Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900

190.6.236.60's Editing Conduct

Initially an AIV report, the issue seems to be bordering on "vandalism" and AGF. Moving issue to WP:ANI seems like the optimal solution, all other participants of the conversation are being pinged @R45: @The Earwig: to notify regarding new location of the discussion. Please see below for the initial WP:ANI report posed by R45 and comments following by Earwig and myself, JustBerry:

• 190.6.236.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User is making disruptive edits now, and has been for 2 months on topics relating to Nikki Minaj (i.e. going through articles where refer to her as American, and changing it to Trinidadian). Several dozen edits today already that have been reverted. --  R45  ^talk! 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: On Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape) (diff): vandalism after final warning. User came on IRC to try to resolve the issue, did not wish to accept any advice regarding WP:Sources or WP:Consensus, i.e. talk page discussion. User:Dragonflysixtyseven attempted to resolve the dispute by removing the nationality all together, yet IP still added the disputed nationality. User excessively swearing in IRC. It should be noted that no discussion was pursued on any article talk page prior to making these changes. JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JustBerry: Some edits are/were just pure vandalism from a month ago [1][2][3] but unfortunately in areas that are less patrolled - I just spent nearly an hour going through his/her July-August edits and cleaning up articles --  R45  ^talk! 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: I started doing the same; however, I'm currently speaking with the user on IRC. The user does not wish to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and policies we, i.e. helpers in the channels, have presented them with. The helpers have also tried to break it down for the IP editor, but the helpee doesn't seem to wish to listen. If you want, we can work on this project together off-WP:AIV. --JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Declined. Content dispute. Remember WP:AGF and do not call good-faith edits vandalism – it is very discouraging to new editors. — Earwig ^talk 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: The issue is currently being resolved over IRC on an AGF basis. Withholding AIV report for now. Quite frankly, this would most likely not have been assumed had the user not come on IRC. In any event, efforts are being now to create a discussion for the content dispute on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago or on specific article talk pages, of which the former would probably be the best right now. --JustBerry (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JustBerry: Frankly this is pure vandalism especially within the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago space, and I'll just leave non-T&T edits as is because this is far too time consuming to monitor and address. --  R45  ^talk! 04:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: A potential block would most likely fall under the category of edit warring. However, since the user proactively came onto IRC to resolve the issue, AGF can be assumed, as long as a sufficient discussion of the content dispute is done on an article talk page or WP: user talk space of some sort, i.e. WikiProjects. --JustBerry (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: Would you mind explaining how this is "pure vandalism"? — Earwig ^talk 04:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @The Earwig: This edit [4] (changing the land mass of a country) is just disruptive. This edit [5] and [6] changing the ethnic population stat, especially of "white" Trinidadian to 13% (when it is actually 1%, as per the source) would be the equivalent of editing the United States page and changing Blacks to be 50% of the population (i.e. it's ridiculous and absolutely not good faith - the ip traces to Trinidad the user would know better). Frankly if you look through the user's edit history, it's either disruptively manipulating stats, inserting Nikki Minaj into every article possible, and spinning articles to slant pro-Trinidadian (i.e. repeatedly removing references to "American" from Trinidad-Born Americans) is not good faith. There are over 100 of these similar edits. --  R45  ^talk! 04:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response. I admit ignorance of those particular edits; I was only aware of the ones involving Nicki Minaj's nationality. That seems like a debatable subject from my uninformed view: calling her American only does seem possibly misleading due to e.g. this source; see discussion on the talk page. — Earwig ^talk 04:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @The Earwig: Putting "Trinidadian-American" or "Trinidad-born American" is definitely understandable. However the IP user was actively involved in removing references to American from all her album pages and other artistes [7] - seeing the trend, my assumption of good faith ended there. --  R45  ^talk! 04:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: @The Earwig: User:Earwig has confirmed that he is going to sleep now on IRC. Requesting another sysop to bring some closure to this report. Multiple additional diffs have been made by the user post-reporting the situation to AIV. On IRC, when asked to justify this diff, user responded "It is reffered to as that by many countries worldwide." User followed up by saying "To be honest, I don't know how to get the sources and references done to articles just yet, It's still a learning process to me." It seems like AGF doesn't seem like a bad conclusion for now; however, the IP may still need to be monitored by a few editors to make sure further content disputes/edit wars across multiple articles related to Nicky Minaj don't happen at this large scale again, as the user appears to be anxious to make edits directly to the article mainspace without sufficient (any) discussion on article talk pages. Interestingly enough, however, this seems to be a previous discussion relating to this content dispute. I'm considering moving the discussion to WP:ANI. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Pinging Swarm for input, most recently active sysop at ANI currently. --JustBerry (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Just to note the user User:PositiveEM looks awfully similar to the IP users referenced above based on the edit history. --  R45  ^talk! 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: Then perhaps a resolution on proceeding to SPI needs to be made as well. --JustBerry (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Comment: @R45:For those reading the ANI report, it should be noted that the user was reported to WP:AIV once again for this despite last warning. No action taken yet, resolution for the editor's editing behavior should be formulated. --JustBerry (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

   Additional Comment @R45: Have you noticed any additional accounts that may possibly be linked to the user? The usage of multiple accounts is not a claimable issue for an SPI case, as users are permitted to login and logout of their accounts and edit from their IPs instead. However, if both users are disruptively editing, both users can be blocked. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  I've taken a look at the users edits following a report to AIV and I've blocked them for 31 hours. To me, the edits were starting to become disruptive.--5 albert square (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  I've also looked at the PositiveEM account and I believe it is the same editor. Therefore I have changed the block and disabled logged in users using that IP. That should resolve the issue but I've also added PositiveEM to my Watchlist just in case.--5 albert square (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: @5 albert square: Thanks. I'm also not entirely sure whether there might be socks related to that account/IP - we'll have to look out for similar editing patterns for that as well. --JustBerry (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JustBerry: @5 albert square: Judging by the edit history between the two accounts, they did appear to be socks as the IP editor resumed editing after the user account was blocked. However it also looks like the user has stopped the disruptive edits (at least since September 16th) so perhaps he/she has decided to be a little more patient and constructive with edits going forward. --  R45  ^talk! 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: Quite frankly, I just happen to come by the edit yesterday via STiki. Looks like 5 albert square and I will keep an eye, and I assume you will to. If something comes up, I think what would be best moving forward is pinging the main participants, so we're all in the loop. --JustBerry (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adelelmus of Flanders

As the English article for Adelelmus of Flanders has been a stub for some time and had been suggested to merge with Bernard of Thiron from February 2015, I attempted to start the merger discussion, which was left open for some time, and I also notified both editors who had been most heavily active in the page's process. I was not aware (did not notice, really) that to merge one specifically did need input from an uninvolved editor and Midas02 evidently has strong opinions otherwise but has not contributed substantially to the article in any form to indicate an interested in the article's expansion; and in which case, the article would be less likely to be merged. I do not believe that this editor is open to rational discussion and request input on the projected merger of the stub from an administrator. Ladysif (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is confusing because there is a notice on Adelelmus of Flanders to merge the article with Bernard of Thiron and another one to merge it with Tironensian Order. So far, there is almost no discussion on either talk page (and the merge discussion should be directed to just one talk page not two) so there is no need to administrator's opinion. Merge discussions usually go on for a few weeks so it's early into this one. What this discussion needs is not an admin but some more uninvolved editors weighing in and it would help if you posted notices about the discussion on the related WikiProjects to bring more editors over to participate in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Please delete my account"

User:Mohamed shafiq mustafa This user seeks only to have his account "deleted" ([8], [9]) and does not seem to be responding to messages at his talk page. As he has never made a constructive contribution and has seven times made a disruptive edit to WP:FAQ, I suggest we should help him by implementing the WP:VANISH procedures, i.e. deleting user subpages and renaming the account, then blocking it: Noyster (talk), 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CVUT, a better place for this may be WP:MfD or WP:BN. All the best, Miniapolis 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another laughable tale of editors fighting to stop articles being improved

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 other day I noticed that an article talked about someone planning to "climb the highest mountain on each of the world's 7 continents and stand on all 3 poles". What an embarrassing error! 3 poles? Everyone knows that the Earth doesn't have 3 poles. It has 2 poles, a north one and a south one. Well, OK, it has two magnetic poles as well, and people also talk sometimes about poles of inaccessibility and the pole of cold. But "all 3 poles"? The claim being made was that Everest is the third pole of the Earth. This is catastrophically wrong, so I removed it.

If this place really wanted to build an encyclopaedia, you'd be grateful for edits like that, you'd maybe even thank me for making them. But no! Building an encyclopaedia has become a tiresome distraction from the main aim of operating an absurd and arbitrary bureaucracy. So someone put the claim back, saying Rv curious removal of sourced material.

That editor then left me a series of unwelcome messages, intended only to provoke and harass: [10], [11], [12], [13]. They then began stalking my edits and serially reverting them, without ever trying to give any rational reason. This included four reverts in an hour to make an article absurdly claim that a 13 year interval between events meant that there was a 16 year cycle. [14], [15], [16], [17]

Then they left an infantile personal attack on my talk page [18]. They put it back when I removed it [19]

Were they warned not to make personal attacks? Were they warned not to edit war? Were they blocked for violating the 3RR? Of course not! Anyone with a username who attacks someone who doesn't see the need for one is exempt from these supposed rules.

Some people might still believe they are here to create an encyclopaedia. But they must be very few and far between, because this kind of pointlessly shitty behaviour is absolutely routine, and I never saw anyone warned about indulging in it. Shame on everyone who encourages it. Naturally, though, what will happen now is that I'll be attacked and insulted for complaining. 186.9.131.172 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Baiting you on your talk page was pathetic, and I've reverted it. But you have a really long history of not being able to resolve conflicts peaceably, so it is not reasonable to complain that others are not attempting to do so. I think calling Everest the third pole is stupid, but evidently it is called that (not as a piece of accurate science, but as an analogy/metaphor/whatever) in some places, so there is no need for the "I am 100% right and others are 100% wrong" approach. This whole "revert this person on sight" thing has gone all pear-shaped, of course, due to you and due to your "opponents", so I'm not going to get drawn into that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

People revert edits for no reason and then attack and insult the editor who made them. But sure, it's me that is unable to resolve things peaceably, isn't it? Now if they had suggested rewriting the text such that it was clear it was being labelled figuratively, and not referred to as if it were a fact of geography, we could have left the article in an improved state. But that's simply not what people are interested in, is it? It's nice that you removed their infantile post on my talk page but of course it doesn't help much if you don't bother to tell them clearly not to do such things and not to revert for no reason. Obviously, if they can ignore the 3RR and suffer no consequence in a case where they should obviously have been blocked, they'll do it again. 186.9.129.83 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We get thousands of unremarked-upon IP edits a day yet you consistently appear on ANEW or RFPP, reported by editors who often don't know you're socking and have a well-deserved long term abuse report describing your habits. The fault lies with your inability to control yourself, not with others. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It's my fault that people revert my edits for no reason, isn't it? "socking"? No. well deserved? You're talking about that idiotic attack page I presume. It violates policy blatantly, but like so many attacks against me it's encouraged and enthusiastically used in a pathetic war against quality.

Presumably you're aware that thousands of IP edits get reverted for no reason at all every day. You do your share of it. But apparently you don't have the wit to realise that most people who take the time to correct an obviously embarrassing error like a claim that the earth has three poles and find that people restore the shit they removed for no reason probably just think "well fuck that" and never contribute again. Are you proud of forcing absurd claims into articles and then protecting them to keep them in a shit state? I suppose you must be. 186.9.134.232 (talk) 03:35, 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.

Edit warring in an article

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

---

I have been adding content to an article Mudar Zahran, it is negative content but supported by reliable independent sources. Mudar himself the subject of the article, did not like these additions to his wikipedia page so through his ip address 82.3.238.241 (which is from the UK) constantly removed the content by falsely claiming it was 'vandalism', other users have intervened by reverting back to my added content, yet the ip address constantly ignored them and kept reverting my edits. When he ultimately failed to prevent me from re-adding the content, he seems to have hired 'User:Headhitter' (who is also miraculously from the UK) to do what he failed to do, which is remove the content... 'User:Headhitter' has removed my content, falsely claiming that it was 'vandalism' and when I pinged him on the talk page at Talk:Mudar Zahran to discuss his actions he chose to ignore me, I also left him a message on his talk page. These two claim that the sources are 'unreliable' and 'governmental' (since Mudar had problems with the government of Jordan) especially, Ammon News which is a private well respected news agency. (this is discussed in detail at Talk:Mudar Zahran ) --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Headhitter has been on Wikipedia since 2009 and has been actively editing with more than 20000 edits, so I strongly doubt that he was "hired" specifically for this article, though I make no comment on his activity on the article. This appears to be more of a content dispute. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian: People with experience are more likely to be hired, also I do not think experience correlates with ethics. It is a content dispute, but his actions are inappropriate and unjustifiable. Falsely accusing me of vandalism while removing completely sourced content to serve someone's benefits, is completely unethical (along with choosing to ignore discussion). --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I tend to support at least some of the removals by User:Headhitter. For example, I see no reason to have a lengthy quote from a primary source (with what looks like an original translation - at least all the citation links go to Arab versions) in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: I still fail to see how that gives him the right to accuse me of vandalism, along with refusing discussion. Its not original research, the source is literally saying that no one supports this man's ideology not even his father. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As in almost all other cases, the inclusion of a "Criticism" section in this edit has a strongly negative and not-neutral effect. Integrate the criticism into the rest of the article if you want it to stay, and please don't bother trying to integrate a family spat into a comprehensive biography until you can demonstrate that Britannica does likewise. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 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.

Disruptive Editing by MyTuppence‎

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.

---

MyTuppence‎ has repeatedly removed a ref improve tag from H. Montgomery Hyde without explanation or resolution of the problem. Most of the article is clearly unsourced. After one reversion he posted a warning for improper placement of maintenance tags on my talk page. I had also placed two on his for the improper removal of tags, which he has since deleted. After a brief and frank exchange on my talk page, and at his request, I posted to him on the talk page of the article. As of this posting, he has not replied. Out of deference to 3RR I waited for a little over a day to see if he would voluntarily restore the tag or offer some defense for the repeated removal. Both events failing, I restored the tag yesterday and it was quickly removed, again without explanation. I restored it and posted a level 4 warning on his talk page. Predictably he yet again removed the tag w/o explanation last night. I really hate ANI but I am running out of options. This seems to be a clear cut case of disruptive editing given he has offered no defense for his persistent removal of the tag. The only improvement he has made is to add a single source to a handful of spots on a still highly unsourced article. Regrettably I don't have access to the kinds of sources needed to verify the extensive uncited information in the article. If perhaps someone could restore the tag and have a word or two with him it would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MyTuppence has now moved on to using a blatantly false edit summaryin this situation. They still haven't responded on the talk page for the article. MarnetteD|Talk 13:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have struck the part of my post that was partially in error. T added one ref - which was helpful - but also remove the "refimprove" tag which was not. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that Account Control, which account is less than 24 hrs old, has made one and only one edit, that being an attempt to revert MarnetteD's replacing of the ref improve tag. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Striking the above statement as it is factually incorrect. A closer look shows that there have been several other edits. That said, I do find it odd that a brand new account would take notice of this particular dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ad Orientem I think you mean only one edit to the Hyde article (thanks for striking that part of your post) as they did make a handful of edits before that. I agree that it is on the "interesting" side but we need to AGF at this time. Especially since I missed the fact that one ref had been added. My removal of it shows that I was not thorough enough in looking at things and that error is on me. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ad Orientem your instincts were correct AC was a sock of MT. Both have been blocked by Ponyo‎ so this thread can be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 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.

User Kraxler Repeated Incivility Citations/Warnings from Various Editors

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.

