism, and for that reason it may look like I revert way to much when I in fact just revert vandalism. I do a lot of other work as well and I am one of the editors heavily involved in the creation of Module:Sports table and update a lot of templates to this new module and maintain those, as well as other work (not only reverting).

User:Eightball brought up the Divock Origi page as an example and this edit I reverted because I was tired of correcting the editor when he has done this before and has been notified about timestamps. This is a good example of how editors has been notified, but still keeps on doing the same thing and seeing this over nad over again is frustrating. Even with hidden comments the same editors continue (some has been blocked). I usually did update the timestamp myself, but I guess the feeling of having to correct after the same editors over and over again became to tiring.

Also I would like to explain the diffs from User:R45.

1. [132] was probably one of my less good reverts. Many times I have seen these stadiums being changed back and forth, so I wanted a source (adding it in edit summary would have been enough), but as I said, probably not the best revert.
2. [133] also not the best revert, I should have explained it to the editor, I simply confused this editor with an other editor that had been notified.
3. [134] this revert I still think is good. The matches are never shown when there is a list of matches below and the editor I reverted had not made a single good edit and has been reverted by many other editors after edits like this, this, this and this. All of those edits can be seen as delibirate changing to factual errors when changing results, tables and team names to something completely wrong.

Finally I just want to say that many editors has recieved messages but continues to ignore timestamps anyway (some has eventually been blocked) and seeing this issue every day is frustrating. I can understand that new editors and/or IPs can miss updating it, but not editors that has been aware of the situation and not when there is hidden comments. I have once brought up the idea of an WP:EDITNOTICE do add on articles with this issue (just like I created Template:Livescores editnotice for articles with a lot of live updates) but did not get much response other than "we would need to add it on a lot of articles".

If you have more questions feel free to ask me and I will try and respond. Qed237 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

He's still doing this. I thought we made it clear here that this was counterproductive behavior. I went to his talk page and apologized for the way I acted initially and kindly asked that he stop reverting correct caps/goals and instead actually contribute by correcting the timestamps. He completely ignore this. I don't what other recourse can be taken by regular users. Eightball (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Swarm:, you fail to understand that knowing the timestamp is wrong requires knowing what the correct timestamp is. That's basic logic. You need to step in and intervene here. People like this guy are quite literally killing Wikipedia. Are you SERIOUSLY going to do nothing? How can you be so naive? Eightball (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If Swarm will not take action then we need to know what other recourses are available and what other administrators are around. This is unacceptable behavior. Eightball (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The only reason I got involved to begin with was because you pitched this as blatant wrongdoing and I was fully prepared to take action against Qed if necessary. However, reviewing the situation, his actions aren't nearly as malicious or disruptive as you're making them out to be and his position is hardly unreasonable. I certainly don't think it warrants administrative intervention. Could he go about it a different way to appease you? Perhaps, but he's not required to just because you don't agree with his methods. His concern is pretty direct and easily rectifiable. Keep in mind that reverted edits are always preserved in the article's history and can be easily restored once the easily-fixed concern is addressed. I think you're exaggerating the severity of the problem here. This is about maintaining an encyclopedia, not executing social justice, and Qed seems to have the former point in mind whereas you appear to be more focused on the latter. There's plenty of other admins around who are of course more than free to disagree with me, but you're not likely to be taken seriously when your approach is to flame war and personally attack other editors. Swarm ♠ 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a new quick explanation is needed. Yesterday I was reverting User:Ptfcfan who continues to ignore timestamps despite recieving messages how to update the timestamps and the editor even has a block for failing to update them (disruptive). I did not have the time to look up correct timestamp on all of those articles, but Ptfcfan did not update them on any article so I reverted all of his recent updates. User:Eightball clearly then followed me around and reverted me and in the process clearly re-added the false stats without updating the timestamp himself. All this discussion has been about that I should update the timestamp instead of reverting so why did he not do it himself? He did not update the timestamp despite the fact that he knows about it. All I did was to remove incorrect info as Garry O'Connor did not have 33 caps by 29 March 2015. Then he finisherd of with this inappropriate message on my talkpage calling me a "troll" and saying that "I will not rest until you have been punished or banned". That behaviour is not acceptable in any way, and it is very hard to take someone serious after those kind of messages. User:Eightball is digging himself a hole and as User:Swarm says " you're not likely to be taken seriously when your approach is to flame war and personally attack other editors". Qed237 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Then how can this issue be escalated? My concern IS maintaining an encyclopedia, with the most up to date and accurate information possibly. As I have said many times by now, Qed237 is knowingly reverting to incorrect information, when he is FULLY CAPABLE of simply adding the correct information, solely out of malice. How can you possible believe this to be acceptable? Eightball (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And I frankly don't care if you don't like me or don't take me seriously. This isn't about me, this is about Qed237, and if you cannot see the objectively true fact that he has a net negative impact on this website, then I have nothing more to say to you. Someone else needs to get involved. Eightball (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude towards this situation is counterproductive. I don't see how this issue can be resolved in a mutually satisfactory fashion if you dig in your heels on the issue of Qed237 being punished or rebuked or made to change his ways. Qed237's approach of reverting without correcting may not be the best approach, but if you follow him around reverting him, then you are doing exactly the same thing. Gamaliel (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He NEEDS to change his ways. The End. If no one will tell him to stop, what other recourse do I have? I cannot sit idly by and let someone do nothing but make pages worse. Could you? If the admins won't take action then I will have to. I tried to bring this up in WikiProject Football, in the hope that it wouldn't have to come to this, but he reverted all of my changes to the project talk page! Eightball (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And I haven't once asked that he be punished. I am asking what seems to me to be an extremely simple request: as an admin, as a person with authority, ask him to stop, and ask him to instead dedicate his time to making real contributions. Eightball (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't asked, but you have stated that punishment is your goal. [135] Meanwhile, the burning question is what, exactly, is preventing you from putting in the time stamps? Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to remove myself from this discussion. I know I chimed in earlier regarding the lack of good faith in some of the reverts, but I don't think this ANI is going in a constructive direction. This looks more like a personal dispute between the two parties. --  R45  ^talk! 13:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've handled tit-for-tat AIV reports from these two editors so the dispute is continuing. Eightball, your statement above is easily disproved [136] and your blind reversions are more unhelpful than Qed237's, Qed237 just to be clear so we can move forward, is it going to be your practice to automatically revert stat updates that have incorrect timestamps? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about that statement. In my defense, it was made after the admins here had seemingly decided to do absolutely nothing to fix this obvious problem, and thus continue Wikipedia's slow decline into irrelevancy. Eightball (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you guys keep saying this is a personal dispute...how can you not see the bigger picture? Editors like Qed237 actively drive away new editors. They make it difficult to contribute and they make it immediately apparent that Wikipedia is a labyrinth of bureaucracy that is designed, intentionally or otherwise, to focus power on the editors who have been here for years, who have created policy, and to prevent outsiders and new ideas from encroaching on their precious turf. It's embarrassing. Eightball (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Eightball, why aren't you reverting Qed237's reverts and correcting the info? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: He did here but without updating the timestamp himself, thus delibirate adding incorrect information to a BLP as he know 33 caps was not true as of 29 March 2014 and he knew timestamp should be updated but he did not do it. It confuses me how he tells me to update timestamp, when he can not do it himself. As an expression I have heard "Don't throw bricks when you live in a glass house" or "Pot calling the kettle black". Qed237 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Are you joking? You won't tell Qed237 not to make incorrect reverts in the first place, but you will suggest that I could follow his activity and correct every mistake he intentionally makes? Again...you are not thinking about how to be most productive. Eightball (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Eightball, his reverts aren't mistakes. Changing "7 goals, 3 assists as of Dec 31, 2014" to "10 goals, 4 assists as of Dec 31, 2014" is factually wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Graphic imagery

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

---

This user page contains an inappropriate photograph and should be removed - see(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sexynudesuploaded). I was looking for userboxes at the time and thought that the user was just calling themselves this for fun, or at the very least they took up an interest in pornography, but never in a million years would I have thought that they would upload such a personal image. I don't have pornographic images on my user page and I never will! However if this is considered okay because they own the image, then I guess other users can upload photos of body mutilation and/or beheadings!

From an absolutely disgusted user,

Yours angrily

User:Kő Cloch (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you visited the user page of someone called "Sexynudesuploaded" and were surprised and angry to find that they had uploaded nudity? GRAPPLE ^X 11:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The user has been indef'd blocked for WP:NOTHERE Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We better archive the pics though. You know. For science. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is Not Censored  :) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My ass it's not censored.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles. BMK (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

SPA Accusation

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

---

I have been editing Wikepedia since 2011. If you look at my past history I've edited mostly articles related to WP:JW. I am not much knowledgeable in other subjects, though I have knowledge in one specific field such articles are already brilliant compared to my knowledge. I often have a conflict with these two editors User:BlackCab and User:Jeffro77. In most of the conflicts we usually reach a consensus, though sometimes its bitter for both to accept my changes. See this conflict I had with User:Jeffro77 in past. I been inactive in Wiki because of personal reasons, and I became active recently specifically contributing Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. During the course of recent edits I often had conflicts with these two editors and the talk often end up going off-topic. (like a theological dispute). I revealed that I am one of JWs recently, and User:BlackCab has revealed in the past that he hates his former religion. After I raised some serious issues in main JWs talk page, they feel uncomfortable with my sourced edits. Or they misrepresent my edits as not what they read in source. I was quick to apologize if I made a misquote. But I feel they threatening me as a SPA to hinder me to work further, or use that accusation to revert edits without a consensus on talk page. I want to be judged whether I am SPA or not. I am willing to be blocked permanently if I am one. Notice that most of my edits in the past are undisputed, even in disputed cases we've reached a consensus.Roller958 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Close as frivolous. Over the years I have not got along with BlackCab on a few occasions regarding this issue in particular. I have gained a respect for this user not only in this area but overall conduct on wiki overall even in disagreement (for full disclosure my family is in the religion and I was raised in it as well). This is a CONTENT DISPUTE which can easily be resolved in places other then here. The same WP:COI you are complaining about him is the same one that you carry as a Witness. Consider that the vast majority of your own edits are also religion based and there is nothing wrong about that. [SPA] are allowed here. You can always ask for a RFC or file Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and if that fails and there is extreme pov pushing you can request arbitration. I would highly suggest not asking for arbitration as it has not been an issue dealt with dispute resolution in the formal sense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Roller958 is misrepresenting me as someone who is biased because I "hate" my former religion. (This is a blunt and inaccurate portrayal of my attitude towards its manipulative, coercive conduct towards members). I have managed to negotiate with this editor on some issues to reach agreement, but he persists in a course of advocacy for his religion on Wikipedia; his latest suggestion is that a certain claim by a number of authors that is critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses is "highly questionable because adherents never even heard about this rant and (the Watch Tower Society) never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory." His usual tactic when confronted by critical matter is that the authors are ex-JWs (and presumably biased), even when they are not. Roller958 does indeed fit the description of an SPA: his editing history is restricted only to articles on Jehovah's Witnesses; the sources he cites are only primary sources of the JWs themselves and his edits are often defensive of the religion and apologetic in tone. (See this, this and this extraordinary one, in which he says it's OK for a religion not to alert police to sex abuse in its ranks when it's only incest.) Beyond that, I am unsure what his complaint is about me. Yes, he is an SPA and I have cautioned him about his conflict of interest as an obviously passionate JW. I am a long-time contributor to JW-related articles (in addition to other non-religious subjects) and I have significantly expanded and improved coverage of some subjects with a range of quality secondary sources. BlackCab (TALK) 05:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no accusation of Roller958 as a single-purpose account, only a caution—no SPA tag, nor any report, nor any threat. Single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, but can be a cause of concern where a degree of bias may be perceived. WP:SPA states: "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed." BlackCab's concern is certainly warranted, since there is no doubt whatsoever that Roller958's position is highly partisan (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=680828519). There is no basis for the claim that edits would be reverted merely on the basis of an editor using a single-purpose account. It is unclear why Roller958 felt the need to cite a discussion from three years ago as an 'example' of the 'bitter conflicts' that happen often.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Mushroomexpertboy1 and Mushroomexpertboy

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

---

(Moving report here from AIV, seems more appropriate)

Mushroomexpertboy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account with a previous history of introducing factual errors to mushroom articles regarding toxicity (ex. [137]). Following a several month period of dormancy the account was brought back to life again to vandalize my user page ([138]) shortly after I had tagged Nathan Baptiste, an A7-qualified page created by Mushroomexpertboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before the user then proceeded to remove speedy deletion templates at Nathan Baptiste ([139] and [140]). This account's reactivation was seemingly to circumvent Mushroomexpertboy being unable to remove CSD templates from a page they created themselves. After attempts at removing the speedy template were undone by myself and Thibaut120094, the user then proceeded to vandalize my user page twice more ([141] and [142]) before duplicating the contents of my userpage to their personal sandbox. The content continued to be edited in increasingly severe personal attacks (ex. [143]). The user's disruptive editing and personal issues with me have now moved into other projects with the upload of an attack image (for lack of a better word) to Commons.

I should mention that this user has also been reported as a suspected sockpuppet by me at SPI. According to Special:Log/Mushroomexpertboy this account was created by Mushroomexpertboy, and both accounts have been engaging in disruptive edits. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Luise1998 DUCK sock in need of block

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

---

Can someone block Luise1998 (talk · contribs) as one of the many Raj TV promotional socks

• David03112000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jashkknagar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jessumahatma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brindavijay03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

apparently emanating from the main account Jaswanthvijay (talk · contribs) . thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't WP:RPP but if the admin looking into this could semi Raj TV and Raj TV US it could slow down the resumption of the spamming - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. Note that Raj TV has been semi'ed since September 8th. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sofa King Insane

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

---

Need an admin to indef block Sofa King Insane. Feel free to pick from the list or add to it. I'd do it myself except that I've reverted some of his trolling and have been personally attacked, so some might question my impartiality. Rklawton (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• user name
• personal attacks [144] [145] [146]
• trolling (see contributions, it isn't very long)[147]

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

Disruptive IP

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

---

Resolved

Please take action against this IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.184.14.100. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

One schoolblock applied. These can be reported to WP:AIV in the future. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Help to deal with sockpuppetry

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

---

User talk:Azhar sulfikar was blocked. Then he used this account User talk:Mollywoodmonster to continue creating same useless pages. Used this IP sock to repeadtedly remove deletion tag from Dhananjay CS. I suggest proper action to be taken against this sock Mollywoodmonster. --Action Hero Shoot! 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually there is another registered sock who was editing that very same article (admin access only) and they didn't start an account until someone was blocked, and they are the same as the IP. I don't have time to file, but I did dig up enough to be convinced of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete his auto-biography Azhar Sulfikar created through unreliable useless references . --Action Hero Shoot! 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Azhar Sulfikar Born in 2001 and became a playback singer??? This is a kid using Wikipedia for fun and mischief. Action Hero Shoot! 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Careful. The article does have at least two sources, weak as they may be, that doesn't qualify it for speedy deletion. I have sent the article to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I cleaned up at SPI, two weeks for the master, indef for the sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Should the AfD be closed then? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No one issue remains.Action Hero Shoot! 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: This article which is a made up story Tarabal Khuiyaan as Google news search results is zero and google book search result is also zero other than the Wikipedia page. I knew that the references given by the page creator has no mention of the topic. Mollywoodmonster came to edit that page. My speedy deletion was rejected and i nominated it for deletion where no comments by other users are posted yet. The entire article is confusing and everything seems to be made up by the page creator. Even if i believe these wells exist, there is no mention why these wells have notability. This is written like a Geography text book.Action Hero Shoot! 05:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Action Hero, looking at your edit history, since anyone's contributions may be put under scrutiny at WP:ANI, it resembles that of one or more other accounts. And despite being a new account, you don't edit like a WP:Newbie at all. Are you sure there is nothing you want to disclose in that regard? Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, i am not a pure newbie. The latest Hollywood movie pages get semi-protected, so.... My first edits were to movie pages.

Another problem was that IPs had previous edit history from other users, more then IP user can use the same IP. Some edit history was okay, while some were used to vandalize. I didn't like the Orange message while editing. There were bot warnings and User-warnings in IP talkpages about disruptive edits. You can't ignore orange notification: unless you read it, the orange message won't go. Now, i get talk page messages for my edits, not other's edits. Now why should I read those warnings given weeks, months ago about vandalism and disruptive edits on pages related to politics , British Football club, TV Reality stars and other articles which i didn't even know existed?

Some old users even give welcome message to IPs. You should ask them not to give welcome message to IP users; as those IP users might read the welcome message properly and one Wikipedia page links to other Wikipedia Policy page. In the bottom of those pages there are links to other similar pages. Action Hero Shoot! 08:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your message makes zero sense. Old users give welcome messages to IPs. Nothing wrong in that. I have done it, Huggle does it automatically if you mark a good edit. as those IP users might read the welcome message properly and one Wikipedia page links to other Wikipedia Policy page makes no sense whatsoever. What exactly are you trying to say here? Also, @Flyer22: I had the same doubt as you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Action Hero shows some inexperience in his editing. But, from what I see, including that he participated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw‎, he is also far more experienced at editing Wikipedia than the typical WP:Newbie. Things he's doing in his editing are things WP:Newbies usually do not do; they just don't. I've also seen editors fake their WP:Newbie qualities. But I'll leave it up to others to trust Action Hero's words on his Wikipedia editing experience. Last thing I need is anyone accusing me of not WP:Assuming good faith for commenting on something I'm very knowledgeable on -- in this case, spotting non-new editors who have new accounts. Flyer22 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Action Hero is a fairly obvious sock from this group. The technical evidence aligns and the behavioural overlap is significant.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I've also blocked Aero Slicer as a sock of Undertrialryryr.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the Irony. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

DUCK sock Bestone

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

---

A not very creative duck.

• Bestone22 (talk · contribs)
• Bestone226 (talk · contribs)

After getting a final warning created a new account removing the 6 from the end to continue , this time adding copyright images. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the new (puppet) account. This really looks like a case of a wayward noob. I'm hoping someone can help the original account get on track. Rklawton (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Uploading various images he finds on the web of this person and then claiming they are his own image appears to be all he does using either account. He's gotten multiple warnings on both en.wp and commons for it, and both accounts are blocked there (one for being a dup account of the other, and now the other also blocked for ongoing copyvio). DMacks (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Spamming user still spamming

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

---

User ‎82.232.81.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been spamming a video game article with a link he's affiliated with up until recently when his link was blacklisted and the article semi-protected. Now he's adding the link to user talk pages instead it seems[148]. Eik Corell (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Administrator can check the details

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

---

Is it possible that Khayal Abbas AKhtar is the re-created version of Khayal Abbas Akhtar? --Action Hero Shoot! 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Khayal Abbas AKhtar is different than the latest deleted version of Khayal Abbas Akhtar, but it is about the same person. -- GB fan 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same guy, but completely different wording so I'd treat it as a new article. FWIW I'd still A7 this without blinking, as I see no credible assertion of notability. ‑ iridescent 12:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody beat me to deleting it and speedy-closing the AfD. I also (re-)blocked the creator as an obvious sock of the one that created the previous versions, so the deletion would also count under G5. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:KHAYAL ABBAS AKHTAR came with a new account to write his auto-biography. Thanks for wasting my time. Action Hero Shoot! 12:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin Davidcannon and AWB

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

---

Davidcannon (talk · contribs)

I came across this user when I noticed several strange looking "kg"s in Battle of Britain Day. In this instance these are the name of of a military unit rather than a unit of mass so "KG" is correct. Davidcannon had changed these from "KG" to "kg" using AWB. Looking at their recent contribution I noticed a couple more instances of this so dropped them a note - and noticed at the time a couple of more, in one case lengthy, thread on their talk page about their use of AWB. Today their user page showed up on my watchlist again and it was someone else complaining about their AWB use so I decided to check their edits since my note. I found two definite errors (this was not a reference to the band Boyz II men and this was a place name, not the word cannot) and one which I strongly suspect was (Luitenant appears to be the correct splling in Dutch). Since they have had several comments on their AWB use and nothing seems to have changed I'd normally just be asking for removal of their AWB access somewhere else. As an admin that's not possible so bringing it here for community review and possible sanction (I'd like to see an enforced break from AWB). Dpmuk (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I give up. Obviously my well-meaning edits are creating more errors than it's worth. I'm sick of all the complaints, some of which are justified. From tonight, I'll take a complete break from AWB EXCEPT for articles that I myself have created, at least until the end of this year. I have no desire to be seen as disrupting this project, for which I have a huge passion. So, from now on, at least until the end of this year, anything I do on AWB will be confined to articles that I create from time to time — to ensure lack of typos, etc. David Cannon (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• It would be nice to assume good faith in David Cannon's edits here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• AGF is not a suicide pact, and WP:CIR applies to admins as well. I was there for the original discussion, and entirely endorse ordering Davidcannon not to use automated tools, and if necessary to desysop him to remove his access to them. (Unfortunately, one can't remove the AWB right from an admin so if he's not willing to abide by a voluntary ban, he would have to be desysopped.) He's been warned, repeatedly, about the misuse of automated tools, and it's clear that he's just mechanically clicking "save"—or possibly running an unauthorised bot—rather than actually checking what he's doing. Pointless minor edit, edit without noticing he was "correcting" a piece of promotional spam, "correcting" the spelling of a proper name, adding a single capital letter in the middle of an entirely lower-case sentence, changing the phrase "boys to men" to "Boyz II Men", presumably thinking it's a reference to the Motown band, all from the last few minutes alone. Given the number of people who have raised concerns about his abuse of automated tools, with no sign of him changing his conduct, I would say the last chance has been passed unless he's willing to abide by a complete voluntary ban from automated tools.  ‑ iridescent 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Davidcannon's own proposition, which if abided by should have the result the community desires (with, presumably, the converse that if such activity were to continue, we have established the only recourse that would be available). Although perhaps the length of time should be longer? -I note that- pace- the 'end of the year' is less than three months away. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• This would be a ridiculous thing for someone to be desysopped over, but I see why. Bureaucracy, eh? I agree with Davidcannon's proposal to voluntarily stop using AWB, and I think that should be good enough. We could talk about whether a user being repeatedly asked to watch their use of the tool for mistakes and consistently continuing to make the mistakes should be forcibly removed from using them, but as others have pointed out this requires desysopping, and we're a long way from admin misconduct here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Just want to make it clear - because I probably didn't originally - that I'm not after a desyopping. I was suggesting a community ban on using AWB for some length of time. As an admin I'd hope, and believe, that they would abide by that. If they ignore than ban... well we can cross that bridge in the extremely unlikely event that it happens. Dpmuk (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am willing to withdraw for a longer period — whatever length of time the community deems appropriate. By the way, I strongly deny using a "bot" of any kind — throwing that kind of accusation at me is irresponsible. Nor am I just manually clicking — I have made some poor judgement calls, to be sure, but I deny just sitting here and clicking. On the contrary, there are numerous edits on which I've changed more than what was recommended. User:Lugnuts has even reverted me when I've added links! But it's not about personalities. I'm sick of all the arguments and I'll withdraw for as long as the community desires. David Cannon (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I am being threatened by this editor

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

---

Last warning[edit] If you undo a revert of mine once more without first establishing consensus, I'll have you blocked. Do I make myself clear? Wikipedia, including me specifically as the editor who seems to notice most of your edits, will not tolerate an editor who is not willing to edit in a community-friendly way.