---

As noted on his own Talk page, User:Kraxler has been repeatedly approached, by both veteran and new editors, concerning the content and tone of his comments, especially on AfDs, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kraxler#Your_comments_at_AfD for an overview. Can something more formal be done/filed concerning his habitual, documented incivility? SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A link to one discussion over one (alleged) incivility (improper use of WP:BADGER) does not strike me as someone being "repeatedly approached" about "content and tone". It certainly does not constitute " habitual, documented incivility". Do you have any links to a smoking gun or even the straw that broke the camels back? There must be something that prompted you to raise the issue here, after all. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reply The abovementioned thread about football-related AfDs doesn't contain any warning or any incivility. Anybody who wants to check it out, just read it. See also the previous thread ("Bayan Fenwick" section) on the same issue, a discussion I had with admin Fenix down about the notability guideline NFOOTY. The whole debate never left the bounds of civility, and none of the participating debaters ever complained about it. It follows a possible explanation why SnowdenFan now takes something that was debated on August 8 to ANI:
• SnowdenFan has recently taken part in several debates, AfD and other, and has shown an insufficient knowledge and understanding of deletion policy and guidelines. He also ususally argues ad hominem, sometimes making personal attacks.
  • We first interacted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gurnow - he accused me and Tarc of being sockpuppets and asked ReaperEternal for a checkuser test which was ignored by RE - Tarc then (jokingly) admitted of being a sockpuppet of JImbo Wales which SnowdenFan believed. When I pointed him to Irony he answered that "Aside from it being one of a suspicious number accounts, I think the use of "Jimbo Wales" has less to do with irony and more to do with implication when confronting newbies."
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living princes and princesses - "Oh, wow, your omniscience is impressive"
  • Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven - "As admin, you should set the example, not abuse the privilege." (mistaking me for an admin)
• I think SnowdenFan holds a grudge because his main interest here, the article on Michael Gurnow (who wrote a book about Edward Snowden), was deleted. I hope he'll calm down some day. Kraxler (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at the actual AFD that generated this complaint [20], I don't see anything that would remotely come across as incivil. As a matter of fact, I would argue his comments were exactly what we want at AFD, purely policy based, with examples, and comments that were rational and pithy. As for using the link WP:BADGER, I probably would have used WP:BLUDGEON instead, but I wrote that essay, so admittedly biased. Regardless, it is hardly a hanging offense. This report is completely without merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 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.

RGloucester

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.

---

RGloucester (talk · contribs) needs a block to calm down. If you take a look at his contributions in the past 10-15, you will see that he has acted rather disruptively. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It had to be stopped, so I've blocked him indefinitely. Doesn't have be forever, etc., etc. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted that, but there is some clean up to be done. Chillum 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec x 2)@My name is not dave: - we don't do "calm down blocks". That doesn't mean that a block won't be forthcoming for other reasons though.

See also user talk:Mjroots#Who do you think you are? and WT:UKT#FGW to GWR for background info.. I notice that RGloucester's talk page is now linking to user talk:First Great Western, so maybe an indication of a WP:COI here. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely bizarre behaviour. The move of the Peron TP to the GWR TP was disruptive if only because it wasted other editors' time. Mine for a start. Good block, hopfully not for a while because- unless I am very much mistaken- he has done good work up until now? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, he's trying to make a point that because someone has (as he saw it) conducted a page move without full consensus, he should be allowed to move pages unilaterally as well. Completely endorse both the block and the indef. ‑ iridescent 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Technically speaking, the account does not appear to be compromised. Mike V • Talk 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, that was me. The move had unanimous consensus at the time it was done, having been previously discussed at the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not defending him—if you check his history he has a long history of throwing these kind of tantrums if anyone disagrees with him. I was just explaining what his line of thinking is, as some people (including the blocking admin) seemed to be thinking this was a hijacked account. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My block comment re. "compromised" was a homage to WP:AGF, or just haste – take your pick. I've reviewed the previous block history, and this rampage is a continuation of previous transgressions. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Time for an extended "time out" then. We can do without such disruption and threats. I've now had to move protect talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company) as move protecting the article left the talk page free to be moved. I must say I was a little surprised this was able to be done, but that is likely another discussion for another venue. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely needed the time out. He went completely off the deep end. He even moved my user page to some bizarre name related to the dispute. Frankly, I'm not sorry to see him indeffed, and would heavily advise against ever unblocking him. This is not the first time he's gone off the rails when a discussion has gone against him, as though everyone should automatically defer to his opinion, and he gets angry/bizarre when people don't (like claiming to speak for God!). This is overdue. oknazevad (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have encountered this behavior from RGloucester in the past. I'm not sure about indefinitely blocking him, but I agree with giving him an extended "cool off/timeout" period. Dustin (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Some background here, here and here and above all here for context, as well. This is part of an established pattern, not a bolt from the blue. (Now he's blocked, expect more ravings like this from him.) ‑ iridescent 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, as other have noted this is nothing new. I blocked him for two weeks for the last freak out back in May, and was very clear with him at that time that this behavior needs to stop, permanently, and that he shouldn't expect such leniency the next time he lost control and made a ridiculous spectacle of himself. If he thinks he is right, he apparently believes that justifies any and all outrageous behavior he engages in. It saddens me to see this as he is otherwise a good contributor, but he needs a long break from Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs a long break from him. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Right; in that case, fuck it- previous qualification struck. Seems to have just been the straw that broke the camel's back and a long time but not unexpected in coming. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 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.

May need to protect this British prime-minister-related article...

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

---

The National Anthem (Black Mirror) -- an episode of a British TV series, into which there is an irresistible impulse to inject a current British politician in place of the fictional one of the episode, given a current incident in the news. It's probably a good idea to protect or semiprotect it and its parent episode-list article. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan. Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RPP. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did... keeping all these noticeboards straight is difficult! *Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 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.

HeartBD2K and clones? socks? or students?

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.

---

Evening!

Going through the edit history of some biochemistry articles I noticed a number of editors with fairly similar names:

• HeartBD2K JessicaMLee (talk · contribs · count)
• HeartBD2K Scruggssb (talk · contribs · count).
• HeartBD2K jtabaraki (talk · contribs · count)
• HeartBD2K Jspolson (talk · contribs · count)
• Heartbd2k DavidLiem (talk · contribs · count)
• Heartbd2k DingWang (talk · contribs · count)

Unclear whether they - and perhaps several others - are at all related to HeartBD2K (talk · contribs · count).

Normally I wouldn't me much concerned: these accounts could likely be editing as a part of some biochemistry course (even though it nowhere says so on their user pages) and their edits do not seem to pose unusual problems. But throughout my wiki history I have seen some unbelievable cases of meat- and sockpuppetry, so I'd very much appreciate if someone more experienced would take a look. Many thanks! kashmiri ^TALK 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

These could be from http://www.heartbd2k.org/, which is the "NIH Center of Excellence at UCLA". Might just be a number of account from the same group, all the edits look to be constructive so far. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Data_to_Knowledge#Self_published_content HeartBD2K was told that organizations were not allowed to have user accounts, so the members of HeartBD2K created their own personal accounts. The goal of the program is to improve coverage of the mitochondrial proteome on wikipedia. I don't think this is an issue. Brianbleakley (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nothing to worry about, then. kashmiri ^TALK 21:16, 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.

Steward's account?

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 edit and this edit look like relatively harmless vandalism. But Shizhao's previous edits aren't anything like vandalism, especially if you search User talk:Shizhao for the word "steward" which occurs several times. Does this mean a vandal has compromised a steward's account? Art LaPella (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a child accessing his account. Did he forget to log out from a shared/public computer? Maybe a sysop could remotely clean his login cookie? kashmiri ^TALK 21:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message at his zh.wikipedia user talk page, as that seems to be his main account. He was a steward but isn't at present. Bencherlite^Talk 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

May be he can be banned temporarily if things don't get fixed from his end, atleast it will deter the person using his account.  A m i t  웃   21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

His en.wiki account isn't really the problem; the experimenting moved to a sandbox, and ended 3 hours ago. The only real issue here is embarrassment. The bigger issue is, he's still a sysop at meta, commons, and several other wikis, and a bureaucrat on a few of those. Perhaps someone on IRC wants to ping a Steward? I wonder if a WMF-wide temporary desysop/decratting is called for? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is one thing I don't understand here, how was this, and all the rest, done with huggle? Especially since this might be a public computer, but why would there be huggle on a public computer? -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I just test API edit in APIsandbox. I don't know POST test in APIsandbox will really affect the actual page. When I found out this problem, other users have rv. Sorry--Shizhao (talk) 01:21, 22 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.

Paid editing/impersonation

I have been contacted via email by user:Srtwiki who claims that they payed someone with my name and an email address similar to my username $325 to create a page. The page has apparently now been deleted and this person is not responding to their emails. There was a similar incident in June - details here - where someone claiming to be me was asking for money to reinstate a deleted page.

Srtwiki was registered today and has never edited. I doubt they will tell me what page they created, so it won't be easy finding out who it really is.

Any advice on how to deal with this would be greatly appreciated. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarahj2107, any chance your experience resembles this set of circumstances? Tiderolls 17:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I missed that one. There are similarities but the email I got only says "Is [I'll not post this but it's not mine] your email address? I paid $325 to Sarah Jane for my Wiki page and it has now been deleted and she hasn't been responding." So I wouldn't want to say it's definitely linked without more information. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: please forward, with permission, any correspondence you have to [email protected] and please ask @Srtwiki: to do the same. Thank you. Keegan (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable contributions

Does anyone know what to make of Pureromblomanon's contributions? Right now, s/he has been creating articles by the minute that are presumably supposed to be about different high schools but instead all they contain are the same category with no actual article content. Normally I would file such behavior under newbie mistakes, but all the warnings, etc on his/her talk page seem to suggest that it might just be disruptive editing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The number of speedy deletion notices on their talk page is indeed concerning, but I think the appropriate action for now is to strongly advise the user to read WP:YFA, create userspace drafts and submit to WP:AFC instead. If the user continues to create inappropriate pages following the warning then perhaps further administrative action could be entertained. For the record, I have tagged Corcuera National High School and Mabini National High School (Corcuera) all for deletion under WP:CSD#A3 (no content). (Non-administrator comment) Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought about directing him/her to WP:YFA too, but it looks like that was already attempted by another user last year. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, but the link was buried in Template:Welcomemenu, which has at least 60 links in it and isn't specifically about creating content. I think the best way forward would be to compose a message that specifically addresses the point that when an article is published to mainspace, it is expected to meet the standards of mainspace (making sure content is verifiable, context is established, neutral point of view, no speedy deletable content, etc.). Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added a message to the user's talk page. Feel free to add anything if you feel it's necessary. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, what you added looks good. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

Here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just now warned the user about the no legal threats policy. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Textbook case. GAB^Hello! 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For context, the same blanking came up five years ago at Talk:Tube_Challenge#Record_holder.27s_name: a SPA/socking editor claiming to be one of the record holders and demanding that their name be removed, despite being named in the Guinness Book of Records and in plenty of press coverage. They never explained why. --McGeddon (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Palkanetojiala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has started editing the same topics and created an article titled Andi James. The legal threats have not been repeated, but it's likely the same user now registered. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

...And has been indefinitely blocked by another admin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• IP blocked 36 hours for making legal threats after another occurrence. Since it's an IP, I'm reluctant to long-term block for a first offence, since it might be a dynamic or gateway IP. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's the second IP to edit over the same content today, likely same user each time. I've added the pages to my watchlist in case the user continues disruption under a different IP (dynamic, public WiFi, or other means) - hopefully others will be watching it as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The original account from 2010 is User:Palkanetoijala (with a slightly different spelling to the recent account), if any more socks emerge. --McGeddon (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm guessing the blocked IP 90.221.240.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same editor is 94.117.82.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is not blocked but who has been removing the same content. Epic Genius (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User created another account User:Palaknetoijala. I've now indef blocked this one too.--5 albert square (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Broter misrepresenting citations and pushing an Islamophobic POV

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

All of the user's edits relating to Islam have had the singular purpose of making the religion look like a religion of terrorism, particularly in trying to portray Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warlord, usually using WP:PRIMARY-based WP:OR instead of mainstream academic sources. This included starting off with an edit war at Depictions of Muhammad ([21], [22], [23]).

As can be seen on his userpage, he does plenty of work relating to Mormonism and some to Christianity, and is generally able to ignore sectarian differences there. When it comes to Islam? His only book is titled "Islamic terrorism." Do I deny that that's a thing? Obviously not. But I am no more under the delusion that it represents Islam any more than polygamy represents Mormonism.

Recently, in the article Muhammad in Islam, Broter has taken to trying to add a cherry-picked quote to present Muhammad as forcing the conversion of Abu Sufyan, next to a bunch of sourced text describing Muhammad as sparing Abu Sufyan's life. He initially tried using a primary source, at which point I explained that we require non-primary modern academic sources. He then tried citing a obviously unacceptably sectarian work. When I explained that sectarianism of any form is not allowed here, he tried citing a Muslim source, as if that was the issue.

Here's the kicker: the secondary source cited, The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, does not contain the quote it's being cited for. Search for "apostle of God" (in quotes), and none of the entries that come up begin to match the quote. It's not that the section isn't available to view. Page 227 (the cited page) is available, but doesn't even contain the words "apostle of God." The phrase "before your neck is cut off by the sword" appears no where in the book. Even the individual words 'neck' and 'sword' do not appear together in the book. I don't know whether this is because Broter is only getting his info from sectarian sources that would lie about their sources, or if it's because he's just decided to use any means necessary to present WP:THETRUTH about "the enemy," or if he doesn't understand that the quote actually has to be somewhere in the book for the citation to be valid, but the quote in question is not in that book at all. He has also added this false quotation to other articles. I'd've gone through the usual WP:DR if it wasn't for the witting or unwitting misrepresentation of sources.

Now, if someone who doesn't have a history of an Islamophobic bias wants to add modern, mainstream academic sources that discuss warfare and forced conversions carried out by Muhammad, fine by me. If Broter wants to keep working on LDS related articles, cool. But sectarianism of any sort has no place here. Broter has undeniable POV issues when it comes to Islam and/or Muhammad, and needs to back off from articles relating to either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The same quote is on our Abu Sufyan ibn Harb page, and appears to come from [ http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/ ]. That site is used a lot on Wikipedia.[24] I suggest for someone with more knowledge about Islam and the Quran than I have to bring this to WP:RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote is on page 277 of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, according to the sources, which I provided. You Ian.thomson, do not quote my sources correctly. I can not view the page 277 of this book on google books.--Broter (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The page you wrongly quoted Page 227 (not the cited page) is also not availabe on google books. So much for your search. Anyway the quote is on page 277 of this book.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here's page 277, which is quite visible in that link. Where's the quote? Oh, not there, either. Probably because you got it from a sectarian source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote is in the book [25], there they quote the work by Dr. Buti. I changed my source only because you ,Ian.thomson, wanted a modern muslim source. A modern non-muslim source is equally valuable! If the quote is not in the muslim source in the english translation, the non-muslim source is as valuable. The first modern source called Behind the Veil: Unmasking Islam was written by a nativ arab speaker. He translated from the original arab version of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography. Probably you know the Middle East Media Research Institute, they report about speeches in the arab world which are not shown on western TV.--Broter (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said "cite a Muslim source," I repeatedly told you to cite a modern academic source. That you can only think in terms of "Muslim vs non-Muslim," don't seem to understand that Behind the Veil is a sectarian source, and don't seem to understand that it is sectarianism that is the problem (no matter how many times it is explained to you) are signs that you should not be editing articles relating to Islam. As I have asked you before, do you want us to start basing our articles on Mormonism on the opinions of imams? Do you want us to write the article on Joseph Smith from the perspective that he was an advocate of occultism, pedophilia, and polygamy? If not, then quit acting out the same behavior in articles on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I admit that my only source was [26] and hope that I will not be punished. The said quote is anyway removed everywhere.--Broter (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My work on Islam was generally well received with the exception of this instance. So please do not punish me for this mistake.--Broter (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Overlooked" =/= "well received." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this editor, Broter, is clearly using Wikipedia to advance extremist views in violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:NPOV. The misuse of sources and the denial of such misuse is astounding. The inclusion of hate speech from non-reliable sources is worrying. AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will grant that his work on Mormonism seems to be in line with policy. A topic ban (even if just an informal voluntary one) from articles concerning Islam or Muhammad seems more in order than a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future.--Broter (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment from User:Eightball

First I should say this is a "result" of the discussion some sections above at #User continually reverts correct edits

User:Eightball has during this continously used personal attacks and after recieving [27] this final warning. He continued making this edit calling me a "troll" and saying "I will not rest until you have been punished or banned" which is serious. At WP:ARV I was told to go here.

The editor has also called me a vandal, said to an other editor that I am insane, called me petulant baby and more.

Also he has been forumshopping on multiple places to get me blocked (harrassment), for example

• WikiProject Football
• ANI (above)
• User talk:R45
• ARV
• User talk:NeilN
• User talk:JMHamo

This type of personal attacks, harrassment and forumshopping is not okay, I welcomce proper discusssion but when admin said "no" in the discussion he opened above he should not have gone after me. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked you. I firmly believe that you edit in bad faith and without any intent to improve articles or to contribute to the community. I have yet to see an administrator satisfactorily handle these complaints. Eightball (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Eightball. Any more statements like the above and this admin will block you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try and read info and diffs provided, you can not say that you have not made personal attacks when you have called me a "troll" and "petulant baby" and more. Those are clear personal attacks. Also several editors have not made any action to me after the discussion, so please just drop it and stop harassing me. You can not go around everywhere until you find one editor that agree with you. Qed237 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I'm genuinely asking: what is wrong with the above? It is in no way intended to be an attack or insulting. It is merely an observation of Qed237's pattern of editing. Eightball (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) civility is required. Personal attacks have no place on WP. The diffs show personal attacks. If there are issues with another editor bring them to a noticeboard. Dont call them names or comment on them. Stay on the topic of the article and the content. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Eightball, in the little over two years Qed237 has been here, he has over 47,000 edits. If he was a vandal ("you edit in bad faith and without any intent to improve articles or to contribute to the community") he would have been blocked a long time ago. Your over-the-top rhetoric has crossed into personal attacks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of you have any understanding of how frustrating it is to see an editor behave in a manner that so obviously hurts the quality of specific articles, hurts new editors, and damages the wiki as a whole, and see everyone else spring to his defense simply because what he's doing technically isn't against the rules. All I'm asking is for you to look objectively at the facts, ignore wiki policies for a second (are we not capable of developing new ideas?), and truly ask yourself: are Qed237's actions in the best interest of Wikipedia? I fail to see how they possibly could be. I do not think he is intentionally saying, "Heh, I'm gonna make pages worse." But I think he, and many others, are too singularly focused on enforcing the rules exactly as they are written, without any consideration of how those same rules can be enforced in much more productive ways.

I tried approaching this directly with Qed237 and he ignored me. I tried raising this within Wikiproject Football - which seemed very reasonable to me, as it was the affected project - only for him to revert all of my posts. I tried contacting the administrators only to have my real point effectively ignored. Tell me: what do you expect me to do? I'm not simply going to sulk away and have him continue to revert people who are trying to help. Are we not all on the same team here? No one has EVER explained to me why Qed237 can't simply correct the timestamps, educate the editor, and report anyone who is a continual problem child. Why is that not the PERFECT outcome of all of this? Eightball (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I expect you to, or rather strongly suggest that you drop the stick, calm yourself, start listening, and move on, because you're facing a block for your own behavior sooner rather than later. You're not the only one on Wikipedia to ever to reach a complete impasse in a dispute, but most of us are able to let it go when our frustration gets the better of us and we start tending towards disruption. Your crusade to have Qed punished because you disagree with him is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Swarm ♠ 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have had absolutely no interaction with this editor until this afternoon; but when informed that statements such as QED is an obvious troll and people like him desperately need to be purged from this site are unwelcome, he responds immediately with what can only be called WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I have closed the above discussion. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Your crusade to have Qed punished" I am not crusading to have him punished. No punishment is necessary. He just needs to be told to stop. Eightball (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea @Eightball:, why don't you stop and WP:DROPTHESTICK, then this whole conversation can be archived and forgotten about. JMHamo (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your own words contradict that notion. Nobody agrees that such an ultimatum is warranted and it's not going to happen. You're the one being told to stop now, lest you end up blocked. Swarm ♠ 05:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, whom exactly are you talking to now? Eightball or Qed237? (Or JMHamo?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Money says, User:Eightball... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, close this discussion, I will enforce sanity myself and fix Qed237's errors. Remember this moment when this website inevitably dies because you've run off every potential contributor. Eightball (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

a new kind of problem

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.

---

Here's a new sort of problem for you. User:GregJackP and I disagreed sharply on an ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw ‎ Immediately after that tussle he started attacking the article about me at Richard J. Jensen. He adds --a request for a citation--and when I respond he calls it edit warring. The rule regarding is this: "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction and no edit warring. This is clearly retaliation for the Talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC) He is adding false info (eg Infobase is a major New York publisher & he falsely states it is self-published). When I revert BLP violations he threatens 3R sanctions. User:GregJackP also makes the false charge on my talk page that I originated Richard J. Jensen user:Bluedudemi wrote it. This is clearly retaliation for the talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

how can I do that?? Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want an article about me on Wikipedia. Anyway, you can read about diffs at Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide (and, for more advanced instructions, Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like any admin action is necessary. The AGF view is, you declared yourself as Richard Jensen on the RfA. GregJackP decided to check out the page and started questioning the cites. Since there is a COI involved, best if you indicate your views on the talk page and then que sera sera.I note that Maunus is also looking at the article so it's not just the two of you any longer. --regentspark (comment) 02:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on this edit, it appears Dr. Jensen has listened to reason and is at least not at the moment editing his own pagespace or resuming his warring behaviors. Let's hope in the morning he has a more balanced perspective. Thanks for your help. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wait just a minute. Now, I could hardly be accused of being biased in favor of Dr. Jensen, since we've disagreed at a number of pages and in fact I've often been frustrated by my interactions with him. But what GregJackP is doing here is inappropriate. Categorically inappropriate. So inappropriate that I can't believe the AN/I "first responders" are so far off base as they are here. Here's what happened: Rjensen made GregJackP angry. GregJackP then went to Rjensen's Wikipedia biography and added a clearly disruptive, excessive number of {{citation needed}} tags. It could not be more obvious that this tagging was retaliation, or escalation, of their dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw.

  This sort of thing is, sadly, not a new kind of problem. Most recently, it came up in a recent ArbCom case, where the Committee found that "an editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual." Seems like common sense, except that it apparently eluded both GregJackP and the editors who responded above here at AN/I.

  For the record, this is clearly inappropriate, and if GregJackP continues to edit Rjensen's Wikipedia biography in this fashion then I or another admin will block him. Wikipedia biographies are not tools or theaters of operation in which to pursue a dispute with another editor. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• This series of edits[28][29][30][31][32][33] are a bit troubling. ( See Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas#Deliberate infection and Siege of Fort Pitt#Biological warfare ). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, would you please consider removing your comment and those diffs - they have absolutely nothing to do with this ANI. The issues with the edits you've referenced have already been discussed and resolved among the parties and others. Thank you. Minor4th 00:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell, completely. And I also share their discontent with the responses here--the commentaries by the first responders is is patronizing: please stop using ANI as a sandbox where you practice at playing admin. Anyway, GregJackP has no business messing around with that article; in this case, they have less business messing around with it than Rjensen does. I forgot who is on which side in the Montanabw RfA; I know that MastCell and I are in opposite columns but in this we are in agreement. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Was skimming ANI (why would I do that??), noticed this, and thought it warranted another Official Admin Comment just to underscore the point. MastCell is entirely right. If you get into an argument with an editor who also happens to be a notable individual, hands off editing the article. I haven't caught up on the latest RfA drama but I guess I must be on one of these guys' side, and they're both right anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• I also want to agree here. It's a good idea to actually examine the matter before making a blind response. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If MastCell and other admins are unhappy with the first responses to ANI threads the logical way to address that would be for them to respond sooner. While the individual no doubt meets Wikipedia's standard of notability, it's a) tacky to edit your own article and b) interesting that not a lot of people seemed interested in viewing it before he was causing a ruckus at Rfa [34] -- not sure what caused the August 03 bump. So the position here if you want your article left alone annoy the insider wiki crowd so they're disqualified from editing your article? NE Ent 11:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't respond to AN/I threads at all, anymore. I only noticed this one because it stemmed from a dispute at the RfA, which I have watchlisted since I contributed there. I was probably too harsh about the first response—I'm not in a position to cast the first stone, because my own first instincts are hardly infallible either. But this was a serious and substantive complaint: retaliatory editing of a BLP is a Real Problem, and I want to be sure that it's taken seriously. MastCell ^Talk 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were too harsh and a little too hasty, which led to a dogpile here. At least one other admin above had looked at the situation and determined that there was no need for admin action and noted the COI of the OP heavily editing his own BLP. Not to mention the fact that GJP had stopped editing that article well before you arrived to finger wag. And then several more admins show up to get in their licks, including casting some less than civil aspersions: " please stop using ANI as a sandbox where you practice at playing admin.". The way GregJackP went about editing the RJensen article was pointy and inappropriate, and he deserved an admonishment perhaps -- but RJensen's edits to his own bibliography were also inappropriate and self-promoting and run afoul of many WP PAG's, And if any of you chastiers looked into the contexts that started this dust up, you'd see that RJensen was very disruptive at the RfA and presented what proved to be false (and serious) accusations against the candidate [35] in apparent retaliation for a past content dispute. At the risk of sounding a bit dramatic, this kind of thing is the reason good editors and contributors quit the project . Minor4th 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Errm... good editors quit the project because they make inappropriate, retaliatory edits to a BLP and then get called on it? I'm skeptical. I don't see a "dogpile" here. I see an instance where Rjensen brought a valid complaint about a serious concern, and was initially blown off ("dogpiled", even). I see no evidence that GregJackP spontaneously saw the error of his approach, so a firm response here doesn't seem out of place. I have no opinion on the real-life accusations going back and forth at the RfA, but let's be clear: there is nothing that Rjensen could do that would justify openly retaliatory editing of his Wikipedia biography. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed This was badgering, no less. GregJackP asked for references, Rjensen supplied references , GregJackP removed them and again asked for references. KoshVorlon 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mastcell's analysis is on point, as usual. It might not be an issue, however, because GregJackP appears to have retired from the project. Obviously, there's retirement and there's retirement, but it may be that things calm down now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience only about 1 in 20 "retirements" actually stick. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 15:22, 22 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.

talk page vandalism

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

---

Hi, my respects. some user vandalizing my page. You might want to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NotAlpArslan Only responsible administrators are kindly requested to take necessary measures. thanks NotAlpArslan (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my respects. Some user by the name of Fortuna imeratrix mundi is continuing to harrass me, he first mocked me with a message which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NotAlpArslan&oldid=682103947 and the described persistence via this link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NotAlpArslan

Please to take the necessary measures thank you. best honnest regards.

Signed

NotAlpArslan (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor is not here! -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, regards, he vandalized my page again, i wait for a measure :) NotAlpArslan (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You may have a long wait. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"totally anti islam" userbox, loud quacking

NotAlpArslan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do you think it is remotely appropriate for you to have a userbox that says "This user is totally anti islam."[36]? Wikipedia is not the place to let people know which religions your are "anti". Your very first edits indicate that you have a history here, what account did you use in the past? I am glad you came here for administrative attention. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I should probably point out incase no one's aware that NAA had created 4 reports here only 2 days ago, I think WP:ROPE is running out for this user. –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, thought that name was familiar. They just signed up on the 14th. At this point I am suspecting this person has worn out the patience of the community in the past. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well he wore my patience out but then again I didn't have much patience to begin with! . –Davey2010^Talk 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan is blocked for 72 hours. [37] I would not be surprised if their response caused it to become an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There actually has been a response here, in which NotAlpArslan seems to once again be indicating a pronounced lack of understanding of the policies and guidelines here. This unblock request, which basically just accuses NeilN of blocking him without reason, has been answered, but, if there is another one, of more or less the same nature, or if he indulges in the same sort of activity after the block is lifted, I also have a strong feeling we will be revisiting the matter of his conduct. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 22 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.

Kantar Media Philippines

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 writing to report a massive editing of data in an that is misleading people today. This is about Kantar Media Philippines, a TAM provider in the Philippines. Some people edited the article and make it appear to be affiliated or is a subsidiary of ABS-CBN, a leading media outfit in the country. Kantar Media Philippines is an Independent media research company. By making it appear to be affiliated to ABS-CBN, the lone media outfit subscribed to their TV Ratings, it demolishes the independence and name of the media research company.

There were no proofs or whatsoever to prove the claim that it is affiliated to ABS-CBN. This violates the rule that content should be verifiable. As for the proof that Kantar is not an affiliate, this is the link of a complete set of information regarding the conglomerate ABS-CBN and its subsidiaries. http://www.pdex.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Disclosure-No.-418-2014-Annual-Report-for-Fiscal-Year-Ended-December-31-2013-SEC-FORM-17-A.pdf This is a public document provided by ABS-CBN.

Now, I am requesting for the article to be protected indefinitely as it is being edited at any time and used for misleading people in the Philippines. This also demolishes the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of dependable and relevant facts. PS: I don't know how to request for the protection of the article as it looks very technical. I hope someone can help me on this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Escudero (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this a content dispute? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:43, 22 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.

administrative action needed

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.

---

• DoctorWhoLover11 (talk · contribs)

Can someone with a mop do the needful? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

• I have blocked User:User talk:DoctorWhoLover11 for 24 hours for vandalism. I actually did it BEFORE I saw that this thread had been created. @TheRedPenOfDoom:. DES ^(talk) 19:15, 22 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.

Self-outing

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.

---

Does this need oversighting? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it does, but I did it, and another instance on their own talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced it does, but if it did, it should not be posted here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit has been deleted and cannot be viewed. This discussion should be closed. F117IS (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I will say that n general, if something might need oversight, posting about it at WP:ANI is the wrong approach. I will also say that if a competent adult chooses to post his or her email address or other contact info on a very public page, there is no rule against it. I myself post my legal name and image on my user page, along with other information which would easily enable a google search to find my full contact info. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind eh _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss is probably a minor; see the bottom of [38]. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure there's other places to post, and it shouldn't be here, but everyone also knows that this is the place to get attention quickly. In fact, I didn't even see the post, really--I saw the diff go by on Recent Changes, clicked on it, and did what I did. It can't get much quicker than that. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 23 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.

IP, legal threats, etc

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

---

Anyone care to remove Talk Page access from this interesting IP editor? [39] and [40] Scr★pIron^IV 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it was already done while I was writing this - Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 20:57, 22 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.

Self proclaimed banned editor WP:SOCKing

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.

---

• 201.54.129.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.54.129.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Self proclaimed socks of banned editor. Please block as necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Resolved

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.

Behavioral review, self-invoked

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 folks, long-time listener, first-time caller. Can some wikipedians please cast their wiki-eyeballs upon User:75.108.94.227 (aka myself -- I always edit as an anon -- never as a non-IP-username), especially on the Talk:Jacob_Barnett page?

  p.s. Ask that you *specifically* focus on any behavioral issues, you may see, however small, with that specific anon-editor *only* ...please-n-thank-you. All editors currently active on that article-talk are long-haul contributors, so I ask for this intentionally very narrow scope, in my request, and intentionally provide just no diffs, save the recent edit-history of said talkpage,[41] wherein you will see my dozen-or-so contributions (namely [42][43][44]^[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]), which began as of 14 September 2015‎. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, this requests looks like you're trying to win a content dispute by framing it as a "self-invoked behavioral review". If the editors on the talk page think your behavior is disruptive, I'm sure they're more than capable of discussing it with you, and then notifying an admin or filing a noticeboard report if necessary. Until that happens, this is purely a content dispute, which this board does not deal with, since admins have no special remit regarding content. BMK (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an honest request, BMK: if I've crossed any behavioral lines, or even toe'd them, I honestly want to know. I don't think I have, but if I have, I'd prefer to correct it immediately. What I'm trying to do is get some uninvolved eyeballs to look at my own edits, and call out my perceived behavioral-policy-violations. If there are any, I'm happy to have them corrected. If there aren't any, then I'd like that to be the end of this request. I have never taken anyone to AN/I before, and decided that it was better to take myself to AN/I, which requires a single diff, than somebody else. I did not come to this decision lightly. I am posting here, in the good faith belief that my suggestion of a self-invoked behavioral review, is exactly the best way to handle the situation. There *is* certainly a content-dispute, no question. It is about a week old now (from my just-arrived perspective), and I will be seeking WP:RSN or WP:BLPN about said content-dispute, as appropriate. But I believe it will improve the talkpage-atmosphere, if either I am set straight by some admins about what I'm doing wrong, or I am not set straight because I'm not doing anything wrong. I am not asking any admins to help with the content-dispute, I've edited mainspace on this article exactly once so far (reverting an edit from March which has not been re-reverted so far), and I think the sources (and RSN/BLPN/DR/etc) are quite sufficiently plain-jane. Besides content, though, there has been plenty of talk of behavioral issues, which I believe not to exist. That is why I'm here, to see whether they exist. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of talking-a-lot-but-not-saying-anything. And intentionally omitting diffs makes it really difficult for other editors to help your...um, what exactly do you want us to do here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please click this.[52] Please click the diff-button, next to the ~16 edits that I made. Please suggest corrections, if you see behavioral problems, on my part specifically. That is my request, end to end. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is, we shouldn't have to search for the diffs; you should provide them yourself (not simply an article's edit history). Leaving diffs out intentionally really isn't helpful. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, Erpert. I was not intentionally leaving out the self-diffs, just thought they were overkill to list singly. I have inserted the self-diffs in question; one of them 'confuses' the mediawiki-diff-software, the one with the caret^ suffix added, but most are clean diffs. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:17, 23 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 Jumpuy

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

---

I'm here to report disruptive editing from User Jumpuy. The user keeps adding the years in the presenters and judges lists of the infoboxes in The X Factor (Australian TV series), The Voice (Australian TV series), The Voice Kids (Australian TV series) and Australia's Got Talent despite Template:Infobox television saying the years should not be included. I have left hidden notes in these infoboxes, explained to the user in edit summaries ([53], [54], [55], [56]) and on the user's talk page ([57]) but the user is still not listening. User Jumpuy has been recently blocked twice for disruptive editing. Lightsout (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTALK editor, will most likely end up blocked sooner or later. (Someone want to write the essay for me?) Would an admin care to do the honors? Or issue yet another warning if you seriously think it will help? NE Ent 01:56, 23 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.