You have all the relevant links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this talkpage, I have pointed you to the error of your ways. Now bare the consequences. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, in case you misunderstand. If you think that you're right, and that your edit is "clearly justified", that does not make it so. The only thing that makes it so is WP:CONSENSUS. Do you fucking get me now?! Debresser (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to provide diffs substantiating this. GAB^Hello! 21:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found them: [149][150] GAB^Hello! 21:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Those warnings were pretty out of line. Maybe Debresser should be sanctioned himself. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Those warnings were way out of line. I know having to deal with newcomers is hard sometimes, and I, myself, struggle with them but not like this. I don't know if a warning is sufficient for such behavior? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A strong warning at the very least. GAB^Hello! 00:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You would expect an editor with over 80K edits and on the encyclopedia seven years to have both a better rein on his temper and a clue about WP:BITE. Then again, he's got a bit of a block log. Ravenswing 01:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. However, the block log dates from 2011. We're in 2015. Although, the log does explain a lot about the user's history and it seems to not to be the first time it has happened. I would oblige and give a warning, though I wouldn't know what kind. I am debating on personal attacks or don't bite warning? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest Johnmcintyre1959 stop edit warring for a bit and use the article talk page(s). That's highly likely to improve Debresser's response. NE Ent 01:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring or not, it does not excuse for using such a harsh tone. An EW warning would had suffice. If it continued, then AN/3RR is the place. There is no excuse to be uncivil like that. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• The tone was over harsh, someone should trout him. However, I note that the reporting editor has engaged in rather aggressive behavior, which does not excuse the snap but does help explain it. I suggest both cool off and stop reverting each other and let other cooler heads do so if needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Per Carlossuarez, the fact that one person is wrong has no bearing on the wrongness of another person. Merely because the OP edit wars does not absolve other behavioral violations by other users, including @Debresser:. That is, no matter what rules person A breaks, person B is not absolved of their own rule violations. Has anyone notified him of this conversation, by the way? --Jayron32 02:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser has been notified of the ANI thread. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Long reply by Debresser

I can appreciate the fact that Johnmcintyre1959 feels a little less than welcome on Wikipedia, but as my fellow editors have already noted above,[151][152] that is to be expected if an editor ignores what started as friendly explanations of the right way to edit on Wikipedia, and when those were actively and aggressively ignored, evolved into increasingly serious warnings. There is nothing wrong with warning an editor with sanctions against behavior that is detrimental to the project.

Just to show you the history a bit:

Johnmcintyre1959 started with this edit, which I then reverted with a nice explanation in the edit summary. This same explanation I have since repeated on the talkpage, and I believe it is in perfect accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. That didn't stop Johnmcintyre1959 to insist on his opinion another time. Another editor has already agreed with me, and that issue is now closed, I hope. It is a shame, Johnmcintyre1959 feels the need to disagree only with me.

Please also notice that after his second undo of my revert, I took the trouble to post him a warning about edit warring on his talkpage, and there I noticed that he had recently been warned for edit warring before, and then I also noticed that he had done the same on a few more articles, [153][154][155] so I added to the warning, advising him to ask for community input at WT:JUDAISM before "fixing" things on Wikipedia. Johnmcintyre1959 has stated that he considers that "not very useful advice". Please notice that to this date he has not posted there.

Then he continued on the same article with other edits along the same lines: For example this edit, which I was able to improve here , and then he made another such edit here. Then he made another edit like that here. Now, I am all in favor of improvement, but this editor seems to have an agenda. Please note, that I have not reverted these edits, as they are indeed improvements, but they show a certain point.

After that, the same thing happened on another article, where Johnmcintyre1959 made what he considers to be an improvement, which I undid, with a good explanation in the edit summary, and he reverted again. Note that by this time he had already been warned on his talkpage about edit warring. I even added a whole lecture about consensus here. In the discussion about his edit on the talkpage, another editor has already agreed with my reason for objecting to Johnmcintyre1959's edit (stylistic), calling it "quite raw and not carefully edited".

Now, it just happens to be that this editor edits articles about Judaism, which I happen to have on my watchlist, and about which subject I am quite knowledgeable. I hope that there is no doubt that it is a coincidence that it just happens to be me who is reverting him, since there aren't that many editors who are active in the field of Judaism-related articles as there used to be a few years ago.

After I had noticed the same pattern of edit warring by this editor in three separate instances on two articles, I understood that he needs strong warnings, so I obliged here. That warning was still very nicely worded and referred to the relevant policy of WP:CONSENSUS.

If all of that is not enough to show the picture: a new editor, who does not want to respect the community, but rather prefers to have his own way on Wikipedia, then the following example will show you that Johnmcintyre1959 is not a good faith editor: In this edit, he shows he is stalking my edits (he never contributed to that page before), and reverted my undo of a recent controversial (and in my opinion incorrect) edit, again preferring the edit war over discussion. I think this edit shows the problem of this editor better than any my explanation.

By the way, I agree that my following edit to his talkpage used stronger words, but I have seen that same word on Wikipedia before, and when I complained about it at this very WP:ANI a few years ago, it was explained to me that it is perfectly fine to used this word! If you want, I can look up that discussion for you, but it would take hours. Suffice it to say that one of the admins in that discussion used the f-word himself, so let's not be hypocritical, please.

I apologize for the long reply, however I am confident that only by showing the history I could explain why it was necessary to act the way I did. I am willing to undo my aforementioned edit to his talkpage and remove the f-word, but I stand by my opinion that my reverts and warnings to him were justified and in accordance with all Wikipedia polices and guidelines in view of Johnmcintyre1959's behavior, and think that any other editor would have done the same in my place. In light of this, I would appreciate it if my fellow editors would stress to Johnmcintyre1959, that his behavior was indeed such as to warrant my response (again, with the exception of the one edit I am willing to undo), and that he must change his editing pattern, if he wants to continue contributing to this project. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do undo the edit; can you like to the prior ANI discussion you reference, or at least indicate the approximate time frame? NE Ent 10:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This was years ago, possibly as much as five years ago. I remember it clearly, because I found it rather unpleasant at the time, and admit I'm a little ashamed I let my frustration with this editor get the best of me (however much I think he is an edit warrior, at least at this stage of his Wikipedia career). I'll undo it now. Done.[156] Debresser (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please also notice that Johnmcintyre1959 had recently been warned about edit warring before, as I just now added to the text above (including diff). Debresser (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the use of "fuck": Ctrl-F for "fuck" on this page gives you right now 7 results in 3 threads. This thread, someone complaining about being called a fuckwit and getting an apology in "I am being threatened by this editor" thread, and (in my opinion) the magnificent sentence fragment from User Carrite: "... to STOP USING THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION OF THE CITATION TEMPLATE and he fucking won't listen and if ..." in the "Robert Martinson problems" thread. No one blinked an eye. The reception of the word seems uneven. ghytred talk 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Context matters. The use of the word "fuck", as a word, is not a problem. The use of the word "fuck" in the context of aggression or as an attempt to intimidate others is a problem. "Please stop doing that" is fine. "Fucking stop doing that" adds a layer of intimidation and aggression to the interaction which is unacceptable for its incivility. It is not merely the use of fuck, as I am doing here in this discussion of the word, is not in itself a problem, because I am not using to intimidate you or anyone else. If I said "Shut the fuck up, I'll say fuck whenever I want!!!" then I would be. I am not doing that, so it is not incivil. --Jayron32 14:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that "context matters", but this is an interesting discussion. Is civility a function of interpretation or is incivility clearly marked by red flags that can't be ignored? Is civility a function of the collection of "community" weighing in on a question or is incivility a constant, unvarying by the vagaries of who happens to be present for the evaluation of possible incivility? I don't know the answer to my self-posed questions. But I think some words should be banned. It doesn't have to be "fuck". It could be almost any word. By banning a word we express to ourselves that context does not necessarily matter. We are almost an entirely verbal community. How can "fucking stop doing that" add a "layer of intimidation"? Rarely does the online world intersect with the real world. "Intimidation" may be intended and "intimidation" may be perceived but intimidation is rarely if ever real. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another question is, how civil do we have to be with editors who ignore the rules of editing? Edit warring is also a form of aggression, and a most detrimental form for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Please get these logical principles of collective editing into your skull asap, because I am running out of patience with editors who keep insisting that their ideas of what is right and wrong are what should determine the text, rather than consensus." If you were being impatient, why did you even bother with a final warning? Secondly, if the user was edit warring, you didn't bother to report them to 3RR or EW. No matter what the conditions are, your comments were way out of line and uncivil. Using profanity to intimidate a user is bordering to personal attacks and regardless your intentions, which were wrong, it was unacceptable. "Do you fucking get me now?" The solution is to a) back away if tension rises or b) report them to boards. EW is considered agression, but playing with fire with fire gets you a bigger fire. Just because EW is aggression does not mean to be harsh or rude is acceptable. "This is your last warning. Please stop." is the best answer anyone can come up with, as per Jayron32. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callmemirela—you say "If you were being impatient, why did you even bother with a final warning?" When someone says they are "running out of patience" they are not necessarily saying that they have run out of patience. You are nitpicking. "Impatience" is a general term without specific markings for quantity or quality. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not defending Debresser's comment but a few of our most active admins make liberal use of the word "fucking" such as "fucking stop it or I'll block you next time." I'm not posting diffs to report them because I sense the sentiment comes out of frustration, not malice. I wanted to post a reminder that sanctions can set a precedent and given that I see frequent "for fucks sake", "fuck it", "I've had fucking enough of this shit", etc. every week, we might be returning to this issue on a regular basis. Debresser apologized, said he would remove the comment and explained the context of the remark, I think that should be sufficient. I think it would be a personal attack if this was an example of typical behavior towards Johnmcintyre1959 but I see Debresser trying to communicate with him and getting little response except at Talk:Rosh Hashanah#Origins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I think this discussion was closed prematurely, and WP:BOOMERANG applies here very much.

As I mentioned above, Johnmcintyre1959 has started to stalk me. In addition, this edit shows that even after this WP:ANI post he still thinks that making an edit is preferable to discussing first. The question in the edit summary "is this an acceptable compromise?" speaks for itself in this regards.

Above I asked my fellow editors to explain to Johnmcintyre1959, that his behavior was indeed such as to warrant my response (again, with the exception of the one edit I undid), and that he must change his editing pattern, if he wants to continue contributing to this project. In light of his latest edit, I strongly repeat this request. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

History of unsourced content by an IP

• 69.248.93.249 (talk · contribs)

Apparently hundreds of edits since June, adding unsourced content and personal interpretations to multiple articles. I'm sure they're meant to be constructive, but many are trivial and it appears that nothing has been connected to a reference of any kind. If that's the case, a broad reversion of the IP's edits may be appropriate. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted some of their edits. Yes, much of it unverified and trivial. Also, competence is required, and that certainly includes English-language competence. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, Drmies. I suspect it all can go. Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  By the way, this may be the same user--as is often the case, there may be more where these come from. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• 100.35.22.145 (talk · contribs)
  • Hmm. I looked at a half a dozen of their edits, and they're not bad. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Nope. They have the same predilection for unsourced factoids [157]; [158]; [159]; [160]; [161]. I'm reasonably sure it's the same editor, but even if I'm wrong, the edits have the same problems. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem can add

I ask help on the item First Italo-Ethiopian War,

I tried to have an agreement but we have not understood.

Now I added a photo of Wikimedia Commons relevant to the item [[:File:Two Italian soldiers survivors.jpg|thumb|Two Italians soldiers captured and prisoner after the Battle of Adwa.]]

and I have added not troop to specify the not involvement of a Russian army in this war.

Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War

only these two things.

Mr. Bgwhite continues to delete my added. --Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This could be a WP:Boomerang. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mulugheta alula roma. This board is not the place to solve content disputes. Please have a look at the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this was sent on too quickly; the user needs to argue their point on the article talk page first. The problem lies in the "with not troops" phrase. First of all it's not proper English, but second, the comment is not supported by the footnoted source that follows. Thanks to Google Books I can complete this poor reference: pages 27-30 make it clear that throughout that period Russia did indeed supply military aid to Ethiopia. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• There actually is some discussion, but it is severely hampered by Mulugheta alula roma's poor English. And that Russian stuff, the sources are pretty clear, so I don't see what there is to dispute. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe http://ru.wikipedia.org is a better place for him/her? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Shahzada Mohiuddin

I placed a picture in the article Shahzada Mohiuddin. The image shows the man described, being interviewed. Through several ip addresses, all starting with 182.18... (probably located in Pakistan), this picture has been removed seven times, everytime without any explanation. I'm fed up with it, but what should be done? I posted a comment on yesterday's ip talk page, but it didn't work. Apdency (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's irritating, but the image is tagged as "missing evidence of permission" (Future Perfect at Sunrise's handiwork). If it hadn't been I would have put it back myself, blocked the IP, and semi-protected the article--but as it is, maybe that's why they removed it. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture is clearly a screen grab from a television program and the subject is a living person. It's a copyrighted image that the uploader doesn't own. The IP was absolutely doing the right thing, aside from. It communicating. Blocking would have been less than ideal. AniMate 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. Apdency, I don't know if that's an answer since I don't know if that's why the IP kept removing, but it's helpful. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Helpful, yes, but I don't know why AniMate says that it is clearly a screen grab. Which characteristics lead to that conclusion inevitably? Apdency (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're right. I didn't look closely enough (mobile device). I'm more inclined now to say that it's a picture taken at a television taping. Still it was missing permissions, and until that's done it's probably a good idea for the picture to remain out of the article. AniMate 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also a number of other articles in Wikipedia projects would be losing this picture then. It seems likely that this is going to happen. The uploader (a colleague of the depicted journalist?) has only been editing on Commons on one day in June 2012, and I'm very unsure that this person will provide the information Future Perfect at Sunrise has asked for. Apdency (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz and WP:Personal attacks and WP:Harassment

In the #Sigmund Freud section above, Signedzzz showed up, looking to pick a fight with me, arguing that my commenting in that thread was about him. He resorted to WP:Personal attacks, and didn't stop there. Soon afterward, he moved my comments, stating that I should not move his comments. I replied (followup note here), "You moved mine; I w[ant] my comments together; do not cut in between them." He reverted again. I understand that editors are allowed to cut in between comments, but, since I still wanted my comments together, I changed the style of my comments by placing them in the same paragraph; I also moved my comments together like that so that it is clear that my "00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" post is in response to both of his latest posts -- the "00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" and the "00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" comments. I warned Signedzzz not to mess with my posts since I'd changed the style. As seen with this edit, he challenged me on that. I reverted him again, stating, "WP:Disruptive editor engaging WP:Personal attacks, WP:Harassment and WP:Talk violations; will be reported if he continues." He replied, "yes i hope an admin does take note."

I would consider this trivial, even the WP:Personal attacks trivial, if this were not an editor who has a serious obsession with me/grudge against me, as stated by different editors in the past. He has a history of trying to egg me on, and a history of severely antagonizing others. He was hoping to prolong the altercation between us, and even revisited this article, seemingly hoping to annoy me in some way, as if I would care that he is fixing his own typo. He currently wants me to remove the WP:Sockpuppet watch section from my user page, because he asserts that it's about him, and that I imply that he is a pedophile in addition to being a WP:Sock, which is not the case at all. He is pestering me now because of that and our past altercations. He never lets anything go, and misinterprets matters so badly that I never want to discuss a thing with him. If needed, I will seek a WP:Interaction ban with regard to his interaction with me. He clearly followed me to WP:ANI just to pick a fight. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: As seen with this link, Fram blocked Signedzzz. I wasn't looking for a block, and was more so focused on the comment placement matter (so that Signedzzz wouldn't think he could rightly separate my comments after I'd combined them into a paragraph and reverted him on separating them), but I thank you for upholding the WP:Personal attacks policy, when so many other Wikipedians couldn't care less about it except for in extreme cases. That stated, the aforementioned WP:Personal attacks instance clearly is not mild. Also, per what I stated above in this section, and on my talk page, I will restore my two comments to being combined (in a paragraph) as I had them before. Anyone should feel free to close this section; I apologize for the drama-fest. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI to any admins watching, the editor in question has been rather carefully sculpting an unblock request on his user talk page for some time now. At least the last time I looked, I didn't see much to indicate that he wouldn't engage in much the same conduct, or, in fact, much of an indication that he even acknowledged having done anything wrong. But he has been editing the comment rather a lot. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Interference with DRN case, possible violation of topic ban

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

---

Energy Catalyzer, an alleged cold fusion device, has been a an area of contention for many years, with multiple trips to ANI[162][163] and the article is under standard discretionary sanctions as part of the pseudoscience arbcom case.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere is under a community sanction topic ban[164][165][166] from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia relating to cold fusion, broadly construed.

On 15 September 2015 Insertcleverphrasehere posted a comment to User talk:Robert92107 which appears to me to be an attempt to escalate the conflict between him and another editor involved in the Energy Catalyzer DRN case.[167][168] I responded here:[169]

On 5 September 2015 Insertcleverphrasehere posted a similar comment to User talk:Brian Josephson,[170] this time in response to a warning about edit warring on the Energy Catalyzer page. [171]

When the community imposes a topic-ban, the ideal situation is that (perhaps after blowing off some steam) the topic-banned user unwatches the banned pages, walks away from the topic, and edits elsewhere. We can't stop him from following the disputes(s) that got him banned, but posting comments to talk pages when someone who is still involved in the dispute gets a DRN or EW notice is, in my opinion, stepping over the line, and encouraging editors involved in the conflict to fight each other is unhealthy for the encyclopedia and for the dispute resolution process. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether s/he is trying to get users to fight with each other is debatable; at any rate, his/her behavior indeed seems like violating the terms of the topic ban. (SN: I find it odd that s/he appears to be bragging about being topic-banned.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban. The E-Cat is a purported cold fusion device. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was giving advice to another editor on their personal talk page about a topic from which I have personal experience. Having followed User:Robert92107's Edits over the past month or so, I suggested that he might not want to go down the same road I did. (if anyone actually reads my comment I suggested that he back off, and in no way suggested an escalation of the conflict.)  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  23:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the exact terms of my topic ban were not correctly relayed to me, I didn't realise that I'm not allowed to give advice to other editors. The guy is a new editor to wikipedia, and might not realise how easy it is, as a new editor, to get topic banned if you get in a dispute on ANI against a very senior editor (I certainly didn't). I have followed my topic ban perfectly up to this point, and have been making other useful edits to wikipedia in the past 6 months, including creating a new article: Joseph Sledge. If this is a violation of my topic ban (I didn't realise it was) then I will refrain from doing similar in the future.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a good time to WP:AGF, accept the above, and close this as no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Martimc123/LovedGuy

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

---

This all started when Martimc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept reposting articles that were deleted via AfDs, namely:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novus (professional wrestling)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to Keiji Muto Tournament
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arukas Cup Six Man Tag Tournament

The first reposts appeared mere hours after the original deletions and were speedily deleted. Now they've re-appeared and have been nominated for speedy deletions again. Some of these reposts have slightly altered names such as Road to Keiji Mutoh Tournument, Road to Keiji Mutoh Tournument (wrestle-1) and Arukas cup six man tag tournament, while Novus (professional wrestling) uses the same name. When I explained the user that he can't repost articles that were deemed not notable (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martimc123&oldid=681618720), he responded in a talk page of one of the articles that was nominated for speedy deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Road_to_Keiji_Mutoh_Tournument_%28wrestle-1%29&oldid=681619180), basically stating that he would create another account and keep reposting the articles, if he was reported for this, before blanking my talk page. Some ten minutes later a new account LovedGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared and he keeps repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tags off the pages. Based off his edit history, this is very clearly Martimc123's new account. I think this calls for an IP block. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 11:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

LovedGuy just recreated Arukas Cup Six Man Tag Tournument immediately after it was speedied. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked Martimc123 for two weeks and LovedGuy indefinitely. Any further disruptive activity will result in an indef block. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Disgusting spammer

Editor blocked by Ed. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Can some please block this disgusting spammer attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise an item for sale that capitalizes on a tragedy? Thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed your link to something more directly helpful. This diff shows the problem, and the account should be indeffed ASAP. There is no need for a formal notice in a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a warning in the time being. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:Domlesch

Domlesch (talk · contribs) is a sock of Tobias Conradi (see meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Domlesch.40wikidata) and should be blocked. --Pasleim (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like s/he suddenly retired. Would a visit to WP:SPI still be necessary though? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not unless he un-retires. Checkusers won't do any more work than they absolutely have to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

o_O That's not right, Baseball Bugs. Anyway, the account is using mobile IPs, so not much can be done. Keegan (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, who should I believe? You? Or my own personal experience? What I said is true, and it's also true that they won't do anything with IP's. An SPI is generally a waste of time and effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed of "COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature"

The above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature has now been open for three weeks and grown pretty huge. The case, however, is actually rather simple. Either the accused persons are correct with their claim that I am biased and harassing them. As I am an admin, that is an absolutely intolerable situation and calls for an immediate block (and de-syssopping, I think, so I will ask a bureaucrat to remove the bit, if this is going to be the outcome). Alternatively, my accusation that these SPA editors engage in COI editing and impermissible personal attacks is correct, in which case a block of them would be in order. I call on an uninvolved admin to close the thread either way. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewing request. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Either ... or Nope. Please see Wikipedia:First_Law#not_zero_sum. Read the read of the essay. Then let it go. The fact you went back and forth for days bickering with the other guys and there wasn't a lot of effort by anyone else to step in is an answer in itself. NE Ent 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Read again, I don't think I bickered and I was very concise. And I'm very sorry, but I don't take attacks on my integrity very lightly. I don't think the same could be said about "the other guys" as you call them. And several non-admins commented, too, so I don't think this was ignored. But as I wrote above, I request that somebody closes this, so feel free to close whatever way you think is just. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. There are so far as I can see three options here. One is for Randykitty to be sanctioned for misconduct, possibly up to and including losing the bit. I find that option not at all supported by the situation, as someone who had comment earlier.

The second is for the others to be sanctioned. I have supported that myself above, although I can imagine some might want to keep it a few days longer, maybe up to the weekend, to allow further input, considering this new related thread has been opened.