Possible Legal Threat at User talk:FriendRahul

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 am posting here to draw your attention to this: [58] recent post by the user on his or her own talk page. The sentence "I will drag you soon legally and you will be rewardes for sarcasm." seems like a legal threat to me. I have notified the user about the legal threats policy and the opening of this discussion at their talk page. Thank you. Mww113 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looks to be a pretty straightforward legal thread. Blocked indef. Thank you for letting us know. Regards, Swarm ♠ 03:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Thank you for responding quickly. Mww113 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that I would have gotten them to expound upon their meaning a bit. There appears to be language issues. From this warning and this one, it appears he means filing here on wiki and not an actual legal case..." I will proceed in my way such that you will lose all your rights for misusing Wikipedia." It wouldn't be that hard to ask them what they meant by "dragging someone legally".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the legal threat, he made claims of ethnic bias. He can explain all of that stuff in his next unblock request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 24 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.

Tendentious editing by Jc3s5h

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.

---

Jc3s5h has made a post to my talk page in which he asks me to reply to criticisms. I can't, because the page he posted them to is semi - protected, and he knows that. He posted to a thread on this page (i.e. ANI) in which an editor said

In addition, the case page has been semi - protected to ensure that none of the IP addresses accused can respond to the case (a request for removal has been filed).

He continues:

It is worth noting that there has been a flurry of editing activity at Prime Meridian (Greenwich) within which two editors are attempting to WP:OWN the article by objecting to what others are editing in. I have to note that Jc3s5h who is also attempting to own the article has also chimed in and reverting the same good faith (and correct) edits. I would therefore suggest that these two [i.e. Jc3s5h and JoeSperrazza] may even be sockpuppets of each other.

Later he says

According to the evidence put up by Jc3s5h, everyone who edits Wikipedia and lives in London must be sockpuppets of each other. That is his sole evidence. Within a population of 8.6 million people, I await all the future SPI cases whenever he dislikes anyone's editing ... That is nothing more than your [Jc3s5h's] determined attempt to make sure that I cannot respond to your malicious allegations where you made them. I note that you continue to add irrelevances secure in the knowledge that they cannot be answered.

It is now very clear that Jc3s5h and JoeSperrazza are sockpuppets of each other. Both are intent on reverting the IP editors without any case having been proven AND using an identical edit summary].

Both users have also redacted good faith discussion atempts left on their talk pages ... It is unusual to find two editors who both clean such comments off their talk pages, less so, two who claim to be doing it for alleged sockpuppets of banned users before they have even produced a viable case let alone proven the point.

I get the impression that Jc3s5h has WP:CIR issues. This impression is reinforced by two edits he has made in the last couple of hours. In the first he changed "removing a long - standing obstacle" to "solving a long - standing obstacle", thus turning the phrase into gibberish. In the second he changed "the date of Easter was tied to the spring equinox" to "the spring equinox was tied to the date of Easter". This displays a dangerous lack of knowledge of elementary astronomy, an area in which he edits prolifically. 31.54.205.164 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The preceding post makes it difficult for 31.54.205.164 to deny he/she is actually Vote (X) for Change; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. I ask the administrators to immediately act upon the sock puppet investigation. Since the banned Vote (X) for Change has been editing Gregorian calendar using a wide variety of IP addresses for more than 5 years I also suggest permanent semi-protection of Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 23 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.

COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

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 article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [59] and [60]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The issue was discussed at Talk:Democracy & Nature, so there was no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page. And apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules... --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh man... Could somebody not involved please have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• And ongoing PA by another editor, Panlis, who exclusively edits topics related to the ones mentioned above. Given the vehemence and the accusations, I feel almost like I am dealing with a sect here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..

Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..

And all this when

(a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,

(b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,

(c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,

(d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

"A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)

Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attacks don't go to dispute resolution, they go to ANI. Simple. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.

"Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor I see an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sargis is more than a former contributor, he's the assistant editor. It wouldn't be surprising if this group of editors is an evolution of the group of IPs who used to edit the talk pages of these articles identifying themselves as Takis, members of the journal's editorial board/committee or the webmaster of the journal [61][62][63][64]. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 to comment on 7 Sept. in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock-puppet or other violation. John sargis (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• You say

"I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."

a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)

b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.

"This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."

c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.

d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.

"And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "

e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.

g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone summarise what the dispute is about in a few lines? The above is rather overwhelming, but I see lots of "other stuff exists" type arguments about why certain style conventions shouldn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The dispute started when I removed a list of contributors and a listing of the journal's editorial board from the article, per the reasoning given in WP:JWG, which is based on a broad consensus in the WikiProject Acadmeic Journals: contributors or editorial board members should only be listed if reliable sources exist that discuss in depth the importance of their contributions for the journal. The reason why we are here is that the above group of editors argued that there exist articles on other journals or magazines that also have such lists and that the fact that I wanted to remove these lists in this particular article showed that I am biased and whatnot. It's the latter personal attacks that brought us here. Somewhere in the above walls of text more such attacks and failures to assume good faith are hidden. Of the group of editors involved, at least one (John sargis) has a COI. The other editors involved almost exclusively edit this article and two related ones (Takis Fotopoulos and Inclusive Democracy). I think this basically sums up the walls of text above (and on Talk:Democracy & Nature). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You tried the exact same tactic last year and failed to delete D&N, so again this year you attempt it. Does this not obviously show some type of bias by expanding your effort to all three related articles (D&N, Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos) rapidly adding tags without any genuine discussion? One wonders what the motivation is of your edits, since you now say, “nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”, which still implies your plan for deletion. No one can restrict you (or anyone else) from making suggestions about improving any entry you like. But the issue of motives is very different and this is what we examine here, particularly as you immediately questioned my own motives and personally attacked me and other editors as a “sect”, etc. Prove to me this simultaneous attack on all related articles’ timeline is a coincidence, not unrelated nor politically motivated.

D&N article: 22 Aug. 13:40 Randykittyk begins editing--3 edits 23 Aug. 11:14 Johnsargis does 3 edits “ “ 11:38 Randykitty does 1 edit “ “ 16:51 Johnsargis does 1 edit 24 Aug. 17:08 Randykitty does 11 edits, @ 17:22 RK adds “Cleanup Tag” 24 Aug. 5:08 Panlis does 4 edits “ “ 9:14 Randykitty does 2 edits “ “ 10:57 Panlis does 2 edits 24 Aug. 11:09 Randykitty does an edit “Take It To Talk” and does 3 more edits

ID article:

23 Aug. 17:42 Randykitty begins editing with tag plus 4 more edits

29 Aug. 16:08 IP editor helpful edit. Takis article

23 Aug. 17:53 RandyKitty begins edits with tag plus 5 more edits

24 Aug. 4:41 Panlis does 1 edit 1 Sept. 6:18 Marcocapelle does helpful edit John sargis (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• You want proof? How about the fact that in the timespan you mention here I edited dozens of other articles, deleted dozens more, took one or two to AfD, etc etc. Where's your proof that I am concentrating on "your" articles? Where's any proof of political bias in any of my edits anywhere? Simple: anything any body does to "your" articles that doesn't go in the direction that you want is, per definition, politically biased. Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I never said you only concentrated on the articles. I am showing a timeline where on 23 August your first edits at Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos were tags at 17:42 and 17:53 respectively, and on 24 August at 17:08 you add the tag to D&N. If there is not some bias, then prove it. Why did you add those tags in such rapid succession at the articles. It could be construed that you are going after those articles.John sargis (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some people here have wider interests than just a single subject. I edited the article on the journal, then looked at the article on its former EIC, then clicked on the Inclusive Democracy link. I tagged the articles for the problems that they have. Then I went on to other subjects. It is not me who has to prove my innocence. Here, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You have constantly failed to assume good faith and as soon as you disagreed with me and I didn't cave in immediately, started calling my integrity in doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• • The fact that other articles don't follow those guidelines should probably be disregarded, unless lack of compliance is so widespread that it calls into question whether the guidelines are indeed widely accepted. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to me to request that sources are provided. Personally, I wouldn't be so insistent that those sources need to demonstrate the importance of the contributors to the journal - it seems a valid matter of interest that notable people have contributed - but if the guidelines reflect consensus, then they should be respected. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow at the intensity of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN here. RandyKitty's edits were perfectly in line with WP:JWG, and the, let's call them 'anti-Randykitty advocates', consist of WP:SPA accounts with close ties to 'D&N' itself, and sat on the Editorial board of the journal, of often published in the niche journal. I've brought the article mostly inline with our guidelines at WP:JWG. WP:JWG is not a 'hard law', so deviations from it can be warranted from time to time, but I've yet to see a justification for doing so here. I'm not convinced the journal is notable, but if it is to exist, it should comply with our guidelines on the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Everybody who has ever read a theoretical journal of political nature is well aware of the fact that a basic element of its notability is who used to contribute to it, either as a writer or an editor. If you strip the D&N entry (or any similar journal entry), from the names of its contributors, then it could be easily classified by those who never liked it to be listed in Wikipedia FOR POLITICAL REASONS (disguised under some bureaucratic rules) as not notable enough, and then be deleted accordingly. I challenge Randykitty and his friend Headbomb to provide us with a list of similar significant theoretical journals of political nature in wikipedia which do implement the rule they invoke. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH A LIST THEN THEIR GAME SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY! 165.120.27.172 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• All I can say after this diatribe is QED... --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many examples can be found in Category:Political science journals. Take for example Acta Politica or Cato Journal. Many counterexamples also exist, but those pretty much fall under WP:OTHERCRAP, and are in need of copy-editing. Although, I have to say from the tone and general behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if the lot of you didn't get banned under WP:SPA/WP:MEATPUPPET. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment. And it would give further credence to our other arguments in this dispute.John sargis (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, the examples mentioned betray only utter ignorance of the subject. D&N was not a political science journal, as a presumably ignoramus w/p editor classified it. D&N belongs to the same kind of theoretical journals of political nature as The Nation, Monthly Review, New Statesman and many other similar journals where lists of contributors and editors are abundant-as they should be!165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

These three are categorized as magazines; if that's the case for D&N, then it should follow instead WP:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide; if it's peer reviewed, then it needs to abide by WP:JWG. Also, involved editors are welcome to fix any other non-abiding article. Finally, any potential COI must be disclosed, or else that's an easy ban to apply. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: John sargis and Panlis topic banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy

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.

---

Given the extensive evidence presented above by John sargis and Panlis of their continued failures to assume good faith, their POV editing with a conflict of interest, and their clear WP:NOTHERE attitude, I propose that they be topic banned from editing any article related to Inclusive Democracy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Given that these are the only articles that they edit, an indefinite block could also be appropriate. Not sure what should be done about the ranting IP. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• REJECT. Banning other editors, simply because their views on how the form of presentation of an entry should be is different from that of an administrator, despite the fact, (as they have shown here and in the past), they may have a vastly superior knowledge on a topic they are interested in than an administrator who has a view on almost everything under the sun in tens of thousands of edits, is not just ‘keeping up with the rules’ . It is a pure form of authoritarianism , if not fascism. In a democratic form of organization, particularly one dealing with knowledge, you fight what you do not like with words, not bans! Every authoritarian regime in the past had always some bureaucratic rules at hand to justify its actions. No originality here. I thought however that Wikipedia was genuinely trying to create an alternative democratic way of presenting knowledge. If bona fide editors do not intervene to stop these purely fascist practices, this could well be the end of Wikipedia as an alternative form of encyclopaedia. In fact, many people would prefer in such a case an orthodox encyclopaedia, which at least is controlled and written by people who do know what they talk about and do not just hide behind bureaucratic rules masquerading as democratic, which could easily be used the way I described. Needless to add that in such a Wikipedia I don’t wish to have any further involvement and therefore I don’t give a damn if the Randykittys of this world ban my ‘ranting’, as he 'politely' called it!165.120.27.172 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reject Randykitty your sophistry is unparalleled. In your reason for banning/blocking you say: "Given that these are the only articles that they edit…". Let me remind you of what you said at D&N talk 24 Aug. @ 8:47: “You are under no obligation to clean up any article”. So, you want to get us banned on the one hand because we edit only “inclusive democracy” related articles, but on the other hand you claim we are under no obligation to edit any other article. So how does one hold two opposing viewpoints and not be in contradiction, bad faith, or bias? I do not know. Please instruct. You also assumed an IP editor and I are the same person. Your assumption is proven wrong as the two (or one as you would have it) of us have not been banned by wiki puppet rules. Another editor (headbomb) corroborated your wrong assumption and included Panlis in that he thought that we three would get banned as sockmeat puppets. That did not work, because someone, a sensible editor I assume, probably did a check and found out we are all different IPs. Thus headbomb's assumption is wrong. As far as assuming good faith, at the administrator page 24 August@ 21:43 I said I had no proof you have a political bias. In light of these wrong assumptions others must reject your proposal also. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reject. This is a hideous twist of the events! Bad faith was a thing demonstrated, -to say the very least disproportionally- by the user Randykitty in the debate both in the Talk Page and inhere, and I will try to show why in a somehow concise but I feel plausible way:

a) the user began an activity of repeatedly putting tags and asking for citation demands over, first, the need for such a list and, secondly, the notability of the contributors of the journal themselves, despite the obvious non-agreement in the entry's Talk Page. This naturally led to edit warring and relatively heated debate in an entry which he had attempted to delete last year, something that had been solemnly rejected by all other users who participated in the dialogue back then --and these users were not only John Sargis and I- but uninvolved users as well apart from the ones who are being accused of WP:COI here.

b) While the editors and I tried to address his, considered as sensible, issues in the journal's Talk Page by focusing primarily on his activity but at the same time without disconnecting his proven bias towards the entry (another indication of which is that he still virtually claims the journal is not notable despite last year's clear decision which had followed abundant documentation about its notability-to which of course turned a blind eye-, and when now implicitly shows his recurrent intentions when he writes "nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”) as Randykitty would very much like them to, he jumped to accusing us in this forum, of WP:COI, WP:POV etc.

c) This happened without him trying in the first place to use a Dispute Resolution route or post a related to the problematic content subject in here according to the same procedure, and ask for third opinions about the very issues debated in the Talk Page. His primary action in this board was to "tag" and accuse us of WP:COI, WP:PA etc. with the aim to get rid of all dissidents by blocking us. Getting rid of editors involved with the entry and having some experience with it (something that of course does not constitute WP:COI etc.) would be a definite way serving his claimed favor of potentially deleting it in the near future- as is more than evident now from the above.

d) He showed once more his bias against the entry and his aim just to punish the older editors of the entry for not comforming to all of his demands, when he neglected the important effort to improve the entry that was taking place during the debate and indeed attempted to address mainly his own demands for citations, clean up etc.; just indicatively, sorry for the dropping

To the naked eye this simply cannot be called "bad faith", by any interpretation, against the user Randykitty as he blatantly accuses me and the rest, and and it is at least disorientating if not a clear mark of authoritarianism to use such a characterization as an "argument" in order to block us from editing an entry based on argumentation and the WP rules.

e) Even worse, Randykitty was led to the point of essentially "blackmailing" all uninvolved users who happen to read the debate here in case we don't get "assorted" (i.e. blocked from editing the entry and even better for him as he declared, get blocked ad infinitum) when he blatantly stated that "Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here." -a statement which is a blatant act of self-victimization and emotional "blackmailing" to his favor. And this based on the fact that he has indeed the fluency to do thousands of edits, while I and other editors, as I mentioned in the debate, have not the same time and objective ability to help more with the Wikipedia project as I would like to and this is I believe a legitimate reason of maintaining a "sole-purpose" activity, particularly when I and the rest of editors demonstrate good faith as I clearly showed above, in contrast to Randykitty's direct aim to shut off anyone who doesn't comform to all his demands, that is now more than evident (his initiative says it all). Since as I tried to demonstrate above, no WP:PA was intended (something explicitly clarified by all other parts in the debate) --and calling someone that s/he maintains a bias towards an entry when it is based on his very deeds is not a "personal attack"--, this user, based on his experience, is constantly disorienting in order to pass his agenda: to eventually delete the entry - An aim explicitly demonstrated by his related history and revealed by his own very recent sayings, which I feel I plausibly exposed above.Panlis (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References
References

• Comment I think that the involved parties have summed up their views very well above and request appropriate measures and closure of this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support this on the grounds of a conflict of interest that the editors concerned appear unwilling to step away from. Also, when an editor states "I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment", I start to think that action further than a topic ban is justified. No one should be subject to harassment for raising concerns about sockpuppetry, whether they prove to be accurate or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If you read the thread you will read that we were harassed and taunted as being sockpuppets several times over several days--just don't talk the talk. Yes, right or wrong wiki is always right. Wiki hides behind waves and waves of rules, some of which we pointed out are contradictory and asked why they were not evenly applied, we have to muck through, and we became the problem--sect, sockpuppets, etc.--while Randykitty portrayed himself as victim while all the time he carries all the weapons, sorry I mean rules. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment John, I don't think I accused anybody here of socking. At the start of this thread, I only remarked that I thought you had once forgotten to sign in. You said you didn't and I left it at that, that's what we here in this rules-infested harassing and taunting wiki call "assuming good faith", but a you have amply demonstrated, you're incapable of that. Socking is not the topic of this thread at all, that's your lack of AGF, personal attacks, and COI editing. Funny that you keep coming back all the time to this non-existent socking accusation, one would almost be tempted to think that you feel guilty... --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reject. I have no the intention or the time to spend on this nonsense but I’m gonna tell my opinion and gonna cast a vote just because user Panlis made a reference to my name. I took a short look and I have to say that although the users Panlis and John sargis maybe have a conflict of interest it’s also clear that the user Randykitty is totally biased against the entry of Democracy and Nature (not accidentally last year he tried to delete the entry). Although references have been made to him for other similar entries (political radical left journals) who are suffering from similar problems Randykitty was repeatedly ignoring them saying he has not the time, but, still, it seems has the time to apply these rules only to this specific entry and make such a fuss for it. At the moment that there are articles in the international press regarding the decline of the numbers of editors at the Wikipedia some users still spend hours and days trying to ban other users who in fact never tried to disturb the Wikipedia functions but just to keep a well known radical left political journal in the Wikipedia pages, although this may mean argumentative dialogues etc. which probably are simply boresome and bothersome for the former. If the users Panlis and John sargis gonna be banned then also the user Randykitty should be banned. Reject. KosMal (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)--Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note that according to their talk page, this user edits from the same IP address as the indeffed Nikosgreencookie. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• KosMal is obviously a sock of Nikosgreencookie [65]. They share an IP address and an interest in articles related to Democracy & Nature/Inclusive Democracy as well as the Green Cookie Records article [66][67]. It's not too hard to discover that this person has also been a long-term member of the editorial committee of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 commenting on 7 Sept. (see above thread) in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock puppet violation.John sargis (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reject. Panlis and John sargis may have not contributed to other pages not related to Inclusive Democracy, but this does not necessarily mean they are acting on bad faith. I cannot find an issue with their COI, as I have seen (see the links in their comments above) their strong will to positively contribute and cooperate in order for their edits to conform with the (admittedly, quite complex) Wikipedia writing rules. As I can see it, this disagreement was brought to this board by Randykitty too quickly, instead of following the Wikipedia rules for dispute resolution, which shows to me that Randykitty had assumed bad faith too soon. Since then, this has grossly escalated way out of proportion. Notwithstanding the rather heated tone coming from some of the editors' reactions to this issue (a tone which, while it can be understood, I do hope is reconsidered by the editors) I see it as extremely harsh to ban them. Fusedmilk (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Fusedmilk: I'm impressed to see that an editor with just 4 edits found their way here. Dispute resolution is for resolving conflicts about content. Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith, which is the issue here, go to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Randykitty: I came here and started following this issue when my user name was mentioned above (because I had recently made a small edit in the Democracy & Nature page). I am not saying I am a Wikipedia expert (I still have a tiny editing history anyway), but I would say I have been familiarising myself with the regulations to the degree of being able to positively contribute here. As I said above, my opinion is that the issue escalated needlessly, as bad faith was assumed (and hence brought to ANI) too quickly from you. Fusedmilk (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty, I am also very impressed by your ‘impartial’ zeal to have any possible reject vote of your proposal dismissed. Shall we assume on the basis of your comment on Fusedmilk’s reject vote that only full-time Wikipedia editors, (who could not possibly have the time to do any other job when they make over 60,000 edits in over two years), do qualify to make comments in Wikipedia? Very interesting thought but I want to hear also the views of other administrators on this, not just yours and the couple of your editor friends.165.120.27.172 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with "part-time" editors commenting here, but it is slightly unusual for an editor's fourth ever edit to be to a noticeboard such as this and to demonstrate knowledge of the dispute resolution process. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • • And let's not forget that this editor came back after a 4+ year break, to edit Democracy and Nature with their 2nd edit during the dispute. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • And there's nothing wrong about not being "impartial" towards editors that engage in tendentious COI editing and personal attacks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Excellent. Taking for granted what we have to prove is a very convenient way to dispense 'justice'.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Not at all. I have been steadfastedly NPOV in my edits to articles. Nothwithstanding my clear POV against disruptive editors like you. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but don’t pretend to be an impartial observer, a kind of a fair judge because you obviously are not, unless we talk about a complete travesty of justice. You are obviously very much involved in this and you simply cannot decide whose view should be taken into account and whose not. I HOPE OTHER TRULY NON-INVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS WILL EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON THE MATTER WHICH, DUE TO RANDYKITTY’S VENDETTA, HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE FORM OF A W/P SCANDAL165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more! --Randykitty (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per above the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Even on this ANI, half the content is an uncivil tirade. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should be cautious when we characterize the others as having a Conflict of Interest. Particularly so since as I tried to demonstrate above I feel the accused editors acted bona fide and while the debate was taking place tried to address the -considered as sensible- issues raised in the entry by the "punisher". As about the behavior, the history of his deletion attempt and the recurrent rush by our accuser to ask for debatable dictations "accidentally" only to that entry, I think are enough to show who acted on bad faith and who not.Panlis (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• John sargis's user name suggests that he is the assistant editor of the current version of the journal. That's a pretty big potential conflict of interest. When he then adds unsourced material on big-name contributors to the journal to the article, we have a COI problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cordless Larry, what exactly do you mean with unsourced material? As I can see in the diff you sent, editor John Sargis just added a list of the "International Advisory Board up to the last issue of D&N" and at the same time rightly removed the reoccurring names from the list of Contributors. I think it's very common sense that a Journal's Advisory Board can be straightly and easily deducted from the Primary Source itself (i.e. the Journal). Adding straightforward, non-interpretive material from the primary source is a clear case in which there is no need for another source to support it, per WP:PRIMARY as well: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Panlis (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• No source was cited, despite the fact that he had already been reverted with a request for sources. Perhaps the more relevant point is that there is a clear COI here. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support The behaviour of Panlis, John Sargis and the IP in this thread alone makes me put aside my usual oppose on principle against sanctions proposed by an involved party. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane and Pincrete. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane and Pincrete, based on issues related to editor conduct. As some may have seen, I have added an edit to the article talk page recently, after seeing the discussion here, but I was basically too damn lazy to read through this whole thing here. But the conduct seems to be getting worse over time, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Bad Conduct is an easy thing to generically blame someone for, but could you please indicate some genuine instances in which my conduct became a negative substitute for argumentation and justification of my sayings or edits from the moment the whole debate began up to now, and how it seems to be "getting worse over time" (!) ? Unless you mean that I should not make any poignant comments or expose a user's recurrent frantic multi-tagging editing tactics and historic bias on a subject, just because he happens to be "popular" because of his many edits, or else I will get a bad conduct discharge..! Panlis (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Responding to disclosure of a conflict of interest by heavy filibustering and attacking the messenger instead of taking a step back demands a response, and this seems more proportionate than a block. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein. "Disclosure of a conflict of interest"? Can you please indicate what my COI is (an accusation unacceptably implied by almost all "supporters" of my ban in here), or else I will have to take measures to protect myself from clear attempt of Harassment. By the way, it now seems most supporting votes took place by just repeating what Randykitty said, without giving even a glimpse at the course of events that brought the matter here, as I tried to demonstrate above. Panlis (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• support 66.87.115.78 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reject I have been a reader of the journal and frequently visited its entry among others on political philosophy and history and saw in the talk page the latest dispute and the proposal to ban John Sargis, who, in fact, was only an editorial assistant of D&N among many others, not an assistant editor. I do not see any conflict of interest on the part of John Sargis (just because he was assistant editor) and Panlis. Their edits seem in good faith. They reacted reasonably following Randykitty’s history and his unwillingness to take part in a discussion at D&N talk page and resolve the dispute- he almost immediately opened an indictment.Polimihanos (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Polimihanos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support Seems like another Instance of a Editor being drawn to ANI attempting to bury the opposition with massive walls of text and confusing and complex statements. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this thread has been open long enough to attract all of the useful contributions that it's going to attract, so could an uninvolved admin bring it to closure? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can agree about the need for a non-involved objective administrator to close this, assuming of course the administrator will read all the discussion here at ANI and at the D&N talk page. This way the administrator will get the whole view of what the issue is so he/she can reach a bona fide decision.John sargis (talk) 11:28, 22 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.

May I be so bold as to request some kind soul close the previous section into this as this seems to have resolved it also? It's time all this sleeps with the fishes in an archive. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 24 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.

Can someone please offer another opinion on this image/issue?

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 added a photo I took of a Boston Fire Department fire truck to the Boston Fire Department article and to one other article. Another editor ( User:Ɱ ) reverted the addition as its being a bad photograph and perhaps redundant to the article. Would someone be so kind as to tell me if it is that bad a photograph (I hadn't thought so or I wouldn't have added it -- nevertheless I might be wrong) and if it deserves to be deleted from the Boston Fire Department article by the other editor? I'm a little bit confused on the issue despite having been editing WP since January 2005. ;)

The comments are at: User_talk:Ɱ#Boston_Fire_Department_image_I_added_but_abruptly_reverted_by_you

The image in question is: File:Engine_41_Boston_Fire_Department_09222015.jpg

Many thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute pure and simple. If the two of you cannot agree then seek outside opinion on the article talk page. Administrators cannot solve content disputes. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Chillum. There's no admin action needed here. I also concur with User:Ɱ in that the image quality is a bit off. Not a bad image per se, but the camera isn't rendering true colors here. But, that's an issue for another place. I will say that your edit summary here was not exactly...shall we say...'friendly'. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just to note that images such as this are best uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. BMK (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've moved the image to Commons, and corrected the file's name, removing the inadvertant ",jpg". BMK (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've also reduced the image's saturation a hair, which I think was the primary problem with it. BMK (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to change the colors. ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiklrsc: OK, so I changed the colors, but I can't do anything about the overexposure or focus without making the photograph look fake.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your comments and corrections. I agree my original knee-jerk edit summary was a little off-kilter although polite but could have been better. I'd welcome anyone else too. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:15, 23 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.

Mavsfan123

I'm strongly suspecting a lack of WP:COMPETENCE from Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). Starting in August 2014, they were crapping out sub-stub level articles with no wiki formatting, sources, or categories, such as this. All of their articles since then have had unnecessary disambiguation in the titles, no sourcing, and almost no content; compare this entry over a year later. They previously got an ANI thread in March and promised to do better, but as the Find Me a Baby link shows, they are clearly not learning, nor willing to converse with other editors. They have also had all of their contributions deleted from Commons for repeatedly failing to understand copyright policies; see here. In short, this user is just continuing to make a total mess of Wikipedia, refuses to learn how to edit properly even after promising to do so several months ago, and clearly has zero idea of our policies and guidelines despite having been here for well over a year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Bump. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would think that there might be some possibility of the individual maybe becoming a better and less problematic editor if he or she were to receive some form of mentoring first, possibly with the mentor having the right to levy sanctions at his discretion should he or she deem them appropriate, either on their own, if they are an admin, or at request to an admin. Has that option been tried, and does the editor in question have any opinions on the matter? John Carter (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I love ya, TPH, but you really need to be nice and nurture this good faith editor. I appreciate that you work in the same field and that you and they have a different sense of where the notability line lies. Be friendly and help them learn. This is absolutely not a WP:COMPETENCE situation here. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm with Tim. Those articles aren't gibberish, they aren't on nonsense topics, they're in halfway decent English... Drmies (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:MaronitePride

I recently noticed that User:MaronitePride had added a WP:COPYVIO to Schengen Area:

copyvio 1
"In Zagreb, political analyst Davor Gjenero said that Germany's move to suspend Schengen could negatively affect Croatia’s hopes of joining the passport-free zone." "In Zagreb, political analyst Davor Gjenero said that Germany's move to suspend Schengen could negatively affect Croatia’s hopes of joining the passport-free zone."

I removed it and left a note on the user's talk page explaining why this could not stay in article space. The user has responded by edit warring to include this content, albeit now including the text in quotations. Ignoring the fact that the edit misrepresents the source (as I explained in the edit summary), slapping quotations marks around the whole thing does not change the fact that it still violates WP:NFCCP. For one thing, there is no WP:INTEXT attribution and it also fails "no free equivalent" (the sentence could be rewritten to make it free, which is what I did but which is what is being reverted).

I subsequently noticed that User:Drmies had recently warned the user for the same behaviour on Kurds in Iran. Further investigation has found that this seems to be a widespread problem in MaronitePride's edits, even since Drmies' warning:

copyvio 2
"First Syrian refugees cross Croatia-Serbia border, carving out potential new route through Europe after Hungary seals borders." "First refugees cross Croatia-Serbia border, carving out potential new route through Europe after Hungary seals borders."