The last is to do nothing. Under the circumstances, considering that there is at least a question of admin misconduct, possibly worthy of de-sysopping if true, I can't see that as being acceptable either. If Randykitty has misbehaved to the extent that loss of adminship is called for, then we should know that as soon as possible. So I very very strongly support the review of the matter by an uninvolved admin soon. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Hello, sorry if this isn't the right place to put this, but a sockpuppet of blocked user User:Kingshowman named User:FearlessTruthTeller recently edited Sigmund Freud, providing a rough explanation of the Oedipus complex [172]. Soon after, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted his edits, only on the grounds of sockpuppetry [173]. I reverted their edits, claiming that they were beneficial to the article, only to be reverted by both FreeKnowledgeCreator and User:Jim1138 [174] [175] [176]. My question for you all is, should the edit be allowed? While it may defy WP:DENY and may be from a sockpuppet, the edit isn't vandalism, and thus I believe that the edit should be upheld. Thank you. --Chevvin (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit was part of a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Kingshowman and should be disallowed on those grounds alone. Kingshowman has consistently shown poor judgement about what sort of material is appropriate to the leads of articles. This really isn't ANI-worthy material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is absolutely ANI-worthy. It's obvious that both of us have different views on the edit, and our attempts at working it out through talking have seemed to failed. --Chevvin (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Chevvin - I agree that the edit was not vandalism. But, instead of reverting, why not just edit the page and manually add that article content back yourself :-)? It'll satisfy WP:DENY (since the edit will be from you, not the sock) and the contribution will stay on the article. I really don't think that an ANI is absolutely needed here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If I did manually edit the page, it would be reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator instantly, and he would have no reason not to. If he can undo my revert, what's stopping them from reverting my edit? --Chevvin (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No Chevvin, this is a routine content disagreement that you should have first discussed at the talk page of Sigmund Freud - as I requested. The only possible reason for raising any of these issues on ANI is to get the latest Kingshowman sockpuppet blocked promptly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator and Jim1138 - What is your basis or proof that this user is a sockpuppet? FreeKnowledgeCreator, your edit summary on this edit only says that you are "very familiar with this user". Jim1138, you also reverted an edit saying that the user is a "blocked sock" - I don't see a WP:SPI filed for this user, and FearlessTruthTeller is definitely not a "blocked sock". ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

His connection with Kingshowman was immediately apparent from the edits he made at Sigmund Freud, and with all respect, Oshwah, he effectively admitted to being a sock at the requests for article protection page, before denying he was a sock here. I provided a link to the de facto admission below. De facto admissions of socking seem to be this user's style, as witness the comments by the sock account Parrhesiast at its talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I just now read the discussion below. To address the root of the ANI discussion: Chevvin - just edit the page and add the content manually (so long as the content itself is not disputed). If there's proof of socking, then it should go into a SPI case to be investigated. In normal circumstances, reverting edits made by accounts evading blocks or bans, or edits made in violation of such bans do not count against 3RR. However, there's no WP:SPI; the account has not yet been appropriately determined to be a sock. I think we just need to choose our battles here and evaluate priorities. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oshwah, I understand that you are trying to be even-handed, but the evidence that the account is Kingshowman is overwhelming at this stage. Why do you think a not-yet-blocked account would talk about the reason it got blocked, referring to a past dispute in doing so? Not blocking the user right away is only delaying the inevitable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator - I think my timing got mixed up in edit conflicts earlier, so I'll explain here. You are 100% correct; I didn't see your edit diff below until after my previous response. Self admission is pretty much a slam dunk as far as proof goes. I wanted to make sure that the root of this ANI was discussed, in that manually adding the material back to the Sigmund Freud article would satisfy WP:DENY and avoid an edit war. Since there was proof of socking, the reverts were legitimate. I apologize if I created any confusion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we get an admin notice going on FreeKnowledgeCreator, for attempting to act as the dictator of the Sigmund Freud, Martin Heidegger, and Friedrich Nietzsche pages? This guy pursues personal grudges above encyclopedic content! The user in question, whom I have no relation to, was only banned for making fun of FreeKnowledgeCreator, playfully. All of his edits were constructive, as you may also have found out purely by researching, as I did. Thanks for reading, friends!FearlessTruthTeller (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See this edit by the editor above, where he effectively admits to being Kingshowman ("I am not "disruptive" or a vandal- the only reason I even got blocked is because I said you'd never read Heidegger and later you admitted I was right and you hadn't read Being and Time"). The editor's comment above shows that he can't even keep his story straight. Wikipedia needs to stop indulging him and follow the good advice at WP:RBI. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Who can even recall what those users were even blocked for, and this user has only been productive! Let us give the fearless speaking of truth a chance. These edits are plainly constructive, and therefore the true vandals are they who revert them. Sometimes, serving the Truth is difficult. FreeKnowledgeCreator must someday Learn the hardest lesson of all: to put his love for knowledge above his petty personal animuses. I trust you will do the right thing. FearlessTruthTeller (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That user is Kingshowman and needs an immediate block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FearlessTruthTeller blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN - Thank you for seeing through the haze of confusion that I probably contributed to above and for taking quick and appropriate action on that account. Now that this matter is taken care of, Chevvin - do you still have any questions or concerns regarding the initial reason that you opened this discussion? Or can we go ahead and close this? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not any more. As long as FKC doesn't revert the edit, which we've generally agreed upon to be constructive, I think that we can leave this topic to rest. --Chevvin (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wait up. We're not closing anything until FreeKnowledgeCreator comes clean: did you, FKC, or did you not read Sein und Zeit? And if you didn't, what makes you think you're good enough to even make routine edits to Meghan Traynor articles here? We have standards, you know, and as true Heideggerians Bishonen, Favonian, and I can make your life a living hell. So get to reading--and not in translation, lazybones. Dzjerman only! Drmies (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume your comment is meant to be humorous, Drmies. Personally I find it an ill-judged attempt at humor. Kingshowman accused me of being an ignoramus who has not read either Heidegger or Freud. I have no interest in hiding what I do or don't know. I admitted on the Heidegger talk page that the only Heidegger I have read is Introduction to Metaphysics (in contrast, I count myself reasonably familiar with Freud). Other admins can let me know whether there are any serious issues here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The content may be restored by any editor in good standing editing in good faith. Once that happens, 3RR exemptions no longer apply. However if the material itself is under dispute or adds little to the article then the talk page should be used first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The material definitely is under dispute; I don't consider it a good addition. Chevvin needs to discuss the matter on the talk page of the Freud article, as I originally requested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NB, Kingshowman is still at it, now editing as User:EminentScholar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @FreeKnowledgeCreator: you cannot just claim WP:DENY in an edit war and expect to be immune from WP:EW if you fail to pursue your claims in the proper forum (SPI). That is just not how it works. Even if you feel the evidence is overwhelming, even if you feel you're unequivocally right, you either handle the accusation appropriately or refrain from making it. Not doing this and choosing to "DENY-revert" the edits instead still disrupts the project and creates unnecessary drama for everyone (as evidenced by this very thread). Furthermore, if a different editor re-adds the content, you cannot legitimately remove it per DENY. If DENY is the only reason you're citing for reverting a third editor who has stepped in, the action is tantamount to an unexplained revert since your rationale is inapplicable. Please keep this in mind should the situation arise again. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The first edit by brand new editor EminentScholar was to restore an edit made by a Kingshowman sock. Respectfully, how likely do you think it is that the account is not another Kingshowman sock? In the (unlikely) event its not a Kingshowman sock, it would be a meatpuppet. It's quite common to point out obvious socks at ANI, so why the anger? You might also have noticed that this thread was not started by me, but by another editor, so why would you accuse me of creating unnecessary drama? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not you're right about sockpuppets or meatpuppets. The complaint was that you also reverted editors who *weren't*. And again, if you think there's obviously sock or meat puppetry going on, just start an SPI. Swarm ♠ 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's an obvious WP:DUCK case, you can also bring it here or grab an active admin. SPI can become backlogged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I had assumed that Swarm's comment was a response to my posting about EminentScholar; I see now that it wasn't (I misunderstood, but Swarm's comment was very confusing). My reverting Chevvin at Sigmund Freud was an example of the routine disagreements between editors that occur all the time, and I did not invoke WP:DENY as a reason for it. I'm currently trying to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks more or less resolved to me, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this matter is resolved as well. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Swarm, they were WP:Socks, and I would have repeatedly reverted them as obvious WP:Socks as well. And as for Chevvin, I wouldn't be so quick to state that he is not a WP:Sock. But since you have no evidence that he is one, while I do have such evidence, it's understandable that you would WP:Assume good faith as far as his editing goes, even though he edits like a non-WP:Newbie. He has the "I edited Wikia" excuse on his user page, but that doesn't come close to explaining the seasoned level of his Wikipedia editing. He's not Kingshowman, but he's not a WP:Newbie either. I'll gather more and more evidence, and eventually report that matter. That is, unless Chevvin wants to go ahead and come clean.

Thanks to NeilN for handling this matter, and all WP:Sock matters, well. John Carter handles WP:Sock matters well too. So I also thank him. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're pinging me about this, but you're hitting on two separate issues. Regarding WP:DENY reverts of 'obvious' socks: if you want to edit war with socks, that's your prerogative and I couldn't care less. It doesn't change the point made in my first four sentences at all. And regarding Chevvin, the second point I made still stands too. You're claiming that Chevvin may be a sock but given the fact that you need to gather more evidence before even starting an investigation tells me that this is not an obvious case of WP:DENY. If you're going to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, put up or shut up. If you're not going to assume good faith, collect evidence and file a report in good faith, but don't sit here blowing hot air at ANI about how you have evidence that one of the users is a sock. It's still a personal attack. Suspected sockpuppetry is not remotely an excuse for the behavioral guidelines to go out the window, which is something that you and FKC obviously still need to learn. Swarm ♠ 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To me it was obvious from the outset which accounts were Kingshowman socks. Reverting them seemed appropriate. What do you suggest I should have done instead, Swarm? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, I WP:Pinged you because you are acting like editors should forgo common sense. Forgoing common sense when it comes to obvious WP:Sockpuppet cases results in matters such as the Jdogno5/Michael Demiurgos disaster. WP:Assuming good faith, when editors should not have been assuming it, in that case came with the price of a year of disruption/damage, as noted by Betty Logan. Reverting WP:Socks is not WP:Edit warring; it is pretty clearly stated as an exemption at the WP:Edit warring policy. Any WP:Administrator who chastises people for accusing editors of being WP:Socks when they know those editors are WP:Socks, or blocks editors for "edit warring" with editors they know to be WP:Socks, does not deserve to be a WP:Administrator. I don't need to learn anything about how to deal with WP:Sockpuppetry cases; my track record for catching them is pretty solid, as many people at this site know. I couldn't care less if you disapprove of my style for catching them. I certainly couldn't care less for you defending them, unless that defense harms Wikipedia. But while we're on subject of people who need to learn things, you could learn a lot from NeilN. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And I always eventually "put up," by the way; it can take days, months or a year, but it happens. It took me months to finally get around to officially reporting Michael Demiurgos, but the job got done nonetheless. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell your problem is but nowhere do I defend socks or suggest they can't or shouldn't be reverted, or suggest that editors can't use common sense, nor have I chastised anyone for doing so. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're projecting onto the points I've raised, but please don't try to twist my meaning or try to discredit me via some bizarre straw man. My points are incredibly straightforward and they're not wrong. Swarm ♠ 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, I similarly don't know what your problem is. From what I've read in this discussion, you were indeed suggesting that editors forgo common sense, and acting like we shouldn't revert WP:Socks on the spot or call them WP:Socks when they are without a WP:Sockpuppet investigation taking place. You stated, "FreeKnowledgeCreator you cannot just claim WP:DENY in an edit war and expect to be immune from WP:EW if you fail to pursue your claims in the proper forum (SPI). That is just not how it works. Even if you feel the evidence is overwhelming, even if you feel you're unequivocally right, you either handle the accusation appropriately or refrain from making it." That, and your stating that FreeKnowledgeCreator was being disruptive, is incorrect on so many levels, and shows that you don't deal with these types of editors (WP:Socks) as much as NeilN and I do. NeilN, for example, will claim WP:DENY and revert a WP:Sock on the spot, more than once if necessary; he did that even before he became a WP:Administrator earlier this year. His experience with such matters gave him the sense to act swiftly and appropriately in this case. That is what we need our WP:Administrators to be doing in WP:Sock cases when the editor is so obviously a WP:Sock. WP:Socks are to be reverted on the spot when an editor familiar with the WP:Sock master knows it's a WP:Sock and feels that the edits are best left off Wikipedia, or wants to enforce the WP:Block evasion violation. The same applies to cases where the person is an obvious WP:Sock to others. The WP:Sockpuppet investigation can come afterward, if it's needed at all. Like FreeKnowledgeCreator, I also came up against an editor who simply didn't understand what should be done in cases of an obvious WP:Sock, and suggested I should be waiting for the WP:Sockpuppet investigations to conclude in such cases instead of reverting; see User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 9#Something you said..., and what others disagreeing with that editor stated. So I don't agree that what you've stated in this thread is correct (not in its entirety). This is certainly one of those agree to disagree moments for me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression here that there is a disagreement regarding the definition of an "obvious" sock, and how to handle such. I also get the impression that what might be obvious to one person might not be obvious to another. It is also, of course, possible for something which is "obviously" true to, occasionally, be factually wrong. But it seems to me that there is a bit of leeway built into the system on this matter, at least until such time as the phrasing is changed. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, John. This discussion and the one I had at Vanjagenije's talk page show that. What is an obvious WP:Sock is also different for me because of my significant experience recognizing them. For example, in the recent BigSportsUnion case, I knew he was a WP:Sock, but I played it cool by pointing to reasons why I know he is not a WP:Newbie, and by making it clear that I would be interested in knowing what his previous account was. I didn't have to wait for long; he was indefinitely blocked soon afterward by Ponyo. I discussed obvious WP:Socks with JamesBWatson, who found my user page section about WP:Socks helpful; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#A small point, but an interesting one. Also see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#G5, where JamesBWatson and I have the same or similar takes on dealings with WP:Socks, and where there is also disagreement. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As a regular editor, I practiced what I thought was common sense. Revert the obvious sock and report to the appropriate venue which may be SPI, ANI, AIV, or an admin's talk page. The sock had to be reported anyways to get blocked and the report indicated I was claiming a 3RR exemption for any future reverts. There's been the occasional suggestion here in the past that editors refrain from going over 3RR until the report has been processed. I reject that as persistent socks can cause a good deal of disruption before an admin takes notice and acts. However, you need to have clean hands (i.e., uninvolved editors can see why you thought it was an obvious sock) and be aware when you can no longer claim the exemption (e.g., another editor keeping the sock's edit or blatant BLP issues overriding socking concerns). I don't think anyone (admin or non-admin) would disagree with this practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Swarm I know exactly what (or who) the hell her problem is. @Flyer22 After we crossed paths yesterday, it seems that you felt the need to lash out. Here then is my response to your "my style for catching them" link that you came here to advertise. You claim that you "put up"; but you are still claiming on your user page, in the link at the start of the linked section, (as is emphasised by the duck picture), after well over a year, that I am a sockpuppet - with no evidence to support that. This proves that you are full of shit. You insinuate, in the very next sentence on your page, that I am a "returning/indefinitely blocked pedophile". This casual assertion, again concealed with absolutely minimal ambiguity that would never pass as such in any forum outside of Wikipedia, reveals that you are a completely vile and worthless human being. Please remove the section immediately (as you were obliged to do over a year ago). zzz (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm kind of wondering whether the over-the-top personal attacks in the above comment might qualify for some sort of action on their own. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, you'll have to try harder than that. It's clearly not a comment - it's a fair and measured observation followed by a request. Thank you. zzz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you consider calling someone a"completely vile and worthless human being" a "fair and measured observation," may I say that there are serious questions regarding your possible competence to edit in a collaborative setting. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the message (or you have some very strange ideas). zzz (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And you obviously don't know what you are talking about. My commenting in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with you. You stated "After we crossed paths yesterday, it seems that you felt the need to lash out." You make it seem like we had a WP:Edit war the other day, or that I focused on you. I did not. And if I "lashed out" above, so did Swarm. I have not been thinking about you, and nowhere on my current user page do I state or imply that you are a WP:Sockpuppet. I learned to stop interacting with you because of your obsession with me and your WP:Disruptive behavior. Others cited you as clearly obsessed with me and as unhinged, and you have wonderfully displayed that again by trying to start a fight with me in this thread and by making it about you, despite the fact that it's common for me to comment on WP:Sock cases here at WP:ANI and identify WP:Socks here. But good luck with your vendetta against me; you'll need it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) And one more thing: Let's be clear that the only reason you keep obsessing about me or others thinking that you are a WP:Sock (yes, I certainly was not the only one to conclude that you are one) is because you feel threatened by it. Actual non-WP:Socks do not feel threatened by people thinking that they are a WP:Sock (not usually anyway); they do not go on a war path to try to prove their innocence; doth protests too much. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you deny it. I invite anyone to look at the section entitled "WP:Sockpuppet watch" and put their mouse over the link "some Wikipedia editors sought to have it changed" with a picture of a WP:DUCK craftily added to it. And then say with a straight face that you're not "stating or implying" that I'm a sockpuppet. That is just more lies. And it was just a stunning coincidence - of course - you suddenly turning up here and advertising the section. You've already been told, at great length, to remove the section, so I don't see what "luck" has to do with anything. zzz (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing your story then, from "I always put up". No one ever called me a sock except you, not to my face anyhow. Your arguments are weak - see Law of Holes. zzz (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect on all accounts. Your skills for interpreting matters are as flawed as they ever were. For example, stating that I insinuate that you are a pedophile in that section? Absurd. I removed the other section, as you very well know; nowhere am I required to remove the current section, and I won't be removing it. You are free to try to get me to do so, as you no doubt will, given your obsession with me and your doth protests too much warpath. But that won't be happening. Do stop talking to me unless absolutely necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Signedzzz for one week for the above blatant personal attacks. I'm a bit amazed that no one apart from John Carter seemed to find such comments unacceptable here. If in my absence the standards have slipped somewhat and "you are a completely vile and worthless human being" is no longer considered a blockable personal attack, then feel free to unblock the editor of course. Fram (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the #User:Signedzzz and WP:Personal attacks and WP:Harassment section below, thank you, Fram. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely block. In my defense, I definitely saw the appalling personal attacks, but -- as I am not involved here -- I felt no need to comment. I have dealt with (one of) Kingshowman's socks in the past, and I welcome the efforts to wrap up the rest of this sockmaster's disruption. GAB^Hello! 19:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Lg16spears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - cross posted from WP:AIV

• Lg16spears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Needs some attention. I'm not sure how they keep flying under the radar with these countless additions of rumors, spam, and tabloids with unreliable sources. Warned many, many times, yet it continues to happen and nothing is done about it. Thechased (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) - I have forgotten how to quote. This report from AIV is cross posted here. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 03:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I picked four edits at random and didn't see anything untoward. Which edits need some attention? Willondon (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 5 to name a few. Thechased (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. In the first diff, Lg16spears added news of a reboot to a film article. In this diff, you called The Hollywood Reporter a "non-reliable source" and reverted Lg16spears. However, THR is one of the most reliable sources available for film-related articles. If you're unfamiliar with film articles, you can see a list of reliable sources at WP:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

Any chance a rangeblock could be made to stop these socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk?

• 121.220.23.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.96.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are the IPs I've blocked in the last week. As a complete layman when it comes to rangeblocks, it looks like the last four at least are very similar and a narrow rangeblock would cover them? If there would be too much collateral, that's fine, but I thought it was worth asking. Also feel free to move this to AN if that's the more appropriate venue, I wasn't sure where to ask exactly. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• All Telstra IPs from Melbourne. The last four are a /22 range, or just over 1,000 addresses, probably a little too big to rangeblock. Can somebody run the collateral damage tool and point to it for me? I've lost the bookmark somehow. KrakatoaKatie 18:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The one that works is at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/. It looks to me like this is a busy little range, with unacceptable collateral damage. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC) By the way it's Range 1.136.96.0/23 (covers 512 IP addresses) -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Just a note that the very first post on ANI above talks about rangeblocking more or less all of Melbourne for the continued stalking and online threats to @Huldra:. The first address in the list falls within that same range. The last 4 may well become part of what is likely the biggest range block ever (if it comes to pass, there's an ongoing discussion on Jimbo's talk page about this). Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the answers. Guess I'll just keep playing whack-a-mole with the the IPs. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint against administrator

moved this to align with a related ANI posting. Blackmane (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is I believe a major problem on the following page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_siren_controversy

Recently I attempted to re-add an incident that had been removed by User Jenks24. I believe this incident is notable and relevant to the article and it is sourced;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AFL_siren_controversy&type=revision&diff=680899455&oldid=680823890

I labeled it vandalism and also left a warning on his talk page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24&diff=prev&oldid=680899830

I also sought consensus for it on the AFL project page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football&diff=prev&oldid=680900482

Jenks24 reverted all three edits and blocked my IP for 31 hours. He has also protected the AFL siren controversy page preventing any IP correction of his vandalism. In my most recent action I attempted to file an edit request on the talk page concerned, only for Jenks24 to remove it and ban the IP yet again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAFL_siren_controversy&type=revision&diff=681141101&oldid=681137728

I state that I am not a banned user of any description and I believe that Jenks24 is simply using this as an excuse to justify his actions. There should be a consensus established and he has prevented this from occurring. I ask that he be warned for this conduct and that the edit be restored, and/or the consensus seeking edit be restored on the AFL project page. I believe he is disrupting the proper operation of Wikipedia with his actions. I am of the firm opinion that the edit should stay for the reasons I gave on the AFL project page. I note that I am required to notify Jenks24 of this report, but I am hesitant to do so as I believe he will react with another removal and block. Once someone else comes on I would welcome them to make that notification and enforce the retaining of this report. I leave this in the capable hands of other editors for appropriate action. 1.136.96.33 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@1.136.96.33: You must notify a user that you are discussing them when you post here. That's what the GIANT orange notice is about when you edit this page. I will do it for you in this case: @Jenks24: (also diff). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Nihonjoe. This is just another sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk. See also the section slightly above, #Rangeblock?, which is about the same person. WP:RBI. Jenks24 (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My IP has changed as it does quite frequently. Jenks24 is again attempting to divert attention from the core issue, and I note that the above IP has again been blocked. I am not a sock of the banned user, and Jenks24 has failed to prove conclusively that I am. The 121 IP noted above is also not me. WP:RBI does not apply because I am not a vandal. I am attempting to add reasonable information and Jenks24 is refusing to address said information. In other words his actions as a result of my report justifies my complaint. What is he afraid of with the addition of the information to the AFL siren controversy? I ask for another editor for a review of this matter and to please ignore Jenks24's unproven tack of distraction, and if Jenks24 blocks this IP my complaint's justification will be re-enforced. 1.136.96.219 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not allowing this to be closed for the reasons given, because the assertion is not proven. The assertion is disruptive and it would appear that Jenks24 isn't the only administrator not willing to address to content issue. I repeat - I am not a sock of any description and I at least request in this section a full explanation including irrefutable proof of the allegations made. I refuse to be blocked from editing on false and offensive grounds and apparent attacks of paranoia. I require more proof than that and I believe that I entitled to the benefit of the doubt until then at least. This constant "game of whack-a-mole" needs to stop and the matter resolved properly. 1.136.97.48 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely block evasion going on here. The content was added back in 2008 (diff) by Check User blocked AFL-Cool (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of Justa Punk. Also, the sources cannot be checked, as they are books (though some searching turns up some supporting, but by no means reliable, sources). You can try finding support for it on the talkpage of the article, but I doubt you'd find much recognition. (Someone else want to close this now?) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Several points. First, that information is seven years old and can hardly stand up in the mists of time. I note from the Justa Punk investigation page that he stated that one other account was another person using his computer. He later moved to public terminals in libraries, which he could well have been doing at that time as well, and AFL Cool may have been editing from the same terminal and could have been a harmless victim. Unlike me he or she chose not to fight the label for whatever the reason. Side point; Justa Punk is a professional wrestling sock puppeteer. I have never edited any part of that subject on Wikipedia. Second, I have already attempted twice to gain a consensus and have been blocked and reverted on sight by Jenks24 - the core reason why I brought this here to begin with. Third, the sources are in fact newspapers and not books and if you'll check the talk page of the siren controversy they were verified by User Hesperian through Factiva. Fourth, the edit in it's original form (as I was able to work out from the page history) stayed for five years unchallenged until someone removed it over it being a junior match - which is a poor reason for removal as the rules are the same in junior and senior and were applied the same. Fifth (and last) WP:DENY does not apply to me. It applies to Jenks24 because he is the one preventing a consensus from being sought and therefore is the one disrupting the encyclopaedia's rightful operation. (I have $1000 bet on this IP being wrongly blocked as well by Jenks24). 1.136.97.125 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not to be archived until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. I have answered the allegations made against me and request that action be taken against Jenks24 per my original request. 1.136.97.92 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother, 1.136. This place is super paranoid of Justa Punk and anything that looks remotely like that banned user gets burned on sight as you were. It means that anyone who ID's him gets protected from prosecution instantly. Your valid points mean nothing in this environment. They rely on WP:DUCK as though it was policy when it's not. No one will be able to get the STJFL info onto the page here now because of Justa Punk and it stinks to high heaven as it means the encyclopaedia is incomplete. No one is listening because no one cares. Best to give it up and go where you would be welcome as I have done - to Footy Wikia. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's appalling. Surely there's something that can be done about this? 1.136.96.139 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing. Zero, Nada, Zilch. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of userspace (NSFW) by User:Croxx036

Despite an administrator (@Anna Frodesiak:) taking action in the past over inappropriate content on his userpage [177], Croxx036 continues to treat their userpage as though Wikipedia were a hookup site, displaying sexually explicit photos and listing their favorite sexual activities. The userpage isn't quite eligible for U5, because it also includes the list of articles they've created and because "only" 47.5% of their edits involve the userpage. But Croxx036 knows the content isn't appropriate (edit summary at [178], sexually explicit image displayed) and is trying to game the system to keep their inappropriate content from being removed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offensive material covers this. WP:NOTCENSORED, but these overtly graphic images stuck on a user's main page are pretty obviously meant to shock, and don't contribute to the encyclopedia except to bring disrepute. These should be removed, and if the user continues to post them, they should be kicked out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed photo and warned user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, WP:NOTCENSORED is only applicable to articles. BMK (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Would a RevDel be appropriate here? I haven't looked at the images (being at work and all). Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was a standard dick pic (shaking my head as I write that and muttering, "only on Wikipedia"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but the image should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, it's on Commons so... good luck? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Bad image list might be an option, if you really feel like it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:09, 5 Tishrei 5776 / 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for review of my admin actions

Hard left suffered an edit war earlier this week. Responding to an AN/EW report, I protected the page for one week and asked all parties to discuss the matter.