Much of Kurds in the Netherlands appears to be a copyvio:

copyvio 3

"stormed the national parliament building in The Hague on Monday night in a protest against ISIS offensive on the Syrian town ... Dutch police raided a secret meeting of members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the Netherlands ... prosecutors office said, adding that the Kurdish PKK recruits young Kurds in the Netherlands for its armed struggle against the Turkish army ... left-wing pro-Kurdish party, which won 13 percent of the votes in the Turkish parliamentary elections, leading to much joy and celebrations among the Kurds who want more autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan, but Turkey refuses to give it" "stormed the national parliament building in The Hague on Monday night in a protest against Islamic State fighters who are attacking a Kurdish town in northern Syria" .. "Dutch police raided a secret meeting of members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the Netherlands ... prosecutors office said, adding that the PKK recruits young Kurds in the Netherlands for its armed struggle against the Turkish army." ... "the left-wing pro-Kurdish party won 13 percent of the votes in the Turkish parliamentary elections, leading to much joy and celebrations among Kurds ... want more autonomy, but Turkey refuses to give it."

as does Syrians in Saudi Arabia:

copyvio 4

"it has in fact given residency to 100,000 people as war rages in their country. An official from Saudi Arabia’s ministry of foreign affairs, cited by the official Saudi press agency, said that Saudi Arabia “made it a point not to deal with them as refugees” but had issued residency permits to 100,000 (One Lac) Syrians who wished to stay in the kingdom" "it has in fact given residency to 100,000 people as war rages in their country...An official from Saudi Arabia’s ministry of foreign affairs, cited by the official Saudi press agency, said ... Saudi Arabia “made it a point not to deal with them as refugees” but had issued residency permits to 100,000 Syrians who wished to stay in the kingdom."

and Polish people in Lebanon:

copyvio 5

"The first mention of Poles in the areas of modern Lebanon was from the time of the Crusades, which were attended by Polish nobles, as well as numerous pilgrimages to the Holy Land. From this period comes the first recorded pilgrim brother Anselm of Bernardine order that contains a reference to passing through Lebanon. First described the Lebanese lands Prince Nicholas Krzysztof Radziwill in his diary of the journey to Jerusalem, which took place in the years 1582-1584. ... In recognition of the regiment was drafted into the Guard and sent to Lebanon in 1865. The first commander of this department was Stefan Gościmiński (Tufan Bey), and his successor Louis Sas Monasterska (Lufti Bey). After 24 years Polish regiment in Lebanon ceased to exist." "First mention of Poles staying in the Middle East ... the period of the Crusades, which were attended by Polish princes, as well as numerous pilgrimages to the Holy Land. From this period comes the first record pilgrim Bernardine - Brother Anselm, who mentions passing through Lebanon. Be the first to describe the traditional Lebanese hospitality of Prince Nicholas Christopher Radziwill in his diary of the journey to Jerusalem, which took place in the years 1582-1584 ... In recognition of his regiment he was drafted into the Imperial Guard and seconded to Lebanon in 1865. The first commander "Polish regiment" numbering about 3,000 Stefan Gościmiński (Toufan Bey); his successor and Louis Sas Monasterski (Lufti Bey)." Note this is a comparison of a google translate of the source, so the copyvio is probably even more serious

I think a WP:CCI needs to be launched to clean up all the copyvios. But more urgently, MaronitePride needs to either heed the warnings and stop adding copyvios into article space, or be forced to stop adding copyvios. TDL (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems this has been going on for months despite several warnings from different users. WP:IDHT? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Err, gave them a "respond or be blocked" warning. Either we figure out what to do with their lack of understanding of policies (or their intentional violations) and make sure that it will not be repeated, or no reason to not protect the project from them. Max Semenik (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Max Semenik, I am responding as you requested. What's the actual issue at stake here because to be honest, I did not get it? (All the texts that I added have a proper citation.) Could you explain it to me using a plain language. Thanks in advance. MaronitePride (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, which summarizes the relevant policies. Citing the content makes it not plagiarism, which is a different issue. MER-C 13:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and suggestions. MaronitePride (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User MisterMorton

I left this report at AVI but was told to come here. MisterMorton (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing standard parameters from infoboxes without explanation, including Natonality and Alma Mater or other educational parameters, even if inclusion of this information is not controversial or challenged. Examples: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], and this one after the most recent warning [78]. Has edited for four years but never leaves an edit summary and never discusses on article or user talk pages. Has received numerous warnings from several editors about all of these problems, but does not respond. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to discuss with the user. — Earwig ^talk 20:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Instead of responding to Earwig's attempt to discuss, MisterMorton continues undeterred in removing legitimate parameters without edit summaries or discussion: [79].

And again: [80] Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked MisterMorton for 72 hours. — Capt'n Earwig ^{arr! / talk} 18:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been bothering me all day. He has, in the past, responded to many requests on his talk page (see 1 2 3 4 5, including 6 crucially where he agreed to use edit summaries, and which he indeed followed through on). Then, in September 2014 he posts this. He returns less than a month later, uses (very) detailed edit summaries for a short while, then goes back to not using them after a couple weeks; there are a few article talk page posts in the past year but no responses to messages on his own talk page. I can't figure out what happened here, other than maybe getting fed up with constant complaints from people to the point where he tried to detach himself from the community as much as possible. It is quite frustrating, as many of his edits are perfectly ordinary gnoming work. — Earwig ^talk 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be an attrition of gnomes through communication issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Page move vandalism

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

---

Johnduckengland (talk · contribs)

This recently registered user has made several inappropriate page moves this evening. Can someone intervene? This is Paul (talk) 20:33, 23 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 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:Mouad911 and User:Moumou101 have been making similar disruptive edits that deal mostly with geographic entities. I trust somebody will look into this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He's been blocked by User:NeilN. Apparently this started a little while ago. Argyriou (talk) 19:14, 24 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.

GregJackP "retires" to avoid scrutiny

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.

---

GregJackP, an editor of ten years, refuses to acknowledge his toxic leadership here and when simply questioned about it from Jytdog, puts up a screed and "retires." This is not the way editors should be left to leave. 166.170.49.106 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is close to trolling, and I hope that it will be closed quickly. There will soon be an ArbCom case, and I expect that GregJackP's conduct will be examined regardless of his retirement. No need for drama here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So long as he continues to not edit, there is no reason why his retirement should mean nothing. You can try to contact him all you will, but I hope he does not answer. He does not have to. If he has been driven away, that is his choice, not the community's. If he decides to stop editing, we should respect that, so long as he respects that we expect him to not edit. SInce he has so far not edited since his retirement, I believe that his retirement is sincere. I would not be saying this if he had continued to participate in discussion/argument. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: with thanks to Orduin for putting a lid on this with this close, the wording is somewhat confusing, so I have re-closed it. The circumstances immediately preceding GregJackP's retirement are not connected to the arbcom case mentioned, and are detailed in this thread; while the matter may be revisited should he return, he is perfectly free to return to editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:42, 25 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.

Abusive actions by user OneLittleMouse

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.

---

Abusive actions by user OneLittleMouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkYabloko (talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the user in question hasn't made an edit in almost a month, so you might want to be more specific as to the nature of the complaint. GRAPPLE ^X 11:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Doing some digging, this seems to be related to actions on the Russian Wikipedia. The creator of this thread has had articles of his removed for not meeting standards of inclusion, therefore this is "vandalism" to him. Wildthing61476 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Minor amendment - "vandalism" warning is for other user's messages editing, not for articles, but yes, MarkYabloko's articles was deleted by me in ruwiki as WP:G1 - very poorly translated. OneLittleMouse (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is an ru.wiki problem, why is it being discussed at en.wiki? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish i know... OneLittleMouse (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably the reason this is discussed on en.wiki problem not on ru.wiki is because the ru.wiki lacks any channels, conveniently, for even filing a complain! Ru.wiki is more like the wild west. And on the "very poorly translated" comment, I have to add that one article that was submitted (just as a test) had NO translations in it whatsoever, yet was rejected immediately too for "very poorly translated" reason! Go figure. People in Russia unfortunately live in society where they get bullied all day long by users like OneLittleMouse and accept that as a way of life.They don't even bother to complain, what the point they say! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkYabloko (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 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.

Wide ranging promotional edits on behalf of a movie producer

• Ban003 (talk · contribs)
• 204.148.13.194 (talk · contribs)
• Doubld414 (talk · contribs)

I've reported this to the COI noticeboard [81], but believe it merits further attention here, owing to widespread use of Wikipedia to promote various movies and associated people. Nearly every edit, even those which are adequately sourced, appears designed to publicize a walled garden of productions. Promos for yet to be released films are sneakily inserted into actors' bios; over a lengthy period Wikipedia has been used here as an offshoot of Variety. My suggestion is that the user be blocked and associated IP accounts be scrutinized. Then a history of edits needs to be examined. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:517E:290E:27C2:A07A (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found that Wikipedia's threshold for movie articles and even TV episode articles is far lower than other articles. There should be a community wide discussion on what is encyclopedic. F117IS (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is related to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Money (2016 film). The article Money (2016 film) is currently at AfD; the film hasn't been released, and notability is questionable. 204.148.13.194 (talk · contribs) has deleted the AfD template twice [82][83]. That IP could be blocked for disruption, if some admin wants to bother, but they're not doing many edits.

There's also heavy promotional activity for the film's producer, Atit Shah, director Martin Rosete, and the film An Act of War. It's a matter of PR content being dumped into the articles. This is coming mostly from Ban003 (talk · contribs), with over a hundred edits. They've been warned about re-inserting PR material removed by other editors. That user has not disclosed a conflict of interest. It's a drain on volunteer editor time removing the PR.

Doubld414 (talk · contribs) uploaded File:An Act of War Movie Poster.jpg, with the comment "I am the Operations Executive at Revolver Entertainment authorizing the use of this art work." So we know there's paid editing involved. They should probably be guided through the ticket system to verify ownership. This isn't a classic sockpuppet situation, but the overall impression is that they're on the same PR team. None of these accounts engage on Talk or reply on WP:COIN. They just put in their PR and revert deletions. Block for undisclosed COI per WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE? John Nagle (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just removed File:Frank Grillo and Minnie Driver for A Conspiracy On Jekyll Island.jpg (a non-free image uploaded by Ban003) from four articles related to the film A Conspiracy on Jekyll Island where it really wasn't necessary as it is easily replaceable with free images. 97198 (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ArmstrongJulian nominating articles for deletion out of personal grudges and general editing with personal bias and rudeness

− I have been having a lot of problems with the editor ArmstrongJulian. It began when this editor quite awhile ago got very angry at me over edits made in the article [[84]]. This editor accused me of making purposely false edits and was very aggressive in their accusations and rudeness towards me for no reason. I should have reported them then, but I just ignored them. I stayed clear of this editor after that. Then I saw some edits they made at the article of Michael Bramos, and they were edits that to me made the article hard to understand from sentence structure. I did not even remember it was the same editor. But I simply asked if the editor could please be careful in their grammar edits at their talk page. I also noticed that in several articles of basketball players that I was looking at, the heights of the players in their infoboxes was being changed. This was being done actually in dozens of articles, all by this same editor. So I simply asked at the same time, was there a reason for this? I wanted an explanation really. That was all. I was just trying to have a normal discussion. I normally can do this all the time with other editors and these things are no problem. But ArmstrongJulian was very rude and would have no discussion at all [[85]]. :Then, from there, the next thing that happened was I noticed that this same editor was following my edits, and then they started nominating several of my articles for deletion. Something i was not aware of, because they never notified me of them be ing nominated for deletion. When I asked about them not notifying me, they said they never notify anyone when they put their articles up for deletion, and always get articles deleted because editors are too lazy to notice. When I argued about all of this, I was told they would not discuss any of it with me, but I should take it to the basketball project of Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. I did not realize at the time, this was their way of stalling me, and getting some others involved that would help them get my articles deleted. I thought this was reasonable, to discuss with other editors, so I did it - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#ArmstrongJulian, but I got no discussion from any others there and only Julian continued to be rude and refused to discuss anything. Meanwhile my articles continued for deletion with no discussion. Meanwhile, I tried to ask for opinions of other good editors I know and respect a lot, because they are very good editors and they work very well with others when you ask a question and they discuss everything and always try to help. User:Rikster2 and User:AirWolf Rikster advised me to come here with this, but Airwolf said that he would not personally do so when talking about another editor, so I did not. So I did not and waited.

But since I waited, already my article All-Europe Player of the Year was deleted, with the reason being given that I had no external sources provided in the article. That however is a flat out lie. The article had two external media sources provided in it. And every editor involved in claiming that either is mistaken, or is lying, and yes I am saying that. Because i said it had those sources, it did have those sources, and it did meet the site criteria. Which is why Julian did not inform me when he nominated it for deletion, and which is why he then involved another user User:Bagumba into the discussion of whether it should be deleted or not. I am not making a complaint against Bagumba. At least not yet. Let me clarify that. But i want to make clear that in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball they are always agreeing with each other and they are always suggesting one thing, with the other agreeing and trying to change things or set new standards. As soon as I told Julian that i would send a complaint against him if he did not stop being rude to me at that basketball wiki project, it was Bagumba that then started talking at my articles nominated for deletion, sending me that discussion invited and then it was he who nominated my latest creation for deletion, a template that I made. I would have to be a complete moron to not see the connection. Just as I would have to be a complete moron not to notice that as soon as I asked Julian about his edits at the Michael Bramos article and why he was changing heights on dozens of articles, that he got very rude with me, and then he nominated my articles for deletion. I tried numerous times to have a discussion with him and he refused and was very rude, and insulting. So obviously this is my only recourse.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: - WP:TLDR. Also please include diffs. GiantSnowman 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, what exactly specifically do you need diffs of? Because every single thing stated here can be verified.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: - Just a small notice. Your statement that I have advised you not to "come here" is incorrect. Please, in the future don't make such falsehood.--AirWolf ^talk 18:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I am saying that you said you would not do so. Which is what you told me.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there was confusion because of how I worded it when I wrote it, I did not word it how I should have. I meant to say, that AirWolf said he would not take a user to a complaint board, so I did not do it. But what I failed to clarify was that I was using that advice, but from when I was asking him from before, when another editor was being difficult to deal with and rude. It was not me specifically asking him about Julian. So I mean to say, I asked him about another editor. Sorry for the confusion. I did not word that properly.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I respectfully ask that I be left out of this. I never asked to be involved and have no grudge or alliance with either party. I'm just trying to get this aired out in the proper place (which would NOT be my Talk page). Rikster2 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Rikster2, I am merely asking that you confirm that you have been involved in this, going back all the way to when Julian began calling me into a discussion at the Pallacanestro Treviso talk page, to that I tried to bring a discussion several times at the basketball project, after Julian told me that was where he would discuss matters with me. I am not asking you to be involved in anything. Only to confirm what I am saying. I certainly don't think that is asking too much.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a correction to make, it was not Rikster that was talking with me and Julian at the Pallacanestro Treviso talk page. It was Anthony Appleyard. That's why Rikster was confused on that. Sorry for that mistake.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have the following comments:

• Bluesangrel started the thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#ArmstrongJulian on September 14. I requested that Blueangrel provide diffs supporting the accusations, but did not receive any.
• "... he then involved another user User:Bagumba into the discussion of whether it should be deleted or not" I am not aware of ArmstrongJulian directly involving me. IIRC, I became involved because of the aforementioned WikiProject Basketball thread that Bluesangrel initiated.
• "I am not making a complaint against Bagumba." Quite the contrary, I receive this threat from Bluesangrel at 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC): "I know full well that you are cooperating with him in bullying me and also in helping to get my articles deleted. I suggest to you to stop it, or I will include you in my complaint."[86] I'd suggest that Bluesangrel become familiar with WP:NPA: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
• "I would have to be a complete moron to not see the connection." Not really, you just need to consider that we are trying to apply community standards on notability, and that it is not personal. However, not everyone is comfortable with working with consensus, and there are alternatives to Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• XfD background: The following AfDs were recently opened by ArmstrongJulian on articles that Bluesangrel created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europe Player of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europeans Player of the Year. The first has been closed as delete, and the last two are pending closure. I initiated a TfD for Template:All-Europe Player of the Year after All-Europe Player of the Year had been deleted.

—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He also opened up one on Greek Basketball Hall of Fame, something you personally are aware of because of this: [87] I read the notability guidelines, and that article did not meet them. So i simply did not contest that. Despite that I was never notified at all of it being nominated like in all the other cases) and despite it git nominated right after Julian got mad at me when I asked him to be careful with his edits at the Michael Bramos article - User talk:ArmstrongJulian#Grammar in your edits and heights and weights of players in infobox templates article. It is interesting that this case is not mentioned, because it did not meet notability, as I read through it, and I did not contest it and i let it go completely. My other articles had/have no reason to be deleted. Including the one that was deleted, in which you claimed it had no external sources, even though it had two external media sources, and was still deleted. So now I am basically being accused of lying, in order to just defend my work here.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Including the one that was deleted, in which you claimed it had no external sources": If you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-Europe_Player_of_the_Year, I stated that there was "No evidence of independent reliable sources", which is quite different than mere external sources. You can refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources if you are unclear why there is a distinction.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget this article either, since you also failed to mention it European Basketball Player of the Year Awards. That's also what Julian called editing like a fan forum. I was told that I source nothing, all my editing is made up, and i edit like I am in a fan forum. Yeah, so naturally let's delete that article also. And why not stop there either right? Of course again, I was not notified of it being nominated, and again, happens after he gets mad at me just for asking him a couple of perfectly normal questions at his talk page, to which he got angry and rude for no reason at all.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion If the results of an AfD(s) is being contested, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper forum. As I suggested to Bluesangrel earlier at one of the AfDs, pursue WP:HOUND if that is the accusation.[88] And it goes without saying diffs are needed. Otherwise, it's fair to ask if it is Bluesangrel who is the angry one when they posted this at 17:06 before this ANI: "My articles got deleted. Not one person even tried to help in this. I am reporting this to a moderator. This is abusive."[89].—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

On your user rights Bagumba it says you are an admin. Is that not correct? I discussed this in detail at that basketball project, and I was under the impression that is correct under Wikipedia guidelines, as these were all basketball articles. And you completely ignored everything. However, you did claim that my deleted article had no external media sources, which was untrue, but that was what you used as justification for it to be deleted right Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europe Player of the Year https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-Europe_Player_of_the_Year&diff=prev&oldid=681406389 "*Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No evidence of independent reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. However, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)" - So what exactly did I do wrong? Shall I give the external media sources here, since now that the article id deleted no one can see them? Or if they were in a foreign language would that not count? The article also had English external sources also as well. You keep giving these instructions from Wikipedia that I am supposed to read and follow, I have already. I did nothing wrong. And is it so much to ask an admin to help a problem? You don't seem to interested in helping this problem.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"And you completely ignored everything": As I commented above at 19:07,[90] you did not provide the diffs that I request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#ArmstrongJulian, and have not provided substantial ones in this ANI yet either.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"you did claim that my deleted article had no external media sources": Please see my above comment at 19:32 about your mischaracterization of "external sources".[91] Perhaps someone can help facilitate this discussion, because it is unfortunately going in circles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluesangrel Did not need me to make a fool of himself, his accusations are clearly baseless and I'll provide the explanation underneath:

• This started with a discussion on his move (without a proposed move) of the Pallacanestro Treviso article to another (wrong) article, which you can find (here). I politely told him he had been wrong yet he kept arguing without ever providing anything to back it up and I was more straightforward (yet civil) to point out he wasn't making any sense.
• He then came on my talk page to make these accusations about the grammar of one of my edits on the Michael Bramos article when in fact the grammar mistakes were not even mine. At this point I told him to stop creating trouble for nothing as he had also complained about another editor.
• Completely unrelated, I nominated a number of articles for deletion as they did not prove their notability and I could not find any multiple, reliable and independent sources on them. These included articles created by Bluesangrel and other articles, I did not even know he created the articles, just that they clearly did not answer to wikipedia's notability requirement.
• When opposing an article's deletion, he did not provide a single additional reference, instead accusing me (and then others that got involded without me having anything to do with it) of picking on him. His attitude was clearly that of article ownership and WP:ILIKEIT and not in line with wikipedia policy.
• He created a thread making baseless accusations against me (that I was agressive and rude) yet provided nothing to back it up and when I answered to dispel what he had said only replied with hot air (not even providing a single link).
• He has repeatedly created articles or made edits that were based on no sources or a few primary sources, not establishing either notability of the article or providing any other independent sources when prompted (Greece men's national under-21 basketball team and Greece men's national under-17 basketball team for example). And yet he claims, as above, that all his articles are sourced despite everythin pointing to the opposite.

I am sorry, that you were not able to find a site loophole to claim that those articles should be deleted. But I am sure you will try, and that Bagumba will mark it with an "Agree". Keep claiming none of my work has any sources, can be backed up, or deserves an article. You are proving exactly what I am saying here. As are your comments in the history of those articles you posted. Notice how Julian did not mention this article Greece men's national under-18 basketball team. Look at the history, [[92]]. The way he accuses me of editing, is actually how he is doing some edits. Of course, he won't use that as an example, while he is pretending to be some kind of saint here.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

His attitude has gone from annoying to plain disruptive. I could tolerate his inadequate edits but he has now started a whole campaign against me and anyone (like Bagumba) who's tries to reason with him. I'd argue to give him a warning so he realises that he can't do what he wants on here (which is what he is doing when making edits unsourced), hopefully he can start respecting wikipedia policy and other editors afterwards. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

How about any editor here look through Julian's history at any of his edits and any talk page or discussion he was ever involved with. That should pretty much sum up his attitude towards everything. As far as Bagumba goes, he is clearly biased and trying to help Julian without any question. Suggesting Wikipedia is not the place for me, and claiming my article that had external sources did not. I am not wasting one second with either of them, because they are being aggressive towards me and both should be reading all those things they keep posting. Any other editor that wants any diff, or clarification please ask for it. Any background, please ask for it. For now, I am going back to editing, because no one is involved in this right now. But I am not going to involve myself at all with the people causing the problem, and certainly not the one that has been bullying me. But I do expect this to be resolved, and I will provide anything, including the litany of personal insults sent in discussions from Julian to me, which can be given. I am just waiting for anyone to show that they are going to actually do something about this, which so far, no one has. For now, I am going back to editing, I won't engage with Julian, nor if he posting here.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Any background, please ask for it": For the record, GiantSnowman asked for diffs above [93], and Liz and Tide rolls have encouraged you to do so at your talk page.[94] I can only conclude that you either don't have the evidence, or refuse to provide it. Without evidence, going forward, I ask that you refrain from any further accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence. I think WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to your most recent comment at TfD.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have specifically said, what diffs does anyone want and I will give it. There is a lot to this. So I need to be asked for what specific example they want, so I can give it. I find it interesting how you can find these examples so easy that support Julian, but you can't find a thing to support me, even though all the examples are there. Why is that? Ask me specifically what example it is you want me to provide. You have not done so. You are being purposely vague as possible, and then accusing me of not proving specific info. That's a tactic you are using. Also, it is not Julian's place to suggest I be given a warning, nor was it right for him to nominate articles without notifying me. He's not an admin according to his user rights info.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Julian suggested I be given a warning, just some examples of his general interaction with me and I am sure many others, [[95]] - just one example of basically every single time he posts directed towards me. As far as I know, this is not acceptable interaction in this site. Yet, it is the only kind of interaction he seems to do. At least, it's the only kind he has done with me. I can list the same, except much more aggressive and insulting of many more diffs. But this is just an example of the ones in the articles up for deletion, to which again, I was never even notified. His interactions in personal discussions tend to be much more rude than that, such as something like this,

"@Bluesangrel:I was not going to dignify your first message with an answer, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you might want to check the difference between grammar and spelling too" ArmstrongJulian (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"No, I'm implying you should try making useful edits (with things called sources) instead of pestering everyone (I note I'm not the only one you've approached) with nonsense accusations. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)" at his talk page User talk:ArmstrongJulian#Grammar in your edits and heights and weights of players in infobox templates

Again, I can give numerous more examples of this. Just general normal interaction and conversation I supposes though.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am done with this. Admin you can forget this since obviously no one is going to do anything about this. Bagumba, Julian's obvious friend is the only admin interacting, and just defending him, and making all kinds of accusations against me. This is ridiculous. One last thing though. If any more of my articles get wrongly nominated for deletion by ArmstrongJulian, I am going to file a formal grievance with Wikipedia.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't quote Greece men's national under-18 basketball team because I didn't want to quote too much articles, it's another example of a poorly sourced article, thanks for providing it. As for the quote above, I'll gladly own up to it, there's nothing wrong in what I said and while it may be blunt I would not call it rude. It's not my role to give warnings or block people, but this whole thread is designed to answer improper behaviour, I didn't want to go down that road but Bluesangrel did and his attitude here is exactly why he should be given a warning. He makes every single one of his grievances a major issue and opens threads all over the place with no clear goal. Besides he still refuses to admit he is not following wikipedia guidelines (saying he'll just go back to editing), I didn't claim he had no place on wikipedia, I said and still say his style of editing (without any reliable, independent sources) has no place here. I just want to make clear (if it wasn't clear enough) that I never allied myself with Bagumba, our only interactions have been though wikiproject basketball which is how he got involved (along with a number of editors) in the deletion discussions, through Bluesangrel's actions everybody has had to get involved as he keeps posting vendetta threads on the project's talk page. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang on Bluesangrel

Bluesangrel (talk · contribs) Even after providing allowances for a cooling off period above, it seems that the originator will not drop the WP:STICK. They were already warned above about WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". They refused to provide any diffs above, and claimed "I am done with this." (see above at 21:46, 17 September 2015).

This is unfortunately not the case with continued unsubstantiated attacks against ArmstrongJulian:

• 18:57, 18 September "Yet, there it is completely falsely nominated for deletion by the same editor, and even has others agreeing it should be deleted already. This seems to be a pattern involving ArmstrongJulian."

And there are other WP:POINTy comments reflecting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of late at AfDs, seemingly out of spite:

• 18:48, 18 September "Let's please put a stop to this kind of behavior, and not allow it to go on."
• 18:43 "It seems a lot of editors here are not following site guidelines perhaps some people should be reported for that?"
• 18:40 "... he meets the standard and deleted the article is a violation of site etiquette and just trying to destroy other editor's work for no reason."
• 18:38 "Actually contribute something, rather than try to destroy everything others created."
• 18:35 "Keep No reason at all to delete this."

—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just let someone INDEPENDENT review whether or not my articles should have ACTUALLY been deleted or not. I provided evidence of an article Julian just nominated for deletion that is not to be deleted under site guidelines. It meets site criteria totally, and yet he still nominated it. It was provided for nothing in a personal attack, but as an example. You keep interfering in this issue. that is why I included you in the discussion. Just allow another admin to please review the deletion independent of yourself. You need to step back from this and do that. I have already contacted the admin that deleted my article and I am waiting for them to discuss it with me. There is no reason for you to keep involving yourself in this, but you insist on it, always backing up Julian and also always coming at me aggressively. So please allow me and the admin that deleted my article the time to discuss this. Otherwise, you are seriously escalating this situation and you are intentionally doing so. Now, every single person here can see the issue at hand. I have already told you I am handling this with another admin. There is no need for you to keep involving and injecting yourself into this.Bluesangrel (talk)

One more comment, I am no longer engaging in any discussion with Bagumba. He is clearly biased and aggressive towards me from the beginning on this. So any further comments he makes or posts he makes here, is all on him continuing to escalate this issue. As I said, it was being taken care of with me and the editor that deleted the article. So, I will not respond to any posts he makes here, because I consider him to be harassing me. P{lease don't take my ignoring him as any rules violation. Any other admin or editor can discuss with me. But I will ignore anything he writes here or anywhere in the site.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss this with the admin that deleted my article User:MBisanz because they would be independent and neutral and Bagumba again had to inject themselves into it User_talk:MBisanz#Could you please answer some questions for me? - Bagumba, I will ask you one more time, please allow me and an independent admin to deal with issue and to follow the site guidelines on this and please stop injecting yourself into this over and over. I am asking you again, please stay out of this. You are not helping at all, and you are just making things miserable for me. Please let me and MBisanz discuss the article of mine that they deleted ourselves. Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation Bagumba, if you will have it in your heart to be able to do this.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Bagumba, Bagumba, your pal is not going to get in trouble for anything, if it was not understood by you and him, I will clarify it now. I am not making a complaint against the editor, but against the wrongful nomination of my hard good work being so carelessly and nonchalantly put for deletion and then deleted, and the very condescending and cavalier attitude about it, when asked why this was being done. Along with the reactions it garnered from someone like you, defending at all cost those actions, and coming at me like I am totally out of line to even wonder about it. It's nothing personal, and it's not a personal complaint, nor intended to get anyone in trouble (if you doubt that I can show you where I already talked to an admin called Liz here at the start of this, and told them I wanted no one to get in trouble over this). It's just trying to get my articles protected from wrongful deletion.

I am trying to handle that away from you with the editor that deleted the article. So just please, leave this alone. OK? This is nothing to do with getting anyone in trouble. It's a dispute about my articles being wrongly deleted and trying to be deleted. Now, please just have the courtesy, the common decent courtesy to allow me to follow through on the site policy of contesting the article deletion. There is no reason to keep reviewing every single comment I make or every single edit I make in the site. If I see a bad edit or policy, or an article falsely put for deletion, or an editor doing something they should not be doing I am allowed to make notice of that and state a comment on it. Nothing nefarious about it. However, the fact that every single time I make a comment or vote on an issue, it seems almost to be used against me as some sort of doing something bad here, is starting to look suspicious to me. So I don't know what it is that has you so angry and upset with me, but relax. I am not angry or upset with anyone here, but I am starting to feel like you are very angry with me. You need an apology for something you think I did? Say so, that is all you have to do. I am a very nice person, and I don't understand this way of dealing with matters. Maybe it was wrong for me to decide not to converse and talk with you, because you went right to the other admin. I thought you would understand that as let us handle it. So let's take a different approach. Talk to me at my talk page, just the two of us. OK? No Julian, no anybody else. Please don't bring Julian or anyone else into it. Let us just have a discussion with each other and then hopefully you can see I am not doing any of the things you seem to think I am doing.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bluesangrel, while it stings to have an article one created nominated for a deletion discussion, the nominating editor isn't responsible for the deletion, the participants in the AFD discussion and the discussion closer determine whether it ends in a delete, keep or no consensus decision. The next best move when an article is nominated is to go to the deletion discussion and argue for your article, stating why it should be kept. Listen to the criticism that editors offer, it can help you make the article stronger and less likely to be deleted. The smartest editors work on building up a nominated article while it is being discussed so they can show that it meets notability standards (since this is often the rationale for deletion). If an editor makes a claim that there are no reliable sources, you can show how there are or you can add additional ones that are more acceptable.

Now that the AFD discussions have resulted in deletions, you can talk to the deleting admin (which you have done) and then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Most admins are open to userfying deleted articles and putting them into Draft or User space so you can work on improving the content.

Please think of the result you want here which I believe is for your deleted articles to be reconsidered. You accomplish this not by attacking the nominating editor (who you say you are not seeking sanctions against) but by focusing on addressing concerns about your articles and making them more substantial if the reliable sources exist to support them. 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful input, it is nice to actually get that from someone. I did try to go to the article deletion pages and argue why I did not think they should be deleted, but Bagumba kept saying I should not be allowed to do so, and kept saying it was against site rules to do that. When I persisted he ended up bringing this complaint against me. So It really isn't that easy to argue for the articles when an admin is doing that.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