Apparently, I protected it on The Wrong Version and should have blocked User:Garageland66. I declined a subsequent {{editprotected}} request on Talk:Hard left because there was not a clear consensus and it was not uncontroversial. This has not gone down well with the main editors of the article, User:Attractel and User:Andy Dingley, as can be seen on my talk page and the article talk page.

I submit all actions for review in the interest of full transparency. Uninvolved admins have full liberty to vacate the protection, edit through the protection, etc. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stifle (talk · contribs), what's that got to do with it? Do you speak for [User:Davidcannon]] now?!?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My bad - it would appear I somehow didn't scroll down enough when I got edit conflicted and put my report in the middle of someone elses. My browser really doesn't like something about this page and it's doing everything very slowly so that was probably how it happened. Dpmuk (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Right! No probs _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. No thanks though for the pejorative implication that I'm "a main editor" of this article, thus defending my own merely subjective position. I have had almost no involvement with this article, just followed Garageland here from his (blocked) edit-warring at Communist Party of Britain (and other articles). I have changed no content here, only added references. As it's a somewhat BLP article and was missing refs, I added them. We are supposed to be in favour of such edits. Not that the content is anyway contentious either, although the names will be unfamiliar if you're not a Brit. If this article should even exist (i.e. is "Hard left" a term used in UK politics to refer to a distinct set of people?) then these are the obvious names to associate with it.

Garageland objects to this article. Also to issues about Communist Party of Britain and Morning Star. I don't know why, I can't see past his behavioural issues of simple edit-warring and blanking whatever he disagrees with (see the article talk: pages). The issue here is not "Eric Heffer was Hard Left but Dennis Skinner isn't" or even "Can we get a better source for a comment made by Michael Foot?" Those would be a reasonable and collegial way to move an article forwards. Instead it's just edit-warring and un-adminned attacks on other editors. We see such EW edits as bad because they make it impossible for other GF editors to work around them. That is the issue here, not where the content finally ends up.

Stifle did not pay any attention to any of this, or to any of the ANEW report. He simply saw it as "content dispute" and locked it for a week to "start" (sic) discussion. "nobody has started any discussion yet" rather ignored the three threads that had already started on that very page. If this is the standard of adminship today, it is inept and could well be replaced by a simple Perl script. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support action (Non-administrator comment) - this is clearly a content dispute amongst several editors, not disruption by one user. Protection was the right call. Reverting and edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Declining the edit request was likewise appropriate - it is clearly controversial and was not discussed. Attractel swearing they will revert back to their preferred version as soon as protection expires is cause for concern. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's one person (the individual who wants change to the original version) against the opposition of two people and a silent consensus who left it untouched for many years. But sure, we should just leave it at the current changed version where there was zero consensus for change, simply because.. well, there is no real reason, let's be honest. Attractel (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse actions Protection was correct. There has been no discussion on the talk page that I would consider to be serious or in the attempt to resolve the issue except for those started by Garageland66. This is even better proof that the protection was needed. Deciding to revert regardless of/without engaging in the discussion is a very poor idea. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Garageland66, the only person who wanted to edit it hasn't even replied. He's a one-man band, and quite clearly we've been discussing it in two sections on the talk page. Now tell me, why exactly should the no consensus version not be reverted? You're simply basing your decision on my comment that I'll revert it back myself - I originally refrained from reverting it whatsoever, awaiting a reply; which may I add, Garageland66 has disappeared. I see it's just a little cabal of friends around here, so I wouldn't expect any legitimate opposition to an admin action. Attractel (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose action Never open an ANI thread unless you absolutely have to. If an involved editor has a problem with your action let them open the discussion. (Protection is fine, by the way). NE Ent 01:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Martinson problems

• We seem to be done here with a proposal enacted and the questionable drafts tagged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has long been banned from article creation for his massive disregard for copyright. He has a great number of subpages on his user page, all intended as potential articles for others to move into main article space. Recently a new editor copypasted one of these subpages, creating the article Robert Martinson. The first thing I noticed about the page (unaware of its provenance) was the obvious copyvios, numerous quotations in the references. I deleted the copyvios, thinking they were rookie mistakes, and then I added information and sources. In the meantime, Richard had asked a third party to fix the article's history by moving his original subpage over the page, leading the third party to restore the copyvios and erase my changes.

Now it's a very minor mess, and I'm not sure what the proper way forward is. Plan A is to just revert and move on. Plan B is asking here, and I've opted for Plan B. I'll mention the new editor created some other pages that may have the same copypaste/copyvio issues, I just briefly looked. Richard's other subpages may also be problems, I have not looked.

I have not named the two other editors, both seem to have acted GF, and if either needs to be told something constructive, presumably their Talk pages suffice. While Richard also seems GF here, this looks like he still does not seem to get copyvio. (And I have no idea of the fine points of his ban.) Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you think using the quote parameter in the citation templates is "obvious copyvios" and you "deleted the copyvios" you really need to study the fair use policy at Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The only violation of Wikipedia copyright policy and plagiarism policy was by the user who copy and pasted my work and attributed it to themselves. They contacted me when they realized they had made an error, and I contacted Sandstein to correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was the admin whom Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) asked to fix the copypaste article creation by another editor by moving the article history from his user space into mainspace. I was then not aware of his article creation ban, but another admin pointed me to this request and linked to WP:ARBRAN. I am now deleting the article Robert Martinson as an arbitration enforcement action: The ban was apparently made because Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has previously violated copyright, and therefore the prohibition extends to all articles based wholly on his work, whether or not it was he who moved them into mainspace. This should settle the matter as far as I'm concerned, unless anybody wants to consider sanctions for any involved editor via WP:AE.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting it was improper, if you had doubts, you should have migrated it back to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson and not delete it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, so if an admin finds sufficient copyvios in a mainspace article to delete it, sending it back or restoring it to userspace would be irresponsible. BMK (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Using the quote feature built into the citation templates is not a violation of copyright, it is the definition of the Wikipedia sanctioned fair-use policy. You are welcome to argue about how much material constitutes fair-use at the Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." If you think that the definition of Wikipedia fair-use is wrong, then you should lobby to have the quotation feature contained in over 100,000 citations removed from all of Wikipedia. Removing them adhoc from one article is not the way to do it. While I am blocked from moving articles into mainspace there is no restriction from others moving them into mainspace at my request or by me giving permission for someone asking to move it. However, it is a violation of copyright and a violation of rules against plagiarism to copy and paste my work into a new article under the name of another author. If you think that me quoting the New York Times and properly attributing it is a copyright violation, then you also have to believe that me quoting Wikipedia policy above is a copyright violation, weird world isn't it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Except that you don't actually need the extended quotations in the footnotes at all. Footnote quotes should only really be used where the source is large and/or difficult to navigate (i.e. no page numbers) so that the reader may struggle to find the source for the citation, or the source contains differing viewpoints so that it is necessary to pinpoint the actual sentence you are using as a source. In this case, neither applies. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the policy and you should should state that it is your personal interpretation. You are presenting it as fact. The exact wording of facts from the original source prevents semantic drift, we have no idea if the source material will be available in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. The original article may read that someone was "from a farm near Fooville", the next editor may rewrite to read that he was "born on a farm near Fooville" and the next editor may change it to "born in Fooville" and the next "born in Fooville, New Jersey. Each small change causes the information to drift slightly and that drift may or may-not be correct, every editor does this when they change wording. The reader has no idea that drift is taking place, unless presented with the original source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• What you're saying is that including the copyvio quote simply saves editors from looking up the RS. That's not an acceptable reason. Choor monster (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is exactly what I wrote, re-read it. Once again you are using the inflammatory "copyvio" for fair-use as defined by Wikipedia policy. If you cannot discuss it in neutral terms you are purposefully being inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• (Response to RAN/ec) In the article in question, you had more full sentence quotation from five NYT articles than you had written in the body of the article. That in itself is ridiculous. Worse, your quotations met none of FUR. Nothing except laziness or incompetence prevented you from summarizing the contents of the NYT articles and leaving out the actual quotations. We're not here for pull-quote journalism.
• The quote parameter is for responsible usage.
• I recently created an article Kelayres massacre, over 20K, with fifty footnotes, and I incorporated a grand total of one quotation, from an editorial, since the exact tone seemed to be just as essential to the whole story as the factual content of the editorial (which may, in fact, have been very little). (And there were two FUR pictures, and one PD picture which I asked about on WP:MCQ, just to play it safe.) You? You're not even trying. Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well you are awesome that is why your articles do not use the quote feature. However, using words like "obvious copyvios" and "incompetence" makes you less awesome. You are inserting your opinion and personal style as as Wikipedia law. If you do not like using the quote parameter, do not use it. If you think it should never be used, lobby to have it removed globally at the talk page for fair-use policy. Also, Wikipedia:FUR policy is for images. Also, we are not journalists, so I am not using "pull-quote journalism", we are writing a reference-work. Journalists use primary sources, reference-work writers rely primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion seems to be the consensus opinion. I think it should be used. As I said: responsibly. I'll point out I use it frequently over on Wiktionary, since presenting exact quotations over there serves an accepted educational purpose. Choor monster (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• If it was Wikipedia policy you would have already quoted me the chapter and verse where it is specifically stated as I have already done above. We all have high opinions of our own opinions, but that doesn't make them Wikipedia policy, it is just magical thinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• RAN: Given that there's still a lot of work left to do at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, and WP:ARBRAN specifically states "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions" (referring to the ban on article creation), why are you not doing that before you create articles? —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) So now RAN is creating draft articles with the same kind of copyright problems he will not acknowledge to even exist. Copyright infringement in the Draft space is the same as copyright infringement in the mainspace. It's certainly a violation in spirit, if not the letter, of ARBRAN. Is it time for an amendment to that case? KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your outrage, but again "copyright infringement" is incorrect, you clearly have a limited understanding of fair-use as defined by the United States Supreme Court or by Wikipedia policy of fair-use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What SCOTUS permits is irrelevant to us. Citing it is a red-herring, and a serious sign that you don't get WP and WP:COPYVIO. We hold by our own stricter policies. What newspapers and journals and the like do under Fair Use is not something we're supposed to imitate. Choor monster (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, please stop saying it is in the Bible, just read the Bible. If you are quoting exact Wikipedia policy quote me the exact chapter and verse. This is not the first time I have asked you to quote policy, and not express your opinion as if it were policy. Note that I quoted you the exact text of the Wikipedia policy on fair-use and put it in quotations above, which under your opinion, is a copyright violation. I directly quoted a copyrighted source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm not outraged. Nothing on this website gives me an emotion that remotely approaches outrage. Second, when you've spent the hundreds of hours I have cleaning up copyright problems, we'll talk about who understands copyright and who does not. The NFCC policy clearly states that Wikipedia uses a more stringent standard than does US copyright law. Either you get that or you don't. If you get it, you'll stop what you're doing now. If you don't, you'll be forced to stop what you're doing later. Up to you. KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up a pile of poop off the bathroom floor does not mean you have the equivalent of an M.D. in proctology or have a Ph.D. in scatology. If you think the "more stringent standard" applies, then work to define it. You can lobby that quotes can be no more than three sentences, or two sentences, or one sentence, or three words. You can lobby that the title of books, and the title of news articles, be restricted to the first three words or the first three letters. You can lobby to have the quote parameter removed from all the citation templates. Until then you are just expressing your personal opinion of how you interpret the Wikipedia fair-use, which is fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course Wikimedia policy is based on United States case law, to deny it is just silly. Every image loaded to Wikimedia commons that is in the public domain in the source country must also be in the public domain under United States law because our servers are based here in the United States. We decided that images from the National Portrait Gallery loaded to Wikipedia followed United States law despite being served with takedown notice in the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A non-sequitur. WP:CIR for articles and Talk discussions. Choor monster (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now you are quoting essays, at least that is a step up from saying that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy, but you are still telling people to read the Bible, again cite the chapter and verse or quote what you are referring to. "Go read the Bible, the answer is there" is never useful. If you found something relevant in the essay WP:CIR, then quote it to me, don't tell me to read it and guess which sentence you found relevant. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, you haven't answered the question posed by SpacemanSpiff above. There is still a huge amount outstanding at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. Why are you not cleaning those issues up before creating new articles? After all, that's exactly what the sanction stated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not found any, that is why. Spending the next ten years certifying that the previous ten years of edits do not contain any copyright violations, is a waste of time. If there are any more clear examples, a bot can find them, and I will fix them. Copyright isn't subjective, if a bot cannot find them, how can I be expected to? When we have people who think they understand copyright and fair-use, that do not ... as per the comments above, there really is no way of satisfying their manufactured outrage. During the ANI someone said that my quoting a 1905 New York Times article was a copyright violation. And, by the way, my new articles in my user space are awesome. The people I write about deserve no less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While CorenSearchBot flags any new articles that contain copyright violations, there is no bot that checks existing Wikipedia articles for copyright violations. That task has to be done by hand, one diff at a time. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It just needs to be modified to run against the current state of an article and not the first edit of an article. And of course it needs to be run against all of Wikipedia and rank articles on a scale from 1 to 10. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. First, we pay for CSB to do its searches, and the burden of doing this against all articles is astronomically higher than the burden of doing this against new articles. Also, new articles are considerably less likely to find Wikipedia mirrors (legitimate or otherwise) and, when they do, that often highlights another problem - unattributed splitting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the nuclear option. Since the only possible reason for RAN to create new articles in his user space (there are scores of them) is so someone will move them into mainspace, thereby circumventing his article-creation ban, I would think, following Sandstein's point, that they should all be deleted. If RAN is interested in editing Wikipedia, there's plenty of work to be done on existing articles, or, as SpacemanSpiff and Black Kite suggest, he could stop bitching that it will take "10 years" to fix all his copyright violations, and just get to work fixing them. It's not as if he started to do so and then gave up, he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever. If he had spent all the time between the institution of the ban and now helping to fix his copyright violations -- instead of creating new articles in his user space with more copyright violations -- he might not be finished, but he'd have a damn good case for having his ban lifted due to his services in cleaning up the mess he had made. Instead, RAN continues to refuse to concede that there are any copyright violations, despite the very clear community and ArbCom consensus that there are, and a major form of them was his extensive misuse of the quote parameter. BMK (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Struck statement per Sphilbrick's comment in the section below. BMK (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the manufactured outrage and please do not libel me with "he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever." Anyone can see all the work I have done simply by looking at the first 100 articles I created in 2005-2006 and then seeing the post ANI changes I made to them. I removed the hidden text of the source documents that I was using to write the biographies. I trimmed long quotations and reworded Air Force *.mil biographies which may/may-not be government public domain. User:Beyond My Ken and I have been antagonistic for years, and he uses every opportunity to try and get me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No outrage -- is that going to be your standard attack on your critics? -- just a possible solution to the problem you have made, which is to delete all your user space articles as straight-forward violations of your topic ban to not create articles. I recognize that there are other possible solutions, such as your being indef-blocked, or some combination of the various choices. BMK (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• If there is some doubt whether the articles in his user space are typical RAN creations -- which is to say. abusive of the quote parameter to an extent that they are copyvios, I would suggest that Moonriddengirl or some other admin well-versed in copyright matter take a look at a random sampling of his user-space articles, and use the result of that examination to determine if the nuclear option is a viable choice or not. Alternately, they can all be tagged with G12 speedy deletion templates, and individual admins can decide on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I have never understood why RAN has been allowed to take the path he has, which is to clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban - one that was first put in place by the community, and then endorsed and taken over by ArbCom. BMK (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome that you can read minds too: "clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to read your mind, it's easy enough for everyone to read your actions, and your words speak for themselves. BMK (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @Moonriddengirl:, which I forgot to do above. BMK (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• The quotation parameter is a fine parameter when used in moderation (and completely unproblematic when used with public domain or compatibly licensed material), but the idea that it should be used to archive the content in case the source becomes unavailable in the future is not supported by WP:NFC, which tries in simple language to explain the transformative use of quotations. Capturing the content for fear that it won't be available later is not on that list - if anything, that's far more likely to be seen as competitive with the original publication, as we eliminate the need for our readers to access the original. In terms of reviewing the drafts, I think it would be better if somebody with less history dealing with RAN's copyright issues undertake this, BMK. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's understandable. BMK (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• RAN: Please explain how this is in line with our fair use policy. This is now becoming a case of having to update the original CCI and waste yet more time of other editors and as KrakatoaKatie suggests above, it's time for an amendment to the case to stop any more addition of content, period. Given that this is a two day old violation and that our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space, any admin is welcome to take an AE action here (I just don't have the time or inclination to looking at the history right now to do so myself). —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• You need to explain how it violates fair-use policy, since you are making the accusation. "Our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space." Where is that rule coming from? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Non-free content criteria#Policy

  9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (emphasis added)

  BMK (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is image policy, it states that the file has to be deleted. No fair-use images on user pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, once again you show your ignorance. WP:NFCC isn't just about images, it's about any non-free content, visual or textual. Someday you ought to read the policy so that you can actually follow it.

Policy

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

#9 I quoted above comes directly after this in the same section. It applies to all non-free content. BMK (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's strange is that the quote is totally unnecessary. It does not provide any pertinent information that's not in the article, except for the name of the Governor, which is in the title of the article cited. BMK (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ARBRAN has this to say: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing. I don't see anything restricting that remedy to article space; perhaps it's time for an indef block? Whether through AE or ARCA I'm not sure. GoldenRing (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Lest we forget, although it doesn't come into play in this discussion, RAN is actually subject to twin topic bans. The one we've been referring to here disallows him from creating new articles, and its twin disallows him from uploading images to en.wiki. The reason for this was also copyright-related, as part of the restriction is that if he uploads a copyright-violating image to Commons and uses it on en.wiki, it will be treated as a copyright violation to en.wiki. Clearly, when ArbCom made these restrictions -- which can be found at WP:Editing restrictions -- they had absolutely no faith that RAN understood what is and isn't a copyright violation, which is a powerful reason for ignoring his commentary here regarding copy-vios: he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. BMK (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

By your definition we cannot use the title of news articles, remember they are also copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you see, once again you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about, since titles are specifically not copyrightable. BMK (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Short phrase headlines are not copyrightable, however headlines such as: "Gen. E. A. M'Alpin Dies At Ossining. Former Adjutant General of New York Stricken at His Country Home in His 69th Year. Long in National Guard. Tobacco Merchant and Republican Leader Owned Land on Which Hotel McAlpin Stands." It would not constitute a "short phrase" because it contains original expression. "General McAlpin Dies" would not be copyrightable as a headline since it states non-copyrightable facts under the "short phrase" rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, SpacemanSpiff quotes from WP:ARBRAN above, where ArbCom endorses and take up the community ban. It refers to this AN/I thread, in which it was decided to make permanent the initial temporary ban. That initial ban can be found here, where it is phrased as: "[H]e is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves". (Note that there's no specification of where the new articles are created.) So, given this clear ban, why, when I look at RAN's talk page, do I see that he is submitting his user space articles to WP:Articles for Creation? Does he somehow think that the fact that someone else pushes the button to make his article appear in mainspace absolves him of his restriction from creating new articles, and that asking other people to make page moves for him doesn't mean that the page move is essentially his? What he is doing is clearly Wikilawyering around his sanctions and pushing hard against the boundaries of his bans by enlisting other editors and AfC as his proxies. That he has gotten away with this behavior for so long is pretty amazing, actually. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• My summary: A properly attributed quote is not a copyright violation either under United States copyright law or Wikipedia !law. If you want to restrict all quotations to a single sentence or a single word, then lobby to make that so. The only clear copyright violation was by the user that cut-and-pasted my nascent user-space article and put it in mainspace and attributed it to themselves. It was corrected, when the cut-and-paster contacted me, by Sandstein and there was with no ill will toward the cut-and-paster by me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your understanding of US copyright law, the fair-use doctrine, and Wikipedia's NFCC policy (which is deliberately more restrictive) is fundamentally flawed, as shown by your past history, your current actions, and your commentary in this thread. You appear to be making it up as you go along, without truly understanding the real issues, or why your actions contravene your sanctions. You have, in a variety of ways, violated your topic bans, apparently very deliberately so -- just as you violated your community-placed ban before the case went to ArbCom, where you were not slapped on the wrist, but given a last chance instead of being indef blocked. You did not take that last chance, which required you to help clean up your existing copyright violations, choosing instead to continue to create new violating articles in your user space. There really is no excuse for any of these actions on your part. BMK (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the use of AFC to verify the contents of drafts, the topic ban is pretty clear that he is banned from article creation / creating new articles. This doesn't specify in what manor, so he's bypassing the direct approach by creating articles through AFC (or by having other editors moving his drafts), which is still in violation of the topic ban. (striken in relation to Choor monster's note relating to this. However, in addition to that, the topic ban included a ban on page moves, yet his page move log is pretty full. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Without actually seeing the article in question, it is rather hard to tell if there were copyvios there. I will note simply that there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources. Indeed, it is rather common in historical areas. The other example given from RA Norton's space (I assume that refers to footnote 2) has a quote consisting of one and a half sentences, which is rather hard to judge as copyvio and not fair use. Whether a quote of such a length is necessary or not, it is rather a stretch to call it a copyvio. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That example is from 1912, so it is PD. Assuming a later date as in many RAN articles, note that there was no need to refer to the article by every last subheading—the first heading suffices—the quotation is longer than the article in question! Note too, it's not US Fair Use which is relevant, but WP:FAIRUSE. Note also RAN's defense of his quotations: he seems to very strongly believe in close paraphrasing and nothing but close paraphrasing, and the point of including the quotation is to seemingly discourage anyone from rewriting one of his close paraphrases. It certainly serves no other purpose here on WP. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Kingsindian: Please keep in mind that we don't actually follow the normal "fair-use doctrine", we have our own rules, WP:NFCC which are deliberately more restrictive than fair-use. One can make the argument that we should just follow fair-use doctrine, but the fact is that we don't. Because of that, any use of a quotation, of whatever length, needs to be necessary for the article, and should not simply repeat information that has been written into the article in a non-quoted, non-plagiarized manner, which is the preferred way to deal with sourced information. There have been any number of times when I determined that any re-writing of a source's statement was going to water down, misrepresent or too closely follow the quote from the source, and I chose to directly quote the source to get the correct flavor and attitude it conveyed, but the quote didn't repeat something I wrote, it replaced it as being the best representation of the cite. RAN's use of the "quote" parameter in his citations is, instead, repetitive and, generally, totally unnecessary.

Our policy says quite specifically "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", but RAN operates on the opposite basis, that he can use quotes whenever he wants to, even when they are repetitive and unnecessary. Such usage would mostly survive scrutiny under the fair-use doctrine, but it is not in line with out NFCC policy. That RAN cannot or will not recognize this (or indeed the intent of his topics bans) is why we are here discussing this. BMK (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever standard of "fair-use" one uses, one and a half sentences surely qualifies. I would barely be able to write any content if such a restrictive standard is used. For instance, I quoted two whole sentences here (at the very end). I hope I am not going to get banned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume an official government committee's statement is PD. Even if it were a private committee making an official statement about some investigation, its exact wording would typically meet NFCC. In contrast, the exact wording of a newspaper summarizing for us what some committee said, or even any PD document, would typically not meet NFCC. Why is this so difficult to understand? Choor monster (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Please also keep in mind RAN's history. He's on an official short leash because of his past infractions, you're not. BMK (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, with respect only to the note "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources", I just wanted to clarify that there are indeed such rules in both Wikipedia ("Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." WP:NFC) and the US copyright law that governs us.  :) As our article on fair use notes, amount and substantiality of copied content is a determinative factor. (cf. http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) Prudent use of quotations is not only permitted but good practice, but extensive quotations of any text that is copyrighted and not compatibly licensed is forbidden on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "extensive" cannot be identified here any more than it is in law, since what qualifies as extensive is defined by a number of factors, including the centrality of the content and its original length, as well as a review of the other factors of fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• When the source is not an official actor regarding some content being written up (if it were, the exact wording is inherently significant), I personally apply the "everybody quotes it" test. Strong editorials and reviews and so on are often the most interesting reactions to something, and tend to get quoted by later writers trying to capture the flavor of initial reactions. In contrast, routine journalism rarely gets quoted by later writers, and is normally never part of the story, then or later, so we should avoid quoting it too. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl and Choor monster: The two sentences which I quote are not from a government statement, but from a book (actually the book is cited by a journal article, and I quote the journal article). I am of course aware that very long quotations are not a good idea, but as "extensive" is not defined exactly, I apply common sense here. One and half sentences (in the case of RAN) and two sentences (in my case), are surely within the bounds of "brief" and not "extended". Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be quoting one Mohammed Hyder, just not directly from his own recently published memoir October Coup. So far as I can tell, Hyder was a government official, or a high-up NGO functionary, or the like. He wasn't working for the Indian government but for the Hyerabad state, and as someone on the losing side, he could not get official standing for his version. I see absolutely no comparison between your inclusion there and RAN's quotations elsewhere. You are doing things the right way, he is not. Choor monster (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Choor monster: Hyder's memoir, October Coup is as much subject to copyright as the New York Times is. As is the academic journal which quoted his book, which I quoted myself. If quoting one and a half sentences from the New York Times is copyvio, so is quoting two sentences from his book. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Hyder himself was a participant of some importance in the events described in the article. That elevates his words from random journalism to likely NFCC acceptable. Quoting the NYT verbatim regarding the US scandal Watergate or the UK scandal Hackergate would lean to being not allowed here. However, quoting Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists most associated with Watergate, or any of the Murdoch News journalists, both guilty parties and shocked coworkers, would probably be fair game. Same thing here, not the same thing regarding RAN's use of NYT quotations. I'll mention that in the original Robert Martinson article that sparked this discussion, there was simply a stub of three sentences or so, five footnotes, and all five quoted a full sentence from the NYT, one a bit long. In the new version, not one single quotation appears. There may be some forthcoming, from Martinson or a colleague. But random journalism? No benefit whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, my comment to you here has nothing to do with what source you're using or how many sentences you're quoting. :) It is purely confirmed to responding to your comment that "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources" - I want to be sure that you and others realize that there is such a rule. Better to be clear on that than to inadvertently run afoul of it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to defend or deride RAN but either I'm misreading our Fair use policy or several people here are. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. Brief Quotes don't need to meet the 10 criteria. They just need to be cited, they don't even need to be necessary or justified. By the letter of the rule. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

While unfortunately the link to the MOS (added a few months ago) seems to have introduced some confusion, the guideline has explicit information on the use of text - including the necessity of them. The policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content." That guideline, incorporated by reference in the copyright policy, has an entire section on text. By the letter of the rule, quotations must accord. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

Delete all articles in RAN's userspace and block indefinitely with the block only to be removed for the sole purpose of clearing up his existing copyvio issues and for no other reason.

Support as nom. Too much time and energy has been spent on RAN already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a multi-million dollar installation. You can't make that kind of decision. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support After reading through all of the above and taking a peak at some of RAN's work I see an editor that is unwilling to work within community norms even after having them repeatedly and over time explained to him. That he is unwilling to take on board criticism of his methods and conform to community norms regarding copyright indicates to me he is not competent to judge copyright issues or add material to the project.

  Since the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to document knowledge without infringing on copyright we take an extremely cautious line on the use of non-free materials so as not to put the project's reputation at risk or open it to legal action. Based on RAN's unwillingness to address the community's concern with his work and his obstinate refusal to even recognize there is a problem I support not only the deletion of his articles, which were created at the very least in violation of the spirit of his ban if not in fact, I also support an indef ban block from Wikipedia until such time as he is willing to recognize and fix the community's concern with his work. Jbh^Talk 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I am the editor who brought up the "nuclear option" in the first place, I would actually much prefer that RAN acknowledge his errors and pledge himself to help undo them before we go there. As I said below, I think that his skills make him potentially a net positive, and I'd like to see him make some effort to make that happen, perhaps working with a mentor, before we go nuclear. So I look forward to seeing some indication from RAN as this discussion continues that he understands what went wrong and will help ameliorate the problem. So... I'm going to continue to monitor his comments, and will decide about this proposal based on that. BMK (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Note that RAN's user subpages were permitted under the creation ban (see the Talk page) in order to demonstrate that he can create content without violating WP's terms. So talk that these articles' very existence violates the spirit of his ban is out of place, but I'll notice that so long as they stayed in his user space, nobody seems to have paid them any attention regarding copyright issues. Whether the request to move the one article to "fix" someone else's copy/paste to main space was a violation is another question. Choor monster (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's a long talk page! Is there a particular place where it's specifically stated that creation of articles in his userspace is permitted, or are you going on the fact that almost all the participants in the various discussions assumed that was the case? Because what's interesting is that the topic ban seen on ARBRAN doesn't go into details, it simply says that the community ban is endorsed and taken over by ArbCo,, and the wording of the community ban is as I posted it above, that RAN was prohibited from "creating articles" and "moving pages", without any specification of where that article creation was prohibited. It may be that having been accepted by so many people for so long, it's too late to retroactively enforce the actual wording of the topic ban, and not people's understanding of it, but unless you can point to something on the user page that I missed (which is quite possible, I couldn't read the entire thing), I don't think there's anything there that proactively says it's OK for him to do that, it's just assumed by all and sundry.
  In any event, RAN himself says in one of those discussions that the creation of those articles was designed to show that he could create non-copyvio articles, but here we are again with the same kind of NFCC-violating quotes he got in trouble with before.
  The other interesting thing about the talk page is that, fairly recently, ArbCom rejected RAN's bid to have his restrictions amended, based on an examination of his work to that point, a sign that -- at least in their opinion -- RAN is still not editing up to NFCC standards. BMK (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support sadly. Whether creating articles in user space is permitted or not seems at least plausibly a grey area; whether those articles are permitted to contain copyright violations is most definitely not. I've got a lot of sympathy for giving an editor another go and giving him a chance to demonstrate that he's understood the problems and is ready to remedy them; that chance has been offered, at great length, and the demonstration has categorically not been made. My only amendment would be that the standard offer should still be open; if he can convince someone that he's actually understood the problems and is ready to change, then he should be given another chance. Until that time, the editing privilege should be forfeit. "But there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing," in the face of overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it, is not a viable attitude for editing. GoldenRing (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support too many ban-evading and copyvio concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'm still waiting to hear from RAN, who was all over this discussion earlier, accusing critics of manufacturing outrage and making cracks about poop and proctology, but who seems to have disappeared now, when it comes time to provide some kind of pledge of cleaning up his act. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Why? He hasnt actually contributed to cleaning up his past problems in any significant manner. He has repeatedly over YEARS and multiple venues shown that he has no regard for others, wikipedia policy, community consensus or the restrictions placed on him by arbcom (who erred in not making him work solely on his own mess in the first place). I am not suggesting we nuke his userspace out of any punishment for him, I am suggesting we do it because no other editor should have to put up with his crap and vet it all to check its ok. Are you going to do it? Should we ask a specialist like Moon to have a look? Why would we wish that on someone else. There are likely loads of copyvios there *now* that will not have been looked at, because RAN thinks what he is doing is ok. Look at his responses to you above, he is a fanatic, he doesnt care about any other opinion or interpretation than his own. You want him to make some sort of commitment to being a better editor, but time and experience has shown whatever he says, whatever restrictions he is under, he will do what he wants regardless. Why are we wasting everyone's time? Given that he *will* continue the same pattern, any action we fail to take now is only making more problems in the future for other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  .....Nor should he. His problematic editing took place in the period 2005-2008, for the most part, when Wikipedia's standards for footnoting and snitching stuff from websites were looser. It's ridiculous to expect him to "clean up" ten year old editing, much of which has long since been changed and changed and changed again in the editing process. Yet that is the expectation of some people. It's absurd. Carrite (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - BMK (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles such as Robert Martinson and eccentric dance are perfectly fine and deleting such notable topics would be disruptive – cutting off our nose to spite our face. Quotations are standard practice in our articles and it seems quite bizarre to suggest otherwise – the current FA contains numerous quotations, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The only reason Eccentric dance is an adequate article is because of the work you put into it (and my copyedits didn't hurt either). The version from RAN's user space was terrible. Robert Martinson was recreated from scratch, you are not looking at RAN's version, which was deleted and can therefore be seen only by admins. You're perfectly within your rights to oppose the proposed sanction, but your rationale really isn't accurate. BMK (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block, neutral on deletion I have not thoroughly examined the articles in his userspace, but they should be individually assessed. Hopefully some of them can be salvaged with revdel to excise the copyvios (and I use copyvio here in reference to the NFCC policy). As to the indef block, RAN has been warned over and over and he simply refuses to comply with the community standards. It is one thing to place a brief quote in the body of an article and properly reference it. It is another to fill the reference section with unnecessary copied material and call it 'fair use' in every instance. I believe RAN has exhausted the community's patience here. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support the whole kit and kaboodle, indef included: We've been around the block with RAN before. A lot. His block log reads like the rap sheet of a lifer, he's got a hundred hits on the ANI archives [179], and I bet there are longstanding productive editors with fewer edits than are totaled in those archives. He not only has proven he's more trouble than his contributions are worth, he proved it years ago. Ravenswing 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: See my comments in the previous section. I can see some of the points being raised by people, but bringing out the pitchforks is a huge overreaction. I already dealt with one example in my comments above, another example (this one in RAN's userspace) has a long quote from a jazz historian/critic. I can't really see why Beyond My Ken considers that version a copyvio, but not the current version, since this also includes the same quote. It is a wholly proper and relevant quote, as far as I am concerned. It perhaps could be made shorter, but I don't see it as ban-worthy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose is the only option here: Considering that RAN's user space exists with ArbCom's knowledge, I don't see how there is any scope for discussion here beyond the Robert Martinson article. His request to User:Sandstein was apparently improper, but Sandstein's deletion as an Enforcement Action (not logged, btw) presumably ended that particular issue. Since ArbCom decided to leave the fixing of his articles on a case-by-case basis, our options seem to be limited to that. Dig in or bring the issue back to ArbCom. Nuking and/or banning are almost certainly off the table at the moment. Choor monster (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. RAN was strongly admonished in ARBRAN to stop what he was doing before he faced an indef block (the quote is up above); that block can certainly come from consensus. And RAN is still at it - yesterday he added the same reference with the same long 'quote' from a New York Times opinion piece to five different articles. It's as if he goes through the NYT every morning looking for opportunities to add its material anywhere he can. This is beyond an article creation problem. If consensus fails here, we can certainly go back to ArbCom, but they like to see us try to fix it ourselves first. I think that applies here. KrakatoaKatie 13:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• And it's all happening in his User space, and has been ongoing with almost no concern anyway. And suddently now there's a fire? I don't buy it. I see instead that this current thread came from a comedy of good-faith errors, including one actionable request on RAN's part that received AE, while the bigger long-range problem is exactly what it was a week ago. In other words, I don't believe it's proper to make up for the community's negligent avoidance of short-term efforts with one easy cumulative better-late-than-never response. That's just dirty pool. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - it's not all happening in his user space. These edits were made to existing articles in the space of seven minutes:
  • first addition of reference to Hit to lead
  • second addition to Lead compound
  • third addition to Pre-clinical development
  • fourth addition to Approved drug
  • fifth addition to Clinical trial

This is the issue about which RAN was strongly admonished. It's not dirty pool. We've been around and around with him over this for years and he will. not. stop. KrakatoaKatie 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's also being overlooked that RAN's ban includes not making page moves. Check WP:ARBRAN or WP:Editing restrictions, and you'll see that ArbCom did not fashion a new topic ban, they simply endorsed the community's topic ban and took it over as their own. The community's ban, which can be found here says that the topic ban is "from creating new articles and from performing page moves" (underlining added). This is quite clear, and since ArbCom simply accepted, endorsed and adopted it, RAN's ban definitely includes page moves, and yet RAN's page move log is, as pointed out above, crammed with page moves. We can argue over whether the article creation ban was meant for everywhere, or just in articlespace, but the page move ban is clear, which means that each and every one of the page moves in his log is a violation of his topic ban. BMK (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and have struck my oppose. But I still don't like it all blowing up at once. The alternate proposal below is a step in the right direction. Choor monster (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose blocking Richard Norton. Oppose messing with Richard Norton's user page or any subpage of Richard Norton's User page. Look, he is not circumventing ANYTHING by listing new starts on his page. That is how he is SUPPOSED to be starting new articles on WP: launching them there, to be taken into mainspace by others UNDER THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COPYRIGHT CLEANLINESS. It's an idiotic system, he should be free to create new articles like anyone else, but we've been around the mulberry bush three times and it is what it is. I've told him five times, minimum, to STOP USING THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION OF THE CITATION TEMPLATE and he fucking won't listen and if that's what's getting him in trouble here, I have very little sympathy. But, for the record (and you can check on this if you doubt me) it is NOT a violation of any topic ban, in spirit or de jure, for him to be launching new articles in user space for others to take to mainspace. Anyone who has voted for action against him on that basis needs to educate themselves on the matter. Carrite (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • While his user pages are sitting there *not being checked* they probably (a good bet given his history) still include violations, while you are correct it is the responsibility of anyone who then puts it into mainspace, a user-draft is still a copyvio even if its not in mainspace. The problem is no one is going to go through them all (unless you are volunteering?) so they could have been sitting there for months and months with no oversight apart from RAN's. Which he is not competant to judge. If someone is willing to stand up and say 'I will check all of his user drafts for violations' then fine, I am happy to remove that part of the proposal above. But you freely admit he wont listen to instruction on the quote function despite repeatedly being told he is wrong by numerous people over an extended period, by the community, by Arbcom, by yourself. Everyone has tried escalating deterrants, there is no where left to go apart from an addition to his (already lengthy) sanctions stating he may not make any edits other than basic prose. No quotes, citation templates, nothing. If you think that will work feel free to post it as a counter? (-edit- I see you did) However at this point perhaps his entire userspace needs to go to MFD Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  I don't think the "solution" of having other people mule his starts to mainspace under their own authority works. That's a matter for Arbitration Enforcement or ArbCom, ultimately. I ported one or two over long ago but have pretty much decided not to do any more owing to RAN's use of the "quote =" parameter, which I object to on the basis of aesthetics and general uselessness. All that shit should be stripped out of the footnotes by RAN himself and he should be allowed to make new starts, bearing in mind that any copyright violations are gonna result in a very lengthy block. That's how to fix the problem (while improving the encyclopedia), for the record. The current system is not working, on that we can agree. Carrite (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  Given that my original proposal was 'blocked until and only he clears up his own mess' I dont see that you actually disagree with my proposal :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Another proposal

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

---

Richard A. Norton is hereby expressly prohibited from using the "quote =" parameter of the citation template in any edit that he makes after Sept. 15, 2015. While it generally falls within the definition of Fair Use under American copyright law to use this parameter, we have a right to demand the very highest standard of copyright cleanliness in his work. There is too much controversy with some, too much grey area, for him to continue to use this parameter. He has been asked nicely to stop, told emphatically to stop, he needs now to be formally stopped from using the quote parameter. Carrite (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Carrite (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've been half following this for a few days (since it was pretty much the first Arbcom case I dealt with as an Arb). I don't want to see Richard removed, but I couldn't think of a decent solution. That there's such a simple solution available that I missed makes me feel quite foolish. I'm glad Carrite mentioned it! Worm^TT(talk) 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'd also be willing to go further and stop Richard from using quotes of any form anywhere in any article, but I do think the above solution is sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support However I still favour the above. This just puts us into a situation where someone will have to monitor him regularly. He was banned from page moves above and that didnt stop him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Note that there is still the problem that Richard likes very close paraphrases. Choor monster (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I too would be willing to ban him from using any quote of any kind in any article, but this will do for now. KrakatoaKatie 13:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2nd choice I too would support a ban from using any quote. I think such a narrow restriction as not using "quote=" is open to finding ways around and we will be right back here with no other option but a site ban. RAN has shown an obstinate case of IDHT when told his quoting strategy is not acceptable and has shown that he is lax at best about following community sanctions cf. the page move part of his ban mentioned above. Jbh^Talk 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Even though this does not entirely address the behavioral problems. BMK (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support we'll have less to worry about this way, blocked or not Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per explanations above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. NE Ent 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't recall the ArbCom case, in which I was involved, discussing RAN creating articles in draftspace, so we didn't explicitly ban it. There was a later clarification on the matter, in which the outcome was that use of draftspace wasn't banned, but that anyone who moved one of RAN's article's into mainspace would assume full responsibility for it. I would be uncomfortable if RAN were asking people to move his articles into mainspace without making them aware of the consequences, so in addition to the prohibition from using the "quote =" parameter, I feel we should add a requirement that all RAN's draftspace articles carry a clear notice at the top that he is under a topic ban for copyright violations, and that anyone who moves the article into mainspace needs to check the article thoroughly first, and takes full responsibility for any copyright violations they introduce into mainspace, which may result in sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• That is an excellent idea. BMK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo recently stated that "extended quotes, properly sourced, are not generally a violation of copyright. ... We have never, to my recollection and knowledge, had a legal complaint or threat of any kind about a properly sourced quote." RAN's use of quotes is therefore not a significant problem requiring such sanctions. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No one has claimed otherwise. The criticism is that he violates WP:NFCC. We commonly call this "copyvio", short for "violation of WP policy regarding copyrighted materials", and not short for "violation of US law concerning copyright". Choor monster (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Supplementary proposal to add a move notice to RAN's draft articles

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

---

So users are aware of the situation, the following notice should be added to all RAN's draftspace articles:

RAN is to ensure that any article he creates or has created in draftspace should have the notice attached at the top. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Excellent suggestion. KrakatoaKatie 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Great idea. BMK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - SilkTork - Change "due to excessive copyright violations" to "due to problems in the past with copyright violations" and I think such a thing is reasonable. His copyright violations in the past were almost completely limited to a concrete block of time (2005 to 2008 for the most part, with a few somewhat problematic instances up to 2010). The "excessive" part relates to the fact that he is an extremely prolific content writer — and problems with 3% of a huge number (making a percentage up from thin air) amounts to a very large number. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have boldly made the change I suggest above. Pinging KrakatoaKatie and Beyond My Ken, in case they have any objections, Silk Tork having already been pinged. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Fine by me, I still support. BMK (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Okay with me. KrakatoaKatie 18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support modified version of the flag, which gets potential movers up to speed in a neutrally-phrased manner. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support very useful notice, thank you for coming up with it SilkTork Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Other problems

The articles Stuyvesant Polyclinic and Eccentric dance began in RAN's User space. Choor monster (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. The people who imported them to mainspace are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE that they be copyright clear. Carrite (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But see the above section, which would help insure that people know what it is a they're importing. BMK (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I wish I had seen this thread earlier although I see it is not all that old. I see some black-and-white statements to describe a situation which in some cases is not that clear-cut. I am very sympathetic to BMKs frustration, but I wish they had not made the strong statement that RAN has never helped clean up some of the copyright issues. I may be one of the few editors who can say I have worked with RAN to resolve some articles. That said, my involvement ended because we could not reach a resolution of the use of the quote feature in references. It is not quite fair to suggest that RAN is deliberately disregarding copyright rules. I think he accepts that we cannot violate copyright but he believes his use of the quote feature is in compliance with the rules. I fully get that we have tried multiple times to explain that we do not agree with his position, but there is a distinction between a difference of opinion about the application of a role, and a blatant disregard for rules.

I tried, very hard, to resolve the quote in reference issue. I don't have the links handy but I can find them if someone thinks they are relevant.

I think it would be an unrealistic expectation that he do know content related work until all copyvio issues are resolved. However it might be reasonable to propose some compromise, for example, some percentage of edits over some period of time have to be devoted to resolving open copyright issues.