But maybe he Bagumba will talk with me about this at my talk page. Then if whatever Bagumba's issues are with me would get resolved, I can hopefully get the admin that deleted the article to discuss it with me.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: Perhaps you are referred to this comment I made made about multiple !votes? Typically a participant only bolds one !vote. Not that a discussion is done by merely counting votes, but it's just the (unwritten?) norm. Sorry, if you were not already aware. Feel free to add additional comments. I typically just add "<b>Comment</b>" if I have more to say, or you can just not bold anything in front. However, it can sometimes be counterproductive to WP:REPEAT the same argument also. Use your best judgement.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, with all due respect, you should not be making an editor feel like they can't defend their article and discuss it and why it is being nominated for deletion, particularly when several of their articles are being nominated at the same time, all by the same editor, and no notice was given for any of them being nominated. Any editor here is going to wonder about that and want to discuss it and defend their article, also when they are told that they edited with no sources, they edited like they were using a fan forum and so forth. So when things like that are happening, I am sorry, but it takes more than just one or two posts, or oppositions. And it's really not fair for you to make the editor with the articles being up for deletion to feel like that are in the wrong for even doing so.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) long ago community banned disruptive editor
• Euroleague Basketball Project (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of above
• Bluesangrel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Using the lab comparison tools HERE and HERE you can see many many overlaps between this set of editors. Both share also a belligerent attitude and focus on basketball with extra interest in greek topics. Coincidences? (NB before anyone accuses me of being a sock, I have a wildly dynamic IPaddr and no account to log into.) --2.96.177.115 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@2.96.177.115: Amen, I've had the same suspicions and they've done nothing but grow. I didn't want to make the accusations before having proof but I think the similarities are strong. I also did the comparasion and it had other 1200 cross edits with Wiki Greek Basketball and about half of that with the sock, for comparison's sake I also compared myself (as I often edit basketball articles) and got something in the low hundreds. Some of those articles have been edited by only a hnadful of editors yet Bluesangrel somehow knew of their existence (see Lega Basket, Euroleague attendance], Steve Giatzoglou). Above all, I just noticed something that I had missed at first. See this comment by Bluesangrel from the discussion above: "He also opened up one on Greek Basketball Hall of Fame, something you personally are aware of because of this: [202] I read the notability guidelines, and that article did not meet them. So i simply did not contest that. Despite that I was never notified at all of it being nominated like in all the other cases [...] My other articles had/have no reason to be deleted". The thing is Bluesangrel did not create that article, one of Wiki Greek Basketball or the Euroleaguebasketball project did, I know because I stated "Note that the article creator was banned for disruptive editing" when nominating it as I had stumbled across the whole affair (I can't link the history as the article was deleted but I'm sure someone can check). As the above poster mentionned their attitudes are very similar, including constant whining about being picked on and the fact he never listens to what people tell him, they both like to use "rude" a lot (see here and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball). The whole thing is quite fishy, I'd appreciate if @Snigbrook:, @MuZemike: and @Phantomsteve: (who were involved in the past case) have a look. ArmstrongJulian (not a home so can't log in). --213.174.123.193 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - ArmstrongJulian, your account was created in February of this year and you are going back to similarities with blocked socks that haven't been active for over five years. Do you have a previous user name? This just seems weird (doesn't excuse sock behavior for Bluesangrel of course). Rikster2 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My other comment is that I don't think those overlaps are conclusive and would prefer a more stringent check is done before a user is blocked. FWIW, Bluesangrel and I have 1600+ edits in common and I can assure you we aren't the same person. Rikster2 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• This same editor is running through my articles that I created and listing them for deletion out of a personal grudge. → Referring to the article European Basketball Player of the Year Awards, which was created by User:Euroleague Basketball Project. Either this is a benign case of coincidence (from the evidence above) and WP:OWN behavior, or we have a sock of a banned user. --MuZemike 19:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Here are a few observations on the sock suspicion:
  1. By my count, including the title of the parent #ArmstrongJulian nominating articles for deletion out of personal grudges and general editing with personal bias and rudeness thread, Bluesangrel has used rude 10 times already in this thread, and five times at WikiProject Basketball talk page, while user Wiki Greek Basketball used it 5 times in their self-nominated RfA.
  2. Wiki Greek Basketball made POINTY oppose to others' RFAs[96][97], which evoked my own POINTY concerns with Bluesangrel I reported above at 19:30, 18 September
  3. Complaint from Wiki Greek Basketball about a user being "rude" for striking out their POINTY !vote [98]
  4. Charges from WGB that same editor "has gone out of his way now to follow me and harass me."[99] This is similar to Blueangrel's charges about being followed here.
• I suppose being pointy, calling people rude, or feeling like one is being hounded can be natural for some if one is upset, and not necessarily unique to a sock. However, there is an undercurrent of similar combativeness here combined with common interests in European basketball, particularly Greek, and common language style (which might also be explained by regional characteristics). Sock or not, the current behavior needs to improve lest WP:CTDAPE.—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Addendum WGB had a second pointy RfA attempt that was quickly closed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball was created, which has a lot of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT theme that I see with Bluesangrel, and an indefinitely block followed. Both the RfA and ANI have more uses of rude.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• another sock comparison
• I Will Be What I Will To Be (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This WGB sock edited only 71 articles, 56 of which intersect with Bluesangrel, thats ~80% overlap. I believe the proper route is to present this info at a SPI behavioural request rather than do any more speculation here? 2.96.177.115 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A boomerang WP:NOTHERE indef would save the need for extra bureaucracy. That certainly appears warranted here, so opening an SPI to search for a second good reason to indef seems unnecessary (unless this discussion does not result in an indefinite block). ~ Rob^Talk 06:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• This behavior just can't go unchecked, he's opening a new thread on wikiproject basketball for every article I nominate besides all the other issues highlighted (personal accusations, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, BATTLEGROUD…etc). What would the proper procedure be about the sock puppet accusation? For now it's suspicions and it could be coincidence that two separate immature greek editors edit similarly. Would appreciate more senior editors to look into the subject, especially those already involved with the last investigation. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • An upset editor calling rude and being pointy and primarily editing in Greek basketball, can still conceivably be a coincidence. If there is more unique behavioral matches supported by diffs, WP:SPI would be a better place. At this point, I'm more interested in the recent behavior of personal attacks and pointy AfD !votes, though I think it has subsided. I hope we don't have to refer to this case again, but the info is here for future reference if it should be needed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, Wiki Greek Basketball, that was quite the train wreck. Unless WGB has vastly matured in the last few years, I have doubts that Bluesangrel is linked to that account. WGB had a great deal of trouble letting go of anything. They also had a great deal of trouble seeing through others perspective instead insisting that everyone was out to get them. Bluesangrel is far more accommodating in their interactions and there are certainly no signs of finger pointing that was the hallmark of WGB. Blackmane (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Spartan 003

This guy just doesn't get it. He's already been blocked twice (see [100]) for variations of WP:OR (either putting original research and refusing to provide a source, or worse - altering sourced sentences). I might be misinterpreting WP:GAME, but he does seem to be gaming our system at least in a way that he hopes that his disruptive editing will just go unnoticed, simply because he waited long enough. Here are his most recent disruptions:

• A week ago:
  • He edited the page Russian phonology (see the rev) changing "where the pronunciation [ɨ] occurs" to "where the pronunciation [ɨ] or [ɘ] occurs". It's true that [ɘ] is a possible pronunciation of unstressed /ɨ/, but only after /t͡s/, and only for some speakers! So I edited the article accordingly ([101], [102], [103], but see especially [104], which sounds as it should). He then reverted, saying that "It's not only when after /ts/." Apparently, the fact that I sourced the previously unsourced sentence meant nothing to him. I then reverted, telling him (not very nicely, that's true) to cut this bullshit once and for all, or I would report him again.
  • He then altered the explanatory note for Russian on close-mid central unrounded vowel that said that [ɘ] "occurs only for some speakers after /t͡s/". He first changed it to "This occurs only after /ʐ/, /ʂ/ or /t͡s/." (see the rev), then to "This occurs only for some speakers after /ʐ/, /ʂ/ or /t͡s/." (see the rev). That was clearly at odds with Jones & Ward (1969:38), who do say that [ɘ] occurs only for some speakers after /t͡s/, so I obviously reverted him. I didn't report him after that, because it happened minutes after his reference falsification on Russian phonology, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt - which, as you will see, he didn't deserve.

• Today:
  • He edited the page Gulf Arabic (see the rev), changing:
    • "Some classicisms preserve the [q] sound" to "Most dialects preserve the [q] sound." (I removed it, because the source says neither of those)
    • "By Persian influence, sometimes the qaf (ق) changes to ghayn (غ) [ʁ]." to "By Persian influence, extremely rarely the qaf (ق) changes to ghayn (غ) [ʁ]." (I reverted that - the source says the former, not the latter, so it was a reference falsification)
    • He also deleted "This change is extremely rare." (This one is good - the reference actually doesn't say that, so he (probably unintentionally) removed a ref falsification).

Peter238 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jgstokes against User:Drmies and myself

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) (which I raised), Jgstokes has made personal attacks against Drmies and myself and then, when asked to withdraw them made accusations of sockpuppetry against us as well. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see whether anything can be done to (a) curtail this behaviour, and (b) bring the AfD back to its original purpose, from which it is now somewhat distracted? Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, not an admin but I've hatted some of the interpersonal stuff. More editors commenting on the merits of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) itself would help refocus discussion. NE Ent 14:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks - that's removed the distraction nicely! RichardOSmith (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm half-inclined to hand out a block for restoring copyright violations ([105][106]). While I can't find sources for some I checked, others are clearly copied (e.g. "And They Counted Happily Ever After"). (Ping @Justlettersandnumbers: for the list of copyvio urls). MER-C 15:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping failed, MER-C, I just happened to notice the username on my watchlist. I didn't check every mortal one of those summaries, but spot-checked four or five and got hits on pbskids.org for every one of them. I considered rolling back to the last clean version from 2007, but opted for blanket removal instead. Looking at it again, it seems to me that some of the unacceptable material (for example, the Season 5 summaries added with this edit) has been subsequently rewritten, and that I may therefore have been over-cautious. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Those comments by Jgstokes are completely idiotic. I got nothing against LDS (or the other branch--keep forgetting which one was the original and which one was the copy). I don't know why this Stokes person is harping on ARTEST's arguments for blah blah blah, something about the MOS for LDS or IDK, when it was clear that none of the guidelines said "copy, changes a few words, then paste". I rather think this Stokes person has an obvious bias against those who speak Truth to Power; also, help, I'm being oppressed/bullied/silenced. Their two cents aren't worth a dime.

  Anyway, someone should slap them on the wrist for this bullshit comment. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Those comments, both edit summary and edit itself, do seem to place him firmly on the tinfoil hat team, don't they? Some admin should probably do something, but it should probably be an admin to help make it obvious to the editor in question that it isn't just another one of your innumerable socks, Drmies, because there might be a real question about competency in basic logic here. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I make sure my socks don't sound a thing like me. My meats, on the other hand, are simply clones. Pink slime. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've dealt with Jgstokes before. His specialty is drawing on LDS websites to create articles on LDS topics. Since LDS topics aren't independent of LDS websites, those articles have often been subject to deletion unless non-LDS sources can be found. He (and User:Johnpacklambert as well) have a habit of being really oversensitive at those deletions. I think, in light of his ignorance of the need for independent sources, and his continual attacks of other editors, a topic ban from LDS topics might be in order. pbp 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On a marginally related topic, I guess, although this might best be asked at RSN, do the rest of you think that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, even though it is, obviously, published by the LDS church and kind of obviously not independent, would reasonably count as one of the required indicators of notability? I have on my computer the beginnings of a list from that source to start a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Prospectus, and am curious whether there should be an indicator at the top of the page whether it can be used to help establish notability or not. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question for WP:RSN, John. As for the original complaint, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) looks like a snow close for deletion and Jgstokes hasn't edited since this filing. Can this case be closed? I don't think you can force an apology and it looks like Jgstokes has let this one go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible COI with Pixel Press

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 it was brought up at the Video games WikiProject that there might be a possible COI with the article Pixel Press due to it being made by new editor User:Bathchurnning. It certainly has raised some suspicion and brought back thoughts of OrangeMoody but it was suggested to take this here to see if there is a change of paid editing. Cheers. GamerPro64 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64 - If you want this looked into, you need to start a discussion on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. They'll be able to handle your concerns properly. Marking this as resolved. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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 hoax articles on Time News India

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.

---

• Time News India-TNI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• জযদীপ বৰুৱা (talk · contribs)

I remember coming across this some weeks ago--a user named Rockteem Bhattachjree was blocked and their hoax articles on news outlets and actors were deleted. There may be a history of socks involved. More of same being hatched again, with the primary article purporting to represent a nonexistent news service. Please salt this in all forms. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Now I've found the account: Baulove (talk · contribs). 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User blocked, article and copy vio images and fake logo deleted, title salted. Thank you for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very much appreciated, Diannaa. It always surprises me that I can scour recent changes at random and find familiar issues that recur over a period of weeks or months. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well done both. 2601 etc., consider getting an account. We can use your services. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:26, 25 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.

Salvidrim!'s Conduct

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.

---

Salvidrim's conduct concerns me. Please look at their comments here: User_talk:Vanjagenije#Question_Regarding_SPI. This is not the first time this has happened. The goal is not to make a slight question into a large deal. It is important to address conduct issues; as many are aware, the number of long-term editors on Wikipedia has been declining. This type of user conduct is not facilitating a change in the current situation, not that this is necessarily the cause or reason for that. I have run the comments by a few editors, all of whom have agreed that this is not appropriate behavior, especially for an administrator. Editors certainly do look up to administrators in terms of abiding by Wikipedian policies, codes of conduct, etc. Seriously, this is highly inappropriate for any editor at any level, privilege, or status to say to anyone else. --JustBerry (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: To clarify, the original purpose of the conversation was to clarify the suggestion Vanjagenije left for me here, specifically "In the future, when you open a case, open it under the name of the oldest account (the master)." I acknowledged the suggestion and continued on Vanjagenije's talk page to ask what should have been done, since "the master sock was found after the case was filed." Of course, if I had known the master before the "newer account," I would have reported the master first. Should I have made the page move myself to a page titled with the just-found older "master" account? I understand that SPI does not appreciate users moving pages around; hence, if Vanjagenije's suggesting something for me to do, I think it's fair to ask questions clarifying how I could do that in the current situation - otherwise, the same thing may happen next time and the same suggestion will be made. That's counterproductive, to be honest. Vanjagenije's not understanding the questions is a separate issue, but Salvidrim!'s comment here was highly inappropriate. To note, Salvidrim was not pinged or called to the conversation, from my knowledge. Although Salvidrim is welcome to join the conversation, leaving such a comment is truly disrespectful to legitimate questions of other users. Just because you may be an administrator and SPI clerk with the ability to move pages around freely doesn't mean other users have the same privilege as you. --JustBerry (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"To note, Salvidrim was not pinged or called to the conversation, from my knowledge" -- you have to be fucking kidding me... "Salvidrim, would you care to comment?": if that's not a ping, then I'm an Austrian warhorse. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Acknowledged; deleted comment. --JustBerry (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Salvidrim! (talk) has been notified on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which comment in particular are you concerned about? HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Both in the linked section of Salvidrim's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You will have to be specific, all I see is advice about not beating a dead horse, you saying you will drop it and a thank you for dropping it. Yet here you are and the rhythmic beating of wood on horse leather still carries on. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note, I assume you meant Vanjagenije's talk page in the above comment I see nothing about this at Salvidrim's talk page. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 00:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Looks like we had run into an edit conflict. I was adding a comment to the original message, while you had posted this. Please read my comment. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• If your "goal is not to make a slight question into a large deal", you're doing an absolutely shitty job, buddy. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Seriously? I think this is demonstrative of disrespectful conduct. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: To clarify, you've completely missed the point. The issue is centered around your conduct, not the original question. The explanation of the question and talk page discussion is to give context to readers. --JustBerry (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If any admin wants to take this "complaint" seriously, here's some additional context about this user's relentless busybodying around SPI lately: User talk:Bbb23#Archiving; Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks/Archive 2#JustBerry; User talk:JustBerry/SPI Work, User talk:Vanjagenije#Question Regarding SPI, [107], and all this in addition to requesting (and attaining) two shining new user-rights in the span of a month. I'm not saying JustBerry doesn't mean well, but they should definitely refocus their efforts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming I'm a hat collector? You've failed to justify your conduct. Also, clarification on characterizes "busybodying" in your comment would be helpful. --JustBerry (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Your comments also seem to suggest that I am a troll, not-to-contribute-to-Wikipedia, or inexperienced editor of some sort. Is this true? --JustBerry (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never implied that you were a troll -- if whatever I said led you to believe that, of course I'm sorry, that was not my intention. As for "contribution to Wikipedia", I've scrolled through three pages of your articles edits before finding one that wasn't a revert, but everybody has their own definition of "encyclopedic contributions". Anti-vandal patrolling is thankless but necessary work and we're thankful that editors like you dedicate time and effort to it. But over the past week or so I've talked to CUs/SPI Clerks who have tried to "let you down easy" that you do not have our trust with regards to clerking or such pseudo-administrative work, but you keep banging on that closed door, so I hope a more direct approach might help you realize the situation and refocus your efforts elsewhere. Vanja has a lot more important stuff to do than to answer your almost agressive questioning. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I undid the archive tag, and requested that HighInBC re-place everything after I finish this comment. Firstly, I appreciate the sincere reply. The intentions have been cleared up right now. I understood the comment about the dead horse; however, next time I report to SPI, I don't want to have to hear that 'x' was suggested to me last time and I didn't file an SPI case a certain way, when I can't follow the suggestion in the first place. In terms of the links you provided about by "busybodying," you have to understand that the clerk situation is completely separate from me filing SPI cases, which are popping up from anti-vandal work. Just thought I would clarify that prior to final archiving. If much longer discussion needs to be had, which I highly doubt, we can continue on either of our talk pages. --JustBerry (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Filing SPI cases is absolutely fine -- don't worry if you file things in ways that aren't perfect, us clerks are there to cleanup and order stuff. I'm glad we could come to some sort of an understanding. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What action do you wish to see here Berry? HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 01:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Acknowledgement or mediation of some sort would be helpful. There's no "action" being searched for here; no one's "after" Salvidrim. --JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of what? Mediation of what dispute? If that's all you're after, than yes, I acknowledge that my attitude towards you is not a flowery joyful enthusiastic one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, I don't mind continuing the discussion a bit. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I am closing this with an acknowledgement of your concerns. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 01:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer to the original question

If you realize that you have filed under the wrong account (newer sock) then all you need to do is leave a note within the case that you have done so and that it may need to be moved to the account you think it should be filed under. No, you should not attempt to move the case and in many cases you won't be able to if a previous case exists. Alternately, you might also include a note at WT:SPI to indicate what happened.

Filing here comes across as petty and you shouldn't have. Conflating this bike shed issue doesn't do anyone a service.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:30, 26 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

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.

---

ppl r trying 2 delete my user page at Armando Christian Pérez 2 !!!!! Armando Christian Pérez (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

idk whats going on. someone put it for speedy deletion! whats this supposed 2 mean? am I gonna get my page back? idk what 2 do! I'm crying right now

@Armando Christian Pérez: You moved a user page into article space, and it's just a test page with a sample table. You should've left the experiment in your user space, either as your user page or your sandbox (User:Armando Christian Pérez/sandbox). —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it back to user space. No need for deletion in my opinion. Please try not to put anything in the article namespace that is not an article. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 02:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR? BMK (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BITE? Everymorning (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:DICK? BMK (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake in redirecting this page to pitbull