I will volunteer to spend some time working with RAN to resolve some of the open issues. We will have to identify items other than the quote within reference articles, but I'm sure there are many such examples. I think we will still have to resolve the quote within reference issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My prior attempts to solve the quote in reference issue are here:

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 32#Use of quote parameter in footnote - a proposal to provide better guidance--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If I am incorrect that RAN has never helped to clean up his copyright violations, then I withdraw the statement and apologize for it, but it cannot be denied that his involvement has been minimal at best, and that he now consistently rejects suggestions that he continue that work with the "10 years" canard. As for "content work", the AN/I discussions specifically shied away from saying the RAN couldn't do content work, so he is free to add content to existing articles, even to expand sub-stubs to full-blown articles, what he is not allowed to do is to create articles which has been his primary focus for quite a while, albeit in his userspace and not in mainspace. BMK (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the impression that RAN simply does not understand this Internet thingie. Many of the examples I've seen probably pass US Fair Use, and he believes that ends the discussion, when of course, the only rules that matter are WMF policies/guidelines, which are much more stringent. That, and his employment of an endless succession of time-wasting Wookie defenses (look, over there, somewhere there's a issue in which WMF took an expansive view of public domain!) is simply a complete failure of competence. Choor monster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the RAN is an excellent researcher, that he comes up with information that many other editors would never find. His skills as a writer aren't quite as good, but still much more than acceptable, and his ability to nose out subjects that haven't been covered by the encyclopedia is very good indeed. Where he fails is, I think, in judgment, as exemplified by his sticking like glue to his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, and by the choice of which of those subjects he finds to write about. With some frequency the notability of the subject is fairly borderline, but, just as with the use of the quote parameter, once RAN has decided to do something, he digs in and resists all attempts to change his course. That is unfortunate, as such a modus vivendi for a person in his delicate position (3 topic bans and a strong admonishment from ArbCom) needs to be more flexible and to understand the rules he is supposed to live by, because failure to do so would seem to inevitably lead to an indef block or even a site ban. That would, I think, be a shame, because he has the potential to be a net positive if he would only be more reasonable, give up the idea that his judgment on these matters is infallible, and listen to what other editors are telling him. Despite his statement above, I don't want to see him kicked off the site, I just want him to be able to improve the encyclopedia and at the same time follow policy and his restrictions. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. He doesn't have the potential at all to be a net positive; what he has are the skills to be a net positive. We've had years' worth of observation, many blocks, a blizzard of ANI complaints and multiple bans to demonstrate that he just doesn't have the temperament for it. He isn't going to be more reasonable, isn't going to listen to other editors when their words conflict with his worldview, and isn't going to accept that someone else might be right if it means that he's wrong. People like that just don't slap their foreheads one day and cry out "My God! I've been so horribly blind! I shall change my ways and become a civil, non-tendentious editor," and we should abandon the fantasy that this ever happens. Ravenswing 02:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

People need to assume good faith with Richard. He is not an unreasonable man — just a bit crabby, as very many of us hardcore content people are. He's cognizant of what he did wrong in the past and is wiling to meet the community's reasonable expectations. I will also point out that in his latest creation — Michael X. Mockus (which I have been also editing on and will be moving the mainspace shortly on my authority and at my risk), he has dropped use of the "quote=" parameter on his own based on the debate above. Don't characterize him as fanatical and unable to cooperate or work collectively — he's not. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. He joined in on the new Robert Martinson article, and besides making improvements, responded to one revert over non-RS by finding RS, and over a minor detail where I called something he put in a "pointless wikilink" in my edit summary by asking on the Talk page for a fuller explanation, and so on. In short, it's been normal editing the way we're all supposed to proceed. Choor monster (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Martinson article recreated

I have recreated the article that sparked this thread from scratch. I had planned to give it some more content first, but hit the wrong button. Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed

I have filed a request for clarification from ArbCom as to the meaning and scope of RAN's topic ban. This discussion should not be closed down because of it, but the discussion will, I hope, be better informed by the clarification. The request can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A related technical question

How exactly does one move an article from user space to mainspace while preserving the edit history? Doing a big copy-paste into a new article form is essentially plagiarism... Carrite (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

by using the move button? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. BMK (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Selfie Shoes

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

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borcker (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE? Kleuske (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is carrying bureaucracy too far, but I don't think a block is a vandalism on the account is appropriate. While I haven't checked every contribution, I checked several and did not find a single example of vandalism. That said, my guess is this individual is interested in using Wikipedia for promotion purposes, and up with that we will not put. They may or may not be able to contribute positively (I lean toward not) but they've now been labeled as a vandal which isn't supported by any evidence I have seen. Selfie shoes exist. We aren't here to be their marketing outlet, but attempting to write about them is not necessarily vandalism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider. The "selfie shoes" in question refers to a 2015 April Fools' Day hoax that went viral. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

According to what source were the selfie shoes clear heels? That was part of the problem: the same barely-cohesive text kept going into an unrelated article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Their edits don't make any sense. If I transcend my mind and try to see if from their perspective, it seems like they were engaging in OR, trying to compare designs without proper sources. This is more of a competency block, however. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Was something messed up when this was archived? All I see in there now is a "blank" unsigned comment followed by a NOTHERE claim. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Origional thread; close; content removed. Also, img deleted. Hope this helps -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Long-term "destructive" editing by User:Spshu

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

---

User:Spshu has been showing severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues in regards to numerous articles and particularly in regards to sourcing. This is characterized by large-scale WP:EDITWARRING and an unwillingness to abide by global consensus, now also joined by a general refusal to engage in reasonable discussion. I have attempted to explain the actual standards for reliable sources on Wikipedia by referring to policy (see the talk pages of the various articles mentioned below) but he simply refuses to listen.

The list of articles this highly disruptive editor has all but destroyed (or tried to destroy) in his quest for "pure enough" sources to meet his impossibly-high personal standards for reliable sourcing is long, but here is an attempt to list the most prolific ones: Template:Corus Entertainment, Disney XD (Canada), Teletoon at Night, Télétoon la nuit, Disney Channel (Canada), and La chaîne Disney. He has edit warred not only against my edits made to these articles, but also those of at least one other established editor (User:ViperSnake151), and additionally a significant number of anonymous editors (see the template's history for that).

His talk page is full of complaints against him from other editors, particularly in regards to collegiality, or lack thereof. I would highly suggest taking a look at the NUMEROUS reports against him at WP:AN3RR and related noticeboards, the latest of which resulted in a block (the relevant ones in this case came from myself and User:ViperSnake151): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Spshu&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search

It is extremely difficult to edit constructively when someone just comes along and removes a bunch of well-sourced, highly notable content without much justification, or indeed practically no justification at all as is now the case. (This is especially true given that the user in question had never edited some of these articles before I reverted his edits on some of the other ones... WP:HOUNDING, anyone?) If this user is not stopped Wikipedia risks losing a lot of articles to his disruptive – or perhaps I should say destructive – editing. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though we've since compromised by using completely different wording, this editor's continued insistence and ownership had also occured on FYI (TV channel) (as there were two seperate pages due to disagreements over whether the network's previous history would be contained within the same article), and American Sports Network (where the editor continued to assert through an interpretation of sources that this was actual television network and not a syndication package). ViperSnake151  Talk  02:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be blunt, Mdrnpndr: you have been edit-warring to insert blatantly weak sources, and you are now seeking sanctions against someone for removing content that depends on those sources. Can you imagine Britannica using anything like these sources if it were covering the same subject? You leave me with the distinct impression of continuing the tendentious editing that has previously produced eight blocks, including two indefinite blocks. Aside from blocking errors, it is highly exceptional that someone would be permitted to return from a second indefinite block. I strongly suggest that no administrator remove the third. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin's talk page semi-protected outside of policy

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

---

User talk:Connormah has been semi-protected since a brief spat of vandalism back in 2010. The link to an unprotected page is hidden. The protection policy only allows user talk pages to be semi-protected for a "short duration". Is the policy invalid or in need of change? If not, the protection of this user talk page should be lifted after five years. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection #user talk:Connormah. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring admin attention. Tiderolls 22:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Only admins can change page protection. If the issue of admins failing to enforce a policy which only they can enforce does not belong on this page then where should I post this request? --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the talk page of the policy with which you're having an issue. If you're interested in an outside opinion, I don't see your position gaining much traction. It's your time, though. Tiderolls 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Resolved The premature archiving was unneccessary. The admin fixed the problem by unprotecting the incorrectly protected page. --2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1EF:5767:E7FB:31F9 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Unknown threat from editor Kushagraasati.1

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

---

In response to my speedy tag on their userpage, this user has posted the following comment on my talk page: "Why? You insert a tag on my page . Remove it or otherwise i will do a case on you guranteed in 5 hours Kushagraasati.1 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)"

Kushagraasati.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nz101&oldid=681740542 Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a borderline legal threat (I say "seems like" because I gather English isn't that user's first language); at any rate, I erred on the side of caution and warned him/her. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User by the name of ProKro using an untolerable language

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

---

Hello I've recently updated the GDP per capita of the Maldives and mistakenly did not shorten the link (of the gdp per capita). Then it appears that a certain user by the name of ProKro repaired the link and used totally untolerable language directed toward me, thankfully, nothing can be erased when it comes to the historic. here is what he posted

Fixed lousy entry, ref fixes, link

I hope ladies and gentlemen, that you will take the necessary measures on this user. My best regards. Signed. NotAlpArslan (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Launching an ANI thread over someone being just barely uncivil is a massive overreaction. Best just to accept that not everyone is as polite as you'd like and move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, regards, Best sir is keeping this encyclopedia civil :)

The user already harrassed me and threatened me and is known for his past violations.

Best regards

Signed

NotAlpArslan (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

But it was a lousy entry. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 06:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the correction to the lousy entry. Accurate description of a bad entry is not being uncivil. GregJackP Boomer! 06:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This really isn't actionable. Someone should close this. FYI, the kind of civility whereby one habitually addresses others as "sir", "ladies and gentlemen", "best regards", is neither necessary nor usual on Wikipedia; in fact it can be grating. BethNaught (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems unusual that someone with an editing history of only 5 days would have been 'harassed' in the past. There may be some cultural misunderstanding involved, but there also appears to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work.[180] I would be very happy indeed if that edit summary were the most uncivil thing anyone ever said to me on Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Wheel war?

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Wheel war.3F

NE Ent 12:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Clear vandalism by Kintetsubuffalo

1. NotAlpArslan is strongly requested to learn what constitutes vandalism. Copyediting another editor's edit to make the text adhere to the manual of style is not vandalism.
2. Kintetsubuffalo, next time please keep this sort of comments to yourself. It will spare us all unnecessary drama.
3. NotAlpArslan, please note that further disruption of this kind will lead to your block being restored and it will be a longer, if not indefinite period. We do not hand out blocks as a means of punishment but in order to prevent damage from Wikipedia, and I'm agreeing with John Carter that you are apparently not well-suited to edit a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If you're experiencing problems with other editors the first way is not to run to this notice board and complain to the admins but to contact the other person and discuss your issues. Otherwise this comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Hello ladies and gentlemen, you might want to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berbers&type=revision&diff=681910350&oldid=681909301. I added a point in the end of a sentence and the user kintetsubuffalo just reverted it. I amically and honnestly wish, ladies and gentlemen, that you will take the necessary measures on the user who vandalized the page.NotAlpArslan (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style section on captions says we don't use punctuation for sentence fragments, which this was. Woodroar (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• (EC) Why have you not discussed it with the user ? .... Taking someone to ANI over a full stop is not only disruptive but a waste of the communities time. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My respects, it was a clear vandalism, that's why, best honnest regardsNotAlpArslan (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In no way is it vandalism to get content to adhere to the manual of style, and your persistence in this matter, both in this section, and the section below, and the fact that you have yet to make any sort of attempt to directly discuss this with the other individual involved, raises many more questions about you and your conduct than him and his. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) It wasn't vandalism .... not even in the slightest, You may want to read WP:VANDAL. –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys i am being subject to insults by user:kintetsubuffalo

Hi, take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&action=history please to take necessary measures guys. NotAlpArslan (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, while the comment is not acceptable, it is also rather clear that your own conduct is probably far below standard. I'm not sure if the repetition of a single objectionable word for a total of two is as bad as raising two separate threads at ANI for far less than really justifiable reasons. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it is an insult and its untolerable in this encyclopedia. NotAlpArslan (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And raising threads here which have little if any substance to them, particularly when you have made no visible attempt to directly engage the other, is no more tolerable, and may well be even less tolerable. I am beginning to have extremely serious questions regarding either your ability to deal with criticism, or perhaps your basic competence as per WP:CIR, or, perhaps, both. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

i'll wait for an administrator to take necessary measures. I can't edit while i am being humiliated and insulted like that. Best regards NotAlpArslan (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well judging by the fact you were blocked 6 days ago for edit warring I'd say the only "necessary measure" that will happen is you facing a very very long block!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to report multiple users

Hello, some users been harrassing me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Guys_i_am_being_subject_to_insults_by_user:kintetsubuffalo, Thanks to take necessary measures. regardsNotAlpArslan (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Some users harrassing me and me being subject to insult

Hello, some users has been harrassing me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Guys_i_am_being_subject_to_insults_by_user:kintetsubuffalo thanks to take necessary measures, regard. you might also take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&action=history. I am being subject to insults. I seek administrator intervention. thanks NotAlpArslan (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you for real ?, Someone block this editor per WP:CIR. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NotAlpArslan, okay, given what the closing admin said in the above section, how long do you think you should be blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Please semi-protect Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

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

---

Could a great and powerful admin please semi-protect Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. It's experiencing a spate of disruption and WP:BLP violations from a number of IP editors and their sock/meat puppets. Thank you.- MrX 19:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Took care of it at RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Much obliged. - MrX 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Note I have also semied the talk page for two days as socks using Nazi references there and on other pages kept showing up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

complaint against baseball bugs

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

---

Baseball Bugs made a personal attack against me.he called me a jerk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baseball_Bugs/unprotected_talk_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.98 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Please see bottom of page

You called him Politically Correct; some would take that as the worse insult. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OP is evading his block for refdesk trolling, now blocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

When providing 11 reliable sources aganst none makes the other editor frustrated calling you pariah of war criminals...

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

---

The events are happening at Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia. For time being I provided 11 reliable sources backing the statament (diff). I need to say that I am the only Serbian editor there and I am asking for sources to the side challenging me, and none are provided. Instead, User:Shokatz decides to disrupt the discussion by making personal attacks and to continue to make just wikilawyering by repeating his own interpretation of the Constitution as if he knows it better that duzens of authors. (diff). He was already warned against making WP:OR by User:Tuvixer and myself in the previous discussion. Then he makes this comment (diff) in which his frustration makes him call me a pariah of war criminals.

I have 11 reliable sources (and I can get more) backing my statement, and this user is opposing me with nothing but words and personal attacks in a ARBMAC sensitive area. I asked him repeatedly for sources but he bring none. I will not tolerate his disruption and attacks just because he doesn't like what the sources I brought say, and I am asking here please someone please to remove a clearly disruptive editor, or topic ban him. FkpCascais (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to state that the statement that there are 11 sources against none is false. 141.136.211.26 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say that in the same discussion I am facing a well-known disruptive indef-blocked editor Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading block by using IPs. He even admitted he is evading block here: User_talk:Shokatz#Hello. FkpCascais (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That clearly is not the same ip, nor the ip admitted such thing. FkpCascais is trying to block people who do not agree with him, as usual. 89.164.144.180 (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"as usual" right? You just shot yourself in the foot. FkpCascais (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, you said 3 lies. You lied about the ip being the same (one is 141.136.250.88 while the other is 141.136.211.26), you lied an ip admitted something (you failed to point to the admission, and i read it and there isn't any admission), and you lied that there is no sources for other opinion, when all the sources are clearly stated at the top of the RfC. I really have no interest in participating this. I just wanted to point out that 3 lies, since it's so strange that someone would lie in such a obvious way. 89.164.144.180 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You said at Shokatz talk page " I tried and you saw what happened to me." and you are using different IPs but there are no doubts this is all you. Please refrain from further evading block and cluttering threads and go to your talk-page and see the Wikipedia procedures for asking admins to unblock you. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So you now admit you lied about the ip's being same, and you now admit that the other ip had not admitted to being someone but he said "I tried and you saw what happened to me", whatever that means. Ok, those are 2 admissions. What about the third lie stated in the title that there are "11 reliable sources aganst none". Anyone is capable to go to the RfC and see all the sources listed at the top. What's exactly the point of this lies? You are very aware of the source that had been presented. To lie that there are none that oppose your pushing of the undefined term to the article is a clear sing of bad faith. Plus, you called them reliable when they clearly are not reliable, since none of them reference the primary source nor any of them define the term you are trying to push. Here, although this is not a report against me, i needed to state your obvious lies. Shokatz is obviously smarter than me since he obviously ignores you. 89.164.144.180 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone also please stop the harassment I am having from this indef-blocked editor? FkpCascais (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Harassment? You are calling me a sock without any cause and you modify and delete my comments and you dare to speak of harassment towards you? Have I modified or deleted any comment of yours, or have I made any personal attack against you?. You are mistaken, I'm being harassed by you. Stop modifying and deleting my comments. You are not allowed to do that.89.164.144.180 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have calculated the ranges he is using as 141.136.192.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses) and 89.164.128.0/17 (covers 32768 IP addresses). Unfortunately the tool we use to calculate collateral damage is down right now, so I am not going to be able to do any range blocks until it's up. I have blocked 89.164.144.180 for a week for block evasion as a stopgap measure. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

As usual you are lying...surprise, surprise. I never called you "a pariah of war criminals". I suggest you start reading with understanding but looking at the discussion there I am now convinced that is quite impossible for you. I have provided three [THREE] primary sources, unmodified and uninterpreted. I posted two sources one of which calls upon directly to primary sources and explains the matter. You have 11 sources indeed, but these sources fail to satisfy two major WP:RS points: 1. cite a primary source; 2. explain the issue. Now this issue would have been resolved quite a while ago if you just accepted meaningful discussion and consensus instead of your POV-pushing agenda. Need I emphasize that I find it ironic that a person complaining here is a person who was already blocked before on basis of WP:ARBMAC due to same thing. Shokatz (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Hoax hockey articles and an inappropriately granted Reviewer right

Patrickkane88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Philip Ngo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mathew Tran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For the administrators' consideration: Patrickkane88 is a recently new user who requested the WP:REVIEWER right a mere two days after creating their account. In a decision which I find stunning, it was granted by Swarm.

The user has come to my attention through what I interpret as a malformed request to semiprotect a page made via edit request here. The page is one which was tagged with {{blp-prod}} by Crystallizedcarbon, which Patrickkane88 removed without adding any sources two minutes later. It was also tagged for speedy deletion for being a hoax (the player does not seem to exist) but the tag was removed by an IP which I may be about to get into an edit war with over my having restored the blp-prod tag, and which has only edited articles which Patrickkane88 has also edited. In very briefly skimming their edit history, I also found Mathew Tran, another entirely unreferenced hockey bio about a player not listed on the roster of the team he supposedly plays for, and have tagged it accordingly. It could be a WP:G3 hoax but I'm not sure if it crosses the "blatant" threshold.

Clearly, this editor does not understand the biographies of living persons policy, a requirement of the reviewer right, or they are blatantly disregarding it, and as such I request that their reviewer right be revoked immediately. Conduct issues can likely be dealt with through discussion/mentoring with the user, but they should not be reviewing in the meantime. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• A couple of points:

• "who requested the WP:REVIEWER right a mere two days after creating their account" - This is not accurate.
• Pending changes is meant to be given out fairly liberally and I don't think I missed any glaring red flags in granting their request, however, I'm only human and of course I am perfectly open to feedback on any admin actions so that I may improve. I have received absolutely no feedback and I think it's poor form to lambaste somebody for an action without ever making an attempt to discuss a concern with them or reach a modicum of understanding.
• If the user is creating/inserting hoaxes, they need to be blocked indefinitely without question. Whether or not this is the case needs to be sorted out.
• If they've merely demonstrated a good faith lack of policy understanding and not malicious intent, I would of course support revocation of reviewer until they can demonstrate that the problems are rectified. However, I will point out that they are not, and never have been, using the reviewer permission. Swarm ♠ 02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, you're right, I didn't check that well. They created their account on 17 July and requested reviewer rights on 19 August. I also didn't diff the request properly, which I have fixed. Swarm, I sincerely apologize for this error, and heartily retract the suggestion of wrongdoing on your part (which I had thought was an honest mistake, never deliberate misconduct). Anyway, I had meant to raise Patrickkane88's conduct, not yours, and ANI is the place to raise userright issues. I have struck part of my edit but it leaves it awkward to do more; you may strike more if you like.

That being said, it has become evident that the articles they created are indeed blatant hoaxes, as another user has remarked (see edit summary) that Mathew Tran is a student at their school. So yes, I would support an indef block at this point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood, stand by, let me do some double checking. Swarm ♠ 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the hoaxy articles. The other articles about junior league hockey players have now been tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion. I have also revoked their reviewer rights and placed an "only warning" notice for creating inappropriate pages on their talk page. (It doesn't appear there was ever given a final warning notice.). So further disruption on their part will result in an indefinite block. Thanks for raising the issue, Ivanvector. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the A7 tags and also Mathew Tran as a hoax as well. The name was added to a school article by an IP as clear vandalism and was changed multiple times before finally representing an alleged hockey player. No record of his existence can be found by me either and it was removed by a user claiming that he's a student at that school and not a hockey player. This is concerning as it suggests that apart from creating non-notable unsourced BLPs in good faith, that this user is dabbling in vandalizing Wikipedia as well. Whether or not this is the case, there's definitely a problem here. The bad page creations, lack of sourcing in BLPs, and complete lack of collaboration or communication are all red flags, even if every action they've made was in good faith. A warning is fine, but I agree that this user should not get more rope after this. Good catch, Ivan, thanks for bringing this up. In hindsight the granting the reviewer request was a bit too generous :P. I'll try to keep an eye on them too but let me know if there's any issues in the future. Swarm ♠ 03:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Question:  : Before tagging the the page as a blatant hoax I had to do some digging. I decided to do so because the page looked suspicious and the author removed the prod by adding three references that seem reliable but did not mention the BLP. I could not find any sources, (just a small questionable mention) the main reason that I tagged it as G3 was that when I followed the wikilinks to the claimed championships won, the alleged player was not even in any of the three roasters listed for those winning teams. I explained this in the edit summary when I tagged it. At that point there was no reasonable doubt that the article was a hoax.

• Is unquestionable hoax equivalent to blatant hoax?
• Since I had to "dig a bit" to verify the hoax does that mean that it does not qualify as blatant?
• Should I just have removed the invalid references and restored the prod even though I knew for certain it was a Hoax?

In my humble opinion, if there is clear proof of a hoax (even if this proof is not intermediately evident by a quick look at the article) then G3 should apply, otherwise we give the author the satisfaction of having the hoax as an article at our encyclopedia for at least one week. If that is not what the current wording of the policy is saying, perhaps it should be discussed and clarified and then edited in either way.

I would appreciate the input of more experienced editors on this matter to help me decide how I should deal with similar cases in the future. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. If anyone would like to move this bit over to WT:CSD that would be fine. In my experience, the CSD tags should only be used when it is very clear that an article will be deleted and there is no need to wait for discussion. In terms of G3, I interpret "blatant" as "the article clearly states that it is a hoax", more or less. I guess that's more of a personal standard, since when it was clearly shown that the articles were hoaxes, they were deleted under G3. Perhaps it is worth clarifying the text in the criterion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Crystallizedcarbon When reviewing G3 hoax tags, my approach is to check whether the alleged misinformation is obviously incorrect and is not credible. (For example, the Ricky Yang (football) article stated he was ‘’currently’’ a college football quarterback who played for the Canadian national team, yet the birthdate was for a 15-year-old kid. That set off bells. A quick check revealed no such player on either team roster. And that moved it into obvious misinformation territory.) I appreciate when the tagger specifies the nature of the hoax in the edit summary or on the talk page so that I can confirm their suspicions. But like any CSD deletion, common sense and experience play a role in determining the difference between suspicious and obvious. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer @CactusWriter: That is exactly how I think it should be interpreted. And what I did in this case, it was clearly a hoax since by looking at the roasters it was clear that the BLP was not even a player for those teams. I did include the explanation in the edit summary. I will continue to use the same criteria, but I also understand Ivanvector argument that a literal interpretation of the current wording for the G3 policy could be interpreted to impose a stronger standard and maybe it should be reworded to include not just blatant, but also unambiguous hoaxes. Thank you again and best regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting details in the edit summary is a good idea. At the moment G3 is not one of the criteria which Twinkle allows adding a note to. I'll post a note about changing that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Patrickkane88 has also edited under the IP 64.114.223.82, (here) and also inserted the names of these fake individuals to other articles (here and here)- although these were all before his last warning from User: CactusWriter. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

On edit: He's also capable of making helpful edits, for what it's worth... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the edits by Patrickkane88 seem to be a mixed bag -- vandalism with some good edits -- which is the reason I didn't block the account outright without sufficient warning. It's clear that we're dealing with a youthful editor. They can now either demonstrate the maturity required or be blocked indefinitely. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I also note the editor hasn't come here to discuss it, despite being notified and pinged. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are some that I can't see because they've been deleted, it looks like all of their "bad" edits came in the past couple days after a brief break in editing. They're in the same topic area so I don't think compromised account. Probably inexperience as CactusWriter says. Let's see how their editing goes from now on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, this matter is quite one-sided; both parties involved have violated the WP:NPOV criteria, and have made insensitive remarks to one-another. Another fact, is neither side is willing to accept that the criticism, and edits, respectively were delivered in good faith (meaning they refuse to follow WP:AGF). A person, prior to myself, also mentioned that WP:ARBMAC2 already governed criteria specific to the argument in question, and both side refused to drop it still. However, both sides have backed down, so is this notice still necessary? - ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks

Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Hello, 4 users from the French Wikipedia (single purpose accounts on the English Wikipedia to "gain control of the page") are threatening to disclose my identity. This come after an edit war that was closed in my favor and the other side bannished for H24. They can not discuss changes in the articles with edit justification so they have to go through personal attacks. One user warned them about that personal attacks are useless to justify changes, but they continue their threat on that other user. Please note that these users have pushed until 4 times (See here and here!!) of the deletion of the related article of Asselineau and finally changed their position to maintain the article but to influence as a group on the content for the article (by azurfrog who lead the team).

• Oliv0 (talk) threatening "[[User:D0kkaebi]]=[[User:Lawren00]], who is well-known as a high-ranking member and activist of this micro-party" revealing my previous nickname that was changed for privacy issue
• Lebob (talk) threatening "As such this would not disturb me too much if it would also not appear that he has endorsed medium or high level responsibilities in the UPR organization, which he has never disclosed (at least to the best of my knowledge)"
• Azurfrog (talk) threatening "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? Shouldn't we disclose his exact rank [http://www.upr.fr/responsables within the Popular Republican Union organization, since he never did it himself?" and "shouldn't D0kkaebi/Lawren00 have immediately disclosed (on his talk page and in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions) that he is a high ranking member of PRU"]
• Oliv0 (talk) justifying his personal attacks by doing other personal attacks after being warned that his personal attacks dont help solving the edit war
• Azurfrog (talk) continuing on personal attacks against user who warned them
• Schlum (talk) who is the origin if this personal attack something tells me it’s D0kkaebi aka Lawren00, member of UPR team
• Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia

I will wait the result of this request before requesting an oversight. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The behavior of those users is ridiculous (apparently they don't know or care about WP:OWN); however, in none of those diffs did I see anyone threaten to out you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@D0kkaebi: I see on your user talk page that you are asking that others not refer to you by a prior user name. Is that the outing of which you are speaking? If so, providing a diff to when someone referred to you by that name, or whatever other name you consider outing, would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Erpert, I don't know where I stand on this one yet, but "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? " is pretty damn clear. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, guess I missed that part. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How should D0kkaebi's suspected Conflict of Interest be best dealt with?

Erpert, Drmies and John Carter: my remark, "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is?" meant nothing more than what Schlum just stated below, with appropriate public links showing that Lawren00/D0kkaebi is indeed a very senior lieutenant of François Asselineau within his organization. At the very least, there is enough readily available information to authorize legitimate misgivings about D0kkaebi's "neutrality".
Reminder: "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing"..
From which I gather that this entire discussion on these so-called "Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks" is groundless, since they are all based upon "still-existing, self-disclosed information". --Azurfrog (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So did you check the link you are posting? Did you read the first sentence? Let me quote that for you just in case you missed it: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Now can you give us a link where Laurent Pawlowski from UPR is claiming being member of Wikipedia under the nickname D0kkaebi? And vice-versa, do you have a link where user:D0kkaebi is claiming being Laurent Pawlowski from UPR? Unless you give us a link that expressly shows that, those information are not voluntarily posted. You are threatening of outing and this, "whether any such information is accurate or not". D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You are outing yourself here, nobody mentioned your name, only your well-known affiliation to the party when you are the main contributor to the articles about the party and its leader. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, well, well, D0kkaebi... Thank you for coming out at long last, just as I recommended.
As for myself, I abstained from ever mentioning your personal information, even though you should have.
Now then, you still have to state to which degree you fall within the scope of Wikimedia Foundation: Disclosure of Paid Editing.
And please keep in mind: Many believe that users with a potential conflict of interest should engage in transparent collaboration, requiring honest disclosure of paid contributions. Making contributions to the Wikimedia projects without disclosing payment or employment may also lead to legal ramifications --Azurfrog (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced this kind of "affiliation" (local party leader) is what is meant in WP:DISCLOSEPAY, but in WP:COI certainly, and I now discover (sorry for not being an experienced editor here) that WP:COIN is the right place to go and then allows use of {{Connected contributor}} {{COI}} etc. So since you know best about your conclusion of COI in the French AfD for the party leader Asselineau (and you may remember the results of the simple Google search you mention which then gave more useful results from social networks), maybe you could do it? Oliv0 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN certainly seems an appropriate place to report such a conflict of interest as the one we have to deal with. However, I am not convinced either that it does not fall under WP:DISCLOSEPAY: after all, it is difficult to claim that that a local party leader is not an "affiliate" of his own party, even as defined by WP ("Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant"). But you are right, we should probably start by reporting on WP:COIN. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon, so I will not be able to answer here or help on COIN. Oliv0 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Oliv0 - Lebob - D0kkaebi - Schlum

I just started a request on WP:COIN here.
So, D0kkaebi, I finally fulfilled what you called my "threat": that is, not "out" personal information about you, but simply disclose your close connection with François Asselineau and his party, as you should have done in the first place.
Now, on WP as well as anywhere else, I do not think that threatening to place a legitimate request disclosing this connection and the resulting conflict of interest - as I just did - can in any way be considered as a "personal attack". --Azurfrog (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

All 4 users notified. Userlinks added to top of thread. Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I listed all the personal threats above. There are several. If you need additional explanation or links for evidence, let me know. By the way, shall I request for oversight, or shall I wait the result of this incident? I do not feel comfortable seeing my previous nickname and that I am paid by UPR for my contributions on wikipedia D0kkaebi (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks or threats in the 2 diffs by me above (I put a nowiki in the first one since it did not display the diff). Outing would mean personal details not already known, but the French AfD I refer to in the first diff mentions at a prominent place as an important fact that Lawren00 is the Lawren00 that could at that time (much less now) be seen on social networks as an activist from the micro-party Popular Republican Union (2007) and among those shown as local leaders on the party's website. The correspondence between D0kkaebi and Lawren00 is something I saw in "What links here" on User:D0kkaebi after I noticed an edit war in which D0kkaebi, who first started undoing disputable changes by Francis Le français, then used the opportunity to modify even more with a definite POV. So I believe this mention of a "POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00" in the talk page is useful to editors, so that they can have a better view of his frequent arguments and of the possible edit wars on Popular Republican Union (2007) and François Asselineau. As for Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure mentioned in the talk page, I do not think he is paid anything by the micro-party, his POV is rather out of personal conviction. Oliv0 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page. Is it because you are admin on the French wikipedia or related to many of them and used to impose your POV without prior discussions? I hope not, and thus, please discuss on the talk before imposing your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edit summary you quote just above was clear, and your assertion is false that on the talk page in the link you mention @Ravenswing: would have said that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions).

And you should certainly not be the one demanding that any modification from other users should first get your approval on the talk page, given your known POV as a local leader of this party (btw, I just had a look at WP:DISCLOSEPAY and it is not clear to me if this counts or not as an "affiliation" that has to be disclosed). Oliv0 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here you are being non neutral, @Ravenswing: only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so let's summary. The sources says "neither right nor left", so I write this in the article but that's a POV. Another user suggests that syncretic would be more understandable for English Native but that's a POV. Then Ravenswing write instead "centrism" in the article, then it is debated on the talk page, but that's also a POV. In brief, everything not inputted by yourself is a POV. Do we understand correctly the logic of Oliv0pedia? D0kkaebi (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Stick to the independent sources, that is not POV. So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism".

Also please stop saying everybody else has a POV, wants to impose the French WP on the English WP and wants to control the article that they think their WP:OWN, since everybody now saw your POV and COI as a local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN. Oliv0 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and nothing which is not public here ; User:Lawren00 is a redirection to User:D0kkaebi, Lawren00 having public Twitter account with his name ([181]), and this guy telling everything about him and his relations with the UPR on Facebook public page ([182]). Btw, as he is in the board team of the UPR and is quite heavily implicated in the redaction & maintenance of François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) (with strong Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), doing edit wars with many users on both articles, he should provide the information on his user page by the WMF rules (at least if he receives financial compensations for his activities). Schlum (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) PS : my contributions list on en WP show that I’m far from being the WP:SPA User:D0kkaebi is on the PRU & F. Asselineau subject… Schlum (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Come on now, D0kkaebi! Is it a "personal attack" or a "personal threat" to suggest that you disclose your relationship with François Asslineau and his Popular Republican Union, as it is central to understanding the reason behind your ongoing claim that most of the other contributors are "not neutral"?
On the other hand, you are now accusing me of being "a single-purpose account on the English WP"... Well, this is definitely not the case, even though I spent an undue amount of time recently on this matter.
Moreover, you are deliberately misquoting me as having said that we were trying to "gain control of the page"(please provide the exact wording), whereas practically all of your own contributions revolve around François Asselineau. Who's an SPA now?
Beyond that, I am a bit tired to see that everytime a thread on a talk page develops into a consensus against your opinion, you resort to administrators: as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that I have plenty of other interests beyond François Asselineau, and would be glad to leave the matter, were it not for the sustained edit-war raging around "his" articles (edit-war in which I have no part, as evidenced by my recent contributions to these articles, which have been extremely limited, or even non existent). --Azurfrog (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

All right, here is another thing. You have no interest for Asselineau topic, and you would like to move on. I guess that is the same motive that pushed you to go on the Lombard Wikipedia, not even respecting the users there since you do not speak "lombard" by requesting in English to suppress the page of Asselineau. Same thing on the Esperanto page or on the old English page. Do I need to list more to show your non-interest for the topic?

Now, when you and your crew have [nominated for the 4th time (!?!) the suppression of the Asselineau article], would you like me to remind the words of undoubtedly neutral English native users?

# Silverseren^C: "oppose French Wikipedia control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Wikipedia are, yet again, trying to control English Wikipedia." or "This is just French Wikipedia editors and administrators' trying to control content on other Wikipedias for subjects that they dislike and these actions are appalling."

# S Marshall T/C: "Keep per my detailed reasoning at the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds. Also, while I'm doing the thing where you summarise your opinion using words in bold, I need to add surely not this AGAIN and this is not fr.wiki."

# Carrite (talk): "This entire nomination seems to me a POV-driven exercise and is highly disruptive."

In addition, note that that your WP:OWN and POV have discouraged the only undoubtedly neutral English contributors to the article, Ravenswing , quoting his word when invited to share his opinion here " given that this kind of nonsense is going to go on barring a big change, I don't have the mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog for them."

And the cherry on the cake for the conclusion, here is the evidence that one member of your crew gathered people on the admin noticeboard to rule Wiki:en. Quoting the words of your friend LPLT: "Un courageux pour aller porter le fer sur cette wiki ? / Is there any courageous person to start a war on en:wiki?" I guess, that close the case regarding your neutrality. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Aller porter le fer (lit. "go and carry the iron [sword]") is not "start a war" but "go to fight", here in the interest of neutrality against your well-known POV, a noble task for an admin but which unfortunately needs much "mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog" indeed. Oliv0 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, aller porter le fer does mean wage a war (and your explanation shows it perfectly clearly, by the way). You are wasting your/everybody's time here. The only issue discussed in this thread is: Did the users in question threaten to out D0kkaebi (on this Wikipedia)? The answer is obvious. It's a blatant yes. (Some of you even had the nerve to do it again in this very thread!).--Wr. Sr. (t) 09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Wage" (Oxford compact: "Carry on (a war or campaign)"), not "start".

I certainly did not threaten to "out", only warned about a user's WP:COI and "affiliation" (WP:DISCLOSEPAY: "Terms of Use prohibit (...) misrepresentation of affiliation", "Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant" which is not very clear, I am not sure it applies to the local leader of a party if he is not paid). Oliv0 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's amazing to realize that I am now accused of being a single purpose by someone who has devoted a substantial part of his time on WP(en) to contribute to the articles François Asselineau and/or UPR. Just to get facts clear I am on WP(en) since November 2006 where I have 1144 contributions on 484 different pages. I don't think this is a shows the behavior of a single purpose account.

He is now telling that I would have threatened him but is unable to provide any evidence for this allegation. Unfortunately this is a recurring behavior with this contributor. Once he cannot enforce his POV in the articles he tries by any other mean to get his contradictors out of his way. During the last months/weeks he has started

• started a sockpuppet investigation against Francis Le français
• started a request for mediation on Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)
• looked for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aya_Laglare&diff=prev&oldid=678241295 support for other procedures against Francis Le français
• started an [edit warring procedure on the administrators noticeboard about Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)]]
• started an other procedure on the administrators noticeboard against Francis Le français
• and, last but not least, started yesterday this new procedure with unsubstantiated allegations.

I might have forgotten or not noticed other procedures started by this user but for those who got the misfortune to cross him on the French WP it is very obvious that he is using the same kind of tricks he used end of 2011 early 2012 where he was making much noise in order to try to impose his POV about Asselineau (this must be a mere coincidence). I have the feeling that the only purpose of this new procedure is to avoid to answer to the question we have raised, i.e. his blatant conflict of interest on the pages François Asselineau and Popular_Republican_Union_(2007). --Lebob (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to my previous message I also noticed that when writing "Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia", D0kkaebi is misquoting what I have really written, which is also not acceptable. I have in fact written that D0kkaebi has a POV that makes him disagree with any comment about the PRU or Asselineau that would not have been duly approved by the RPU of fall within the official position of the PRU, which means that he fully endorses the view of the party where he has official responsibilities and tries to impose them on the articles relating to the party and his chairman. Again there is no wonder here as he has a strong conflict of interest and should refrain himself from contributing to the articles François Asselineau and PRU. I have however never written, as he wrongly (as I assume good faith here I will not write "falsely") alleges that he got approval from UPR to participate in WP. --Lebob (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Says a freshly created WP:SPA obviously from UPR as well… I guess it is with good reason that UPR activists are well known in France for their entryism strategies. Schlum (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reading your last comments, looks like your barrel is empty. Lebob, it is true that you did not threat of outing me like the 2 others, you did personal attacks. If you have missed the evidence that I brought, you just need to scroll-up to the beginning of this topic. Then you try to qualify me as a harasser of Francis le Francais. Well, you might have missed those I guess:

1. [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
2. [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
3. [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
4. Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
5. [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
6. [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
7. [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
8. [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

Then all my warnings to Francis le Francais:

1. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You need to read accurately the sources and not interpret as you want WP:POV. You need to respect the consensus before changing things as you feel like)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Change upon RFC result, thank you to respect consensus)
3. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (If no consensus then it should return to the state before the claim happens and until decision is taken)
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Since there is dispute, until resolution is done, basic principle is to stick to version before the claims. Edit war is useless and time consuming)
5. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You have been warned by another user, Aya, one more, on your non-collaborative behavior)
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 678312643 by Francis Le français (talk) last warning)
7. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Reporting to Edit war page and admin noticeboard)
8. Still he reverted again after Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 679332880 by D0kkaebi (talk) war edit by you)

And then you are again accusing me to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article. Do you have any evidence for that? None, right, that's a personal attack. I have here just some example of revert I made against "suspected UPR militants" who try to update the number of membership:

1. (UPR website can't be a reliable source)
2. (Please use independent sources)
3. (Please provide valid source)
4. (Unknown personae and unsourced information)
5. (Please find a reliable source for this info)
6. {Please find a reliable source for this info)
7. (Removed the facebook source (!?))
8. (Reverted source not independent of subject not allowed) and more ...
   

I guess everything is now on the table, admins can judge the outing threat and personal attacks. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And still no comment about your blatant conflict of interest, dear? As a matter of fact raising the CoI question is not a personal attack as you wrongly allege. Beside, you are repeating the false accusation that I would be you "to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article", which is not what I have said. The first time I could think this was a reading mistake, this time it is clear that you dishonestly put under my keyboard things I did not write. I have said that what you do on the concerned articles is to make sure that their content matches which the official position of the PRU and that critical comment about the party or its chairman are not quoted in the corresponding articles. Finally I have never written that you were harassing Francis Le français, you came to that conclusion alone. I wonder why... --Lebob (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

D0kkaebi why do not you express yourself on a conflict of interest? Why you write the wrong things (eg ip opened subjects talk page which you do not answer or very late - historic demonstrate that - % 29 # 2970 _-_ 5000 _-_ 7000 opened February 1, 2015 by an IP, you answer that on May 29, four months after !)? Why you mix editorial disagreements with this procedure ? Why not say that some informations (aka your old username or mail of the upr's officials) are public and accessible to all on the internet ?--Francis Le français (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved user:

I've been reading up on this saga; it's quite a tale, years in the making, with some fascinating subplots: an article subject who partially derives Wikipedia notability from making a stink about not being notable enough for Wikipedia; a spamming campaign met with an equally rabid "cross-wiki anti-spam spamming" campaign (a lovely expression I borrowed from the German AFD); frwiki AFD's that include pie charts and trend-line graphs of !votes; small armies of the same cast of canvassed and/or coi editors throwing bombs at each other through Google Translate and various degrees of linguistic ability on a number of wikis; endless charges and counter-charges; 4 AFDs, a DRV, RFC, ANI, COIN and who knows what else in enwiki alone... the only thing missing for me is an AFD in Catalan, that really would have made my day (although it was speedy-deleted twice from cawiki so I'm not too disappointed, gotta show cawiki a little love...). It would take weeks if not months to unravel it all. In the interest of sparing us a massive migraine, I suggest everyone drop the stick and go back to their home wikis where they can safely attack each other in the relative comfort of their native language. (Not that I think there is any realistic chance of that happening, heck it's only been going on for five years, and the article still exists in Occitan, quick send it to AFD!). Vrac (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather a good summary of this ridiculous and overlong saga ;-). "Dropping the stick" would be the reasonable way out, starting with closing the current request, which was rather a big stick to raise, unlikely to bring Wikipedian love to the subject. But this wouldn't solve the main practical issue, namely the acute conflict of interest at the basis of the recurring edit wars on the two English articles. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the stick(s) would necessarily require the participation of both parties in order to be successful as both are exporting disruption across the Wikiverse. Threatening to out someone is a big stick as well. I find it unlikely that getting one user blocked or restricted for COI will solve the problem given the number of pawns in this game. I don't see you or your companions acknowledging the dodgy aspects of your own behavior, behavior which strikes me as decidedly unhealthy. Another brilliant term from the German AFD is "Wiki Jagdfieber" (what we might call a WP:WITCHHUNT). My suggestion is that you all find a way to come to an understanding at home, in a place where you can best comprehend each other, rather than trying to make enwiki or some other wiki decide it for you, or continuing the dispute endlessly to the detriment of the Wikiverse. Of course that would require a healthy dose of WP:COOL. Vrac (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My my! "Dodgy and unhealthy", nothing less :-)...
I'll leave it at that, just regretting that en:WP has de facto accepted to be used as some sort of fallback soapbox, in spite of such an obvious case of COI. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not opposed to looking at COI in this case, what I am trying to do is suggest that some attention be paid to the war and its collateral damage instead of just concentrating on this specific battle. Vrac (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vrac (talk), thank you for your comment. I think all the discussions have shown that English native users who had to take a look at this saga are a bit amazed by the level of stupidity this whole had reached so far. My hope would be that someone like Ravenswing or you (or anybody else, not French native) would be the one to edit the article and that French natives (including me and the crew of French Admins and related) would be de-facto banished from editing. We could provide the new sources via the talk page. So that we could contain any conflict of interest. I am not sure if that reflect what you mean by dropping the stick.
By the way, I think someone can judge the case since everything was said, even one of the party accused, seeing that his logic of attack did not help at all for his defense, is admitting "his errance" and even though a very experienced user, he did not know the process of COI (needs violin with this sentence). D0kkaebi (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok that is a good place to start. Yes, that is more or less what I meant by "dropping the stick". It actually has a translation in frwiki: fr:WP:CHEVALMORT which is true to the English version but we also use it as a general euphemism for stopping fighting, like "bury the hatchet" (an expression which has a very close cousin in French). I don't want to sound patronizing, but, to be specific, I mean not making strong accusations (even if you think you are right), not threatening, and not pointing out the mistakes and foibles of others in an aggressive manner, etc.... doing so naturally has a tendency to start the war all over again; basically following WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and the whole alphabet soup of guidelines. If everyone was limited to the talk page, could you agree to that? Vrac (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I was sleepy and not thinking clearly when I wrote the above. Never mind. Vrac (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, if this proposal has to translate into an indefinitely protected page against modification except for a native admin who will be in charge of completing the article with the sources brought by each party on the talk, I would agree. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if you don't stop your (collective) incessant squabbling, no one is going to want to deal with it. I can see from the history that a number of editors tried but gave up. Who can blame them. Vrac (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So the proposal above is not enough? Let me know any other suggestion. I see that Ravenswing and Aya Laglare gave up participating, but I do not feel like it is due to me. Seeing at the discussion with Ravenswing regarding his change on the political positioning, I gave my point of view explaining why I disagreed, and since he didnt buy my explanation, then I stick to his version of the article, end of story on my side. Note that is the other side who endorsed the changes of Ravenswing to me and then taxed me of POV. I don't know what I could have done better. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestion other than stopping the fight? You (collectively) don't seem to be getting the point of what I have been saying. Some capacity for self-examination would be helpful in this situation. Vrac (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR, so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

• D0kkaebi's accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:COI/N, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for the COI.
• If admins are willing to go deeper to the root of the problem, after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch that new accounts or endless digressions on the talk pages do not impede the neutralising/trimming work made by native English speakers in good standing, like recently Drmies (talk · contribs) and Aya Laglare (talk · contribs). Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Slanderous accusations by user Lute88

On 29 August 2015, I read the sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” in the ‘Murder, investigation and trial’ section of the article Anna Politkovskaya. I felt that the implied connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin’s birthday was an innuendo bordering on libel and thus had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I deleted it. It was immediately reinstated by user Lute88. I deleted it again with an explanation, but it was again reinstated by Lute88 without explanation. After this went on for some time, I brought the matter to the talk page of the article in the section ‘Putin's Birthday & the lead’. There, I found the support of an admin,Drmies. There ensued a heated discussion with another editor,My very best wishes, later joined by Lute88. Drmies explained why the mention of Putin’s birthday was inappropriate and said she was going to delete it. She did so and was immediately reverted by Lute88. After that, Lute88 made a post where he asked why he "was smelling something" and provided a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. Drmies remarked that this was not funny and I asked her to convince him to stop because I would hate to take the matter further. He replied with this new post: "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…"

I asked him to take his words back, but he made no response. That decided me to bring the matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Although I agree that, absent some strong evidence of a connection, the death should not be linked to Putin's birthday, this is essentially a content dispute and should be dealt with on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK I may be wrong but I believe that Againstdisinformation is here to for Lute88 to "take back" the comment 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant' - it seems the content dispute has been sorted. Flat Out (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but Antidisinformation threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning, which is now getting pretty darn close to violating WP:NLT, so he's not really in a position to demand anything from anybody. BMK (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation there is no possibility of slander when no-one knows who you are. Both you and Lute88 have been edit warring and this is no way to solve a simple content dispute. The best way to resolve these kinds of disputes is to walk away and work on another article. As BMK notes above, you should read WP:NLT and I would add WP:3RR Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Certanly no edit-warring on my part. Antidisinformation however is an SPA that has been edit-warring with a lot of people on Russia-related articles, with total disregard for consensus, RS, 3RR, with legal threats, and now - this. Simply preposterous.--Lute88 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the article that piqued my vigilance - http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-blocks-accounts-linked-paid-edits-200646137.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwVZ.9VMkQAeCPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- .Lute88 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "vigilance". You just threw that at me as an insult out of frustration when you realised that sensible editors were on my side and you were prevented by an admin to reinstate your preposterous innuendo connecting Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya's murder. Your Russophobic passion has blinded you to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't share it is necessarily paid by the Kremlin. I sincerely hope you come back to your senses. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• And this is precisely what I warned you about in my previous comment here: groundless personal accusations. What "Russophobic passion"? Why? Any reasons for blaming Lute88 of this? It is an ethnically-motivated slander by you, much worse than expressing suggestion that someone might be a COI contributor. And you came here to complain about slander... My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, Flat Out is right, the dispute has already been sorted by the felicitous intervention of Drmies. However, I cannot agree that User:Lute88 can throw any kind of insults at me, just because he does not know my identity. I cannot agree either that I violated WP:NLT because I called a spade a spade. Yes, his accusation is slanderous and I am certain of what your reaction would be if it were thrown at you. Now, you say that I "threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning". I am afraid that your reading has been cursory. I didn't say at the very beginning that I had been libelled, I just tried to make my opponent aware that, the innuendo he made about Putin would without any doubt be considered libel in a court of law, unless he had incontrovertible evidence. Therefore, I think this has no place in an encyclopedia, which must remain neutral. He can always write this in The Daily Mirror, if he so wishes. Besides, I am not asking for a sanction, I would just like him to take back his words, which, I am sorry to say, I take as an insult. In any case, it's a great comfort for me to see that you agree with me on substance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation are you saying you have been libeled? Flat Out (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out Yes, I consider that accusing me in no uncertain terms of being paid by the Kremlin for editing WP is slanderous. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation - they aren't withdrawing the comment, which is why you came here, so might be best to move on. Flat Out (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The more that is said here, the more confused I become. It's becoming impossible to tell who is supposedly being libeled, slandered or whatever. Since the dispute apparently has been sorted it would be best to drop the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm fairly confused as well. Saying that person A murdered person X on person 3's birthday is clearly not libel for the person 3 unless it's also implied that person 3 supported or sanctioned the murder. While I can't recall any examples offhand, there have definitely been cases when nutty person A have done something (whether murder or whatever) out of their "love" for person 3, where person 3 is horrified by the actions. It may be libel for person A who did the murder to give them incorrect motiviations, but while we should get these things right, I'm not sure libel is ever our biggest concern for murderers even if it's theoretically there. (Of course calling them murderers when they are not would raise more serious libel concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Nil Einne, I undersand why there may be confusion, there are two cases. The object of the dispute between User:Lute88 and me is the sentence: "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. I mentioned to User:Lute88 that, in a court of law, this would without any doubt be considered libel, and I added that, moreover, it was preposterous. This was my argument why it should be removed from the article. A number of editors have agreed with me and this matter is now settled. Note that, at that point, i did not accuse him of slandering me, of course, I am not Mr. Putin. However, he was unhappy with the decision taken by admin Drmies and lashed out at me on the talk page of the article, a first time asking why he "was smelling something" and providing a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. That was already very offensive but, after he was admonished by User:Drmies, who told him it was not funny, he added "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…". This is this direct accusation that I am paid by the Kremlin for editing WP which, in my strongly felt opinion, is slanderous. I asked him to take his words back, but he wouldn't. This is why I took the matter here. As I have already said, I am not seeking a sanction against him, I just would very much like that he be told to take back his words. If he did, that would be the end of the matter for me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• What say we save ourselves a lot of time and angst and ban Againstdisinformation as being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth? Guy (Help!) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. However, it would also be important to zap the part about Putin's birthday from the article in question, unless there's a reliable source demonstrating that it's a notable fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There's actually more than a dozen of such sources. It is a notable fact given the circumstances and that's how sources treat it. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy If you want to ban me for "being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth" as you elegantly put it, you should leave the innuendo about Putin and give a medal to Lute88 for slandering me, at least that would be consistent. 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Againstdisinformation (talk)

• Ah yes. I did in fact support the removal of that one clause, and I gave my reasons on the talk page, though it may be difficult to find between all the mud-slinging. I don't see libel or slander, just a couple of editors with their own POV bitching at each other. This is NPA territory, as far as I'm concerned, and I urged the two editors to tone it down, clearly to no avail. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• User Againstdisinformation is clearly engaged in WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP by starting irrelevant and contentions discussions like here, demanding an apology like here and by edit-warring on multiple pages. I think this is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but! if it weren't for them that silly "coincidence" would still be in the article. Gadflies are irritating but sometimes necessary--if only this one wasn't so loquacious. (First time I wrote that word! Woohoo!) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As should be clear from sources already provided on the talk page by VM and others, this is not a silly coincidence, but something considered significant in multiple RS. Yes, this must be better described and better sourced - I agree. But here is the question: even if you consider his removal on this page a positive contribution, did it worth wasting other people time by starting this ANI thread, other soap-like discussions (link above) and edit wars on a number of pages? However, this is probably a question only WP:AE can answer. If he/she will not be blocked now, I would expect a prolonged drama and waste of time on numerous page. This is already a pattern. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes, now you agree that there was a problem with the page but, never mind that I pointed it out (like a number of others) and got insulted by Lute88 for it, he is making us lose time. Let's just ban him and these pesky issues of inaccuracies will disappear. Why then did you, volunteer Marek and Lute88 consistently refuse to discuss the issue with me on the article's talk page, if your only concern was to save the community's time? On this waste of time, I beg to differ. There should be a whole team of editors dedicated to tracking inaccuracies (disinformation) if instead of using WP to further an agenda, we want to preserve it as a repository of knowledge anyone can trust.

Lute88, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil. This is their right. However, my goal is to help (as much as my capacities allow) to rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. I knew this would not attract much sympathy but I did not expect a witch hunt. Now, there is a whole group who share a strongly felt common point of view on everything that concerns Russia and they are hellbent on having me out, because I am an irritant to them. It's very funny that I am accused of WP:BATTLE wwhen Lute88 has erased, without trying to discuss with me, any single edit I made in the last ten days. Now, My very best wishes promised him to help him on the ANI and, of course, here he is trying to put me in as bad a light as he can. This is very sad. I would have preferred, as I have asked many times, a reasoned discussion on the substance of the issues I raised, but I have been consistently dismissed by them.I think this is a loss of time. Why could he not just acknowledge that he went a bit too far when he accused me of being paid by Putin? I would just have said ok, that's alright and all this would not even have started. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil" - Didn't you just show up here to whine about how you're bring "slandered"? Volunteer Marek  20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Making factually incorrect statements and accusing others without evidence on the ANI is a very bad idea. In particular, (a) no one refused to discuss anything with you (there are very long discussions on article talk pages by numerous users), (b) none of the users you mentioned have "evil" POV you stated, (c) at least three users (including me) on the article talk page did not agree with your removal of this info (this is something debatable), (d) I did not promise Lute88 to "help" on the ANI, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is making factually incorrect statements. Let me quote you: "I know these subjects and might be willing to help with sourcing, but discussing anything with such guys again is something I would rather not do". This is taken from the 'A comment' section of Lute88' talk page, which is entirely devoted to me. It's absolutely your right to come to his defense, but this shows also that you were, let's say, reluctant to discuss the issue with me. And where did I ever state that any user had an "evil" POV? Everyone of us has a POV and it would be ludicrous to describe any POV as "evil". It is precisely through the confrontation of POVs that we can hope to achieve impartiality or, at least, consensus. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to continue this discussion here. As others have said, there's no point demanding someone apologise, and ANI isn't the place for that any way. The rest is a content dispute which can be resolved either on the article talk page, or via some other method of WP:dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I think you are right. This has gone on for too long now and we might as well leave it at that. However, I am not asking an apology from Lute88, I am just asking him to take back his claim that I am paid by the Kremlin. He does not have to apologise, he can just say that he didn't really mean what he said and all would be forgotten. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Still not something for ANI, at most a single request on the editor's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the short amount of time Againstdisinformation has been actively 'editing' here, there's been an awful lot of community time sunk into "I've been hard done by" agitation, and "I'm here to right great wrongs" (i.e., WP:NOTHERE). It grew very WP:TEDIOUS some time ago (see this and this ANI). Jangled nerves, hurt feelings, and complaints every time there's a personality clash do not make for useful gadflies but, rather, a needy entity who confuses experienced editors over what the real issue at stake is. There's been no lack of patience been shown the user by other editors, yet the ICANTHEARYOU attitude persists. I truly believe that Againstdisinformation needs to gain more experience in editing articles s/he doesn't feel emotionally invested in before jumping into contentious areas of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I agree with you on one point. ANI was not the proper venue for the dispute between Lute88 and me. I have come to realize this. It is unhelpful and a great loss of time, especially for me. I am reluctant by nature to report anyone as I have already told Lute88. This is the first and last time I do it. However, Lute88 has been erasing almost every edit I made in the last ten days, without any explanation. I did not complain. He only entered the discussion on the talk page of the article Anna Politkovskaya after an admin agreed with me and deleted the contentious phrase. He also reverted her but she told him she would have none of it. Probably not happy with this, he suggested I was paid by the Kremlin. The admin told him that this was not funny and I asked him to take back his words. His response was: 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant.’ Is this civil behaviour ? Now, I don’t see why you provide links to two ANI, which are supposed to shed a bad light on my behavior. The first one was brought against me by Reaganomics88 about misplaced quotation marks. An edit already long since corrected and for which I had apologized (talking of wasting the community’s time). The second ANI was brought against Reaganomics by a third editor and I have nothing to do with it. It's true that, in trying to improve what I perceive as biased articles, I have attracted a lot of animosity, but I challenge you to find a single instance of rudeness, threats or complaints on my part. I have always tried (without much success) to discuss the content and I have never made any ad hominem attack. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: You're working on the premise that being uncivil is easily identified by personal attacks. No, it is not that cut and dry. Read WP:IUC on Other uncivil behaviours. Introducing this to the talk page of the "2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" was not determined by your wanting to 'improve Wikipedia', but to behave in an intentionally disruptive and provocative manner (aside from canvassing/advertising for fellow 'righteous' brother and sisters in arms to join you in your battle for the truth). After this was removed from the talk page, you reinstated it twice after two editors had already removed it. There's no small irony in the fact that you've painted yourself as being the victim of Groupthink, yet you're trying to enlist like-minded editors to create your own Groupthink battalion... and all after you have had numerous editors patiently (escalating to impatiently) trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and your responding with what have become obviously ingenuous apologies for the error of your ways, and that you now know better and won't repeat them. Is stuffing beans up your nose just a compulsion you can't shake, or is this evidence that you're WP:NOTHERE in any shape or form, and have no intention of trying to be HERE? 'But I've never made any personal attacks' does not make you a civil editor: it just means that you want to WP:GAME the system by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef block Againstdisinformation until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack, until such time that they understand that badgering the opposition (through repeated and loquacious postings) does not make for a collaborative editing environment, until such time that they have familiarized themselves with wikipedia rules/policy/practices/guidelines including WP:RGW. Reading this complaint provides nothing more than a single editor doubling down on doubling down on a content problem. We've already expended enough time/energy on this editor without extracting certain guarantees of improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block for Againstdisinformation. The reason: she/he continue making factually incorrect accusations against other users right on this noticeboard, even after being warned about it. In particular, Againstdisinformation complained about being followed by Lute88 who allegedly refused to discuss. But in fact just the opposite occurred on this page. As clear from the editing history, it was Againstdisinformation who came to revert edit by Lute88, not the other way around (unless another red-linked account was an alternative account of Againstdisinformation). And it was Lute88 who started discussion on this article talk page [183], but received no response from Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think that it is OK to frivolously accuse an editor to be "paid by the Kremlin" and that not understanding that it is just a "snippy remark" deserves being indefinitely blocked then, please, do it. I am used to polite academic debate, not to trading insults. This is the last post I make to explain my perception of what happened, I am growing tired of an almost palpable aggressivity on the part of some editors. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was OK. This is not OK. Once again, you accuses someone of something he never did or said. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• My very best wishes is mistaken in saying that Againstdisinformation is "a 'disruption only' account"; he/she contributed usefully at Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko/Archive 1#Allegations of torture. As for whether he/she is paid to edit, I can only suggest the WP:Duck test.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see only one minor edit by Againstdiscrimination on this page. Is it all one can tell in favor of this user? I am not even sure this edit was an improvement because it has been reverted later by FPS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: your link is to the article page; look at the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is my reading of this. Timoshenko was put in prison by Yanukovich government for political reasons. That is what sources tell. Againstdisinformation is trying to minimize significance of this by referring to a remotely relevant primary source. I can't blame FPS who reverted this in the article (diff above). This is not a positive contribution by Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I do not think that Againstdisinformation is a disruption only account but they have shown a long term pattern of disruptive editing that appears to push a pro-Russian agenda. They have a tendency to twist the truth for their convenience and portray themselves as a victim of aggression whenever they do not get their own way (I personally found myself accused of being part of some kind of shady conspiracy that had been formed to act against them). I think some kind of admin intervention is needed as the rules have been explained to them countless times yet they show no signs of improving their behaviour. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I note that ADI is talk page harassing people who are opposing them on their talk pages Hasteur (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, slander and libel, that's not really what is happening here. If Againstdisinformation is indefinitely blocked, it's probably because they talk too much. The posts on the talk pages of Hasteur and Reaganomics are a bit silly, and unwise, but it doesn't rise to the level of harassment. Lute88's comments aren't really sanctionable, but they're very uncollegial, and thus also unwise. Now, that I happen to agree with Againstdisinformation on that birthday thing in that one article doesn't mean I don't consider their edits to exhibit a pro-Russian slant. So I'm torn a bit, not in the least because the stubborn resistance to the birthday thing revealed a similar contrasting POV from the other side; I can't help but wonder what would have happened if I hadn't come along and played the admin. I'm pretty sure that Againstdisinformation wouldn't have been able to solve that problem by themselves, since their comments are simply too wordy and their tone too sarcastic, besides having that POV. So yeah, I'll break a lance for them, just a little bit, but that's also because I am a bit disappointed with the opponents. (Not Volunteer Marek, of course, who I despise for football-related reasons.) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I talked with him, but did not see anything encouraging. For example, the way he mentioned you here is troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not troubling that he/she wrote that "it didn't convince Drmies either". Nor is it troubling that he/she asked you sarcastically "do you believe that she [Drmies] too is on the Kremlin's payroll?"-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, he/she made this edit. I asked what they know about the subject from secondary RS [184]. They did not respond to the question, but said that sources are not important because he/she knows everything already ("Even if I was an alien and I didn't know anything about Russia, the story would still sound preposterous to me" [185]) and implicitly accuses me of supporting claim by Lute88 that I do not support at all [186]. His/her problem is not being "too wordy", but inability (or lack o desire) to contribute constructively to the project. Hence indeff. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I dislike indeffing a new editor who's made productive edits, but after a decade-plus on Wikipedia, I don't think I can recall as many as a half-dozen cases where an attitude problem like this calms down to be a productive, civil editor. (I can recall quite a few of the MickMacNees of the world, where a large enough edit count somehow allows them to make hundreds of uncivil edits with impunity.) Better nip this one in the bud. Ravenswing 11:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• I will not comment on the indefblock, but the claim that I defend[ing the same] POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil is laughable. Last time I was dragged on ANI it was a troublesome Ukrainian user claiming I am a strong pro-Russian POV pusher.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So either you're an equal-opportunity offender or just a pro-Slav activist. Or you can't make up your mind and should read Dante's Inferno, Canto 3, as a warning. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

    If I sum up all accusations in power-pushing in my 8 years here pro-Slav sounds too narrow: I am also pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri, pro-German and I think it was smth else. Inferno, Canto 3 I definitely read several times (in translation; now I should try the original). Sounds the closest to my situation.Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support an indef block for Againstdisinformation. They show no signs of improving and the key issues have been dragging on for months now.

They appear to be on Wikipedia chiefly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (or at least perceived wrongs).

They have responded in a combative manner to multiple editors and behaved in a manner that violates WP:WQ. This in particular has caused me a great deal of grief personally, just recently I was asked "can you behave like this and still look at yourself in the mirror?" I have lost count of the number of attacks this user has made on myself and other users. If these were isolated incidents then I would believe that just a warning would suffice. However it is clearly a greater trend and is causing damage to the community. This user has to be stopped. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, indef him!!! Good idea! And then we give a medal to Lute88! Sorry, just joking. In my view Lute88 is trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view, which btw, is strictly forbidden according to the behavioral guideline of gaming the system. Keep in mind that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. However, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Ravenswing , we ought to nip this one in the bud. This is not just about the issue with Lute88, this about a greater civility and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issue. This user has been warned countless times yet continued to persist with their behaviour. Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think admins might be willing to give Againstdisinformation a little more "rope", however, without having any promises that he will stop making irrelevant political rants (like here [187], [188]) or ridiculously confrontational comments (like here), I am afraid this is going to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also think that's what happening. Note that I am not swinging my admin tool (yet) here since I am interested in more opinions; clearly too many admins are already bored by the topic and aren't weighing in. That's a shame. As for those three diffs, I think I read AD the riot act about that forum post, and the personal accusation ("go see your shrink"), if I had seen that I might have blocked for it on the spot. More of that, since it does add up, will no doubt lead to a block and they better beware. I mean, Putin is paying me some serious cash (actually, he's paying me in confiscated Dutch cheeses), but there are limits to my loyalty. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I my opinion Lute88, should be blocked for disruptive editing. He is clearly trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Ref.

• Revision as of 21:57, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 23:31, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 01:44, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 00:25, 31 August 2015

Volunteer Marek and Skere789 should be warned too. Ref:

• Revision as of 20:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 06:51, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:17, 7 September 2014

Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the difference between Lute88 and Againstdisinformation. In the diff you provided [189] Lute88 restores a fair summary of something that a reliable source tells. It is enough to make translation of the title from Russian: "Politkovskaya and Putin. Day of death and day of birth." (Политковская и Путин. День смерти и день рождения.). The source does make such connection, and for a number of good reasons. Author of the publication is a well known and a highly respected journalist. A lot of other RS tells exactly the same, as has been already noted on the talk page [190]. On the other hand, "Againstdisinformation" is a perfect "warrior for the truth" who removes this info only because it seems "preposterous" to him [191] and without providing any sources on the subject he does not know and does not want to know (the diff is response to my question on what they read about this). Yes, I agree that Lute88 was wrong. She had to remain civil and rise concerns, if any, on an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:COINB in this case. Does it warrant this long ANI discussion? No, I do not think so. This long discussion had happened only because of the highly problematic behavior by user Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also another difference. Againstdisinformation use the talk page. Lute88 does not. That is true until an admin intervene. First post on that talk page by Lute88 is this: Revision as of 22:00, 7 September 2015, three minutes after the users fourth revert.

And no, a translation of the title is not enouth. Maybe you can translate this part? "Был ли это подарок ему, или, напротив, кто-то хотел напакостить? Или это мистическое совпадение? Мы не будем гадать сегодня.". This is nothing but speculations and it does violate WP:NPOV to include it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading the entire publication it is abundantly clear that it does make such connection: someone killed her on Putin's birthday because she criticized Putin personally. Same claim appears in a large number of English language RS (diff above). As, about "contributions" by Againsdisinformation on this article talk page, here they are (in chronological order): 1st comment, 2nd comment, 3d comment, and so on. It would be much better if he did not take part in this discussion with such comments. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to translate it, maybe you can verify the Google translation of the article? Does the part I quoted translate to; "Was it a gift to him, or, on the contrary, someone wanted to play a prank? Or is it a mystical coincidence? We will not speculate today." or is Google wrong? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss translations and sources. Please see discussion on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you brought it up here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Againstdisinformation just received a topic ban, however his problem is not a bias in a narrowly defined subject area, but telling something that is simply not true about other users (and he does it even during standing ANI request [192],[193]), and irrelevant political rants [194]. BTW, he did receive previously an official WP:AE warning [195]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes: Where did Antidisinformation receive a topic ban? I can't find it. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, at the bottom. He/she removed the notice from their talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize it was a AC/DS sanction. BMK (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, Volunteer Marek was also warned. He/she also removed the notice from their talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You've gone completely WP:OFFTOPIC here, Erlbaeko. Stop finger-pointing in order to play out your personal animosities: or are you just shopping? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that warning was connected to this case, and so is this edit warring report against Beyond My Ken, which btw, was closed without any action against him. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Erlaebko, as Iryna points out you are only here to pursue grudges, and in your attempts to shop for blocks you've completely managed to hijack this thread (putting aside your false statements). Keep going please - in my experience that's a pretty quick way to get yourself blocked. Volunteer Marek  15:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop speculating about my motives for commenting here. It may be seen as a personal attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yes, under such circumstances I feel compelled to take it on good faith that you have absolutely no 'personal' agenda per this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this on another Eastern Europe article you've never been involved in before and, presumably, forgot to read through its 9 talk pages. Your lack of POV interest is duly noted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That is just another personal attack on me, and totally off topic. Btw, you are welcome to comment on the discussion I started regarding the verifiability of that info. It's here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Persistently invoking 'personal attack' does not make it so. I am making a candid and verifiable observation as to your behaviour. Again, looking at the discussions (plural) you've started on that article's talk page merely confirms that you haven't read the current talk page, nor the archived talk pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My edits on the War in Donbass-article are in no way related to this dispute, which essentially deals with the behavior of editors in a content dispute (whether Putin's birthday should be linked to the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, or not). Please, restrict your comments to that case, and stop commenting on the contributors to this discussion. Note that repeated "personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Erlbaeko (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Zoffio

User:Alexf suggested I post here.

Nutshell: Likely viable draft created by master now worked on by socks.

I've spent half an hour on this at least. Could someone please give me some ideas how to wrap this up? Move it to the mainspace to face coi editing? Delete draft (grounds?) ? Ideas?

• Draft:Zoffio
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zoffioindia (see evidence part)
• User talk:Zoffioindia
• User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Rama2050
• User talk:Alexf#Zoffio

Please take any action you see fit.

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Zoffioindia is blocked for spamusername, which is asserting both that the user name is bad and the apparent intentions are bad. Socking around the block should be considered disruptive. It's hard to stop the IP socking, but Draft:Zoffio should be semiprotected. If this leads to the person actually paying attention and reading our policies, then some relief could be provided. If not, then an MfD of the draft can be the next step. Under the language of EVASION you can just barely make an argument that G5 applies. The reasoning is ingenious but convoluted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston:

• I was struggling to make G5 fit, but couldn't. One minute "page", the next "edit". Sneaky. :) I agree with your views on that.
• Eventual MfD may work, but it is probably notable, so not sure about that.
• Zoffioindia blocked and the SPI should wrap up the rest.
• Semiprotect! Of course! This is the genius of EdJohnston (...or maybe the dullness of Anna. For it was right under my nose.)

Thank you so, so much!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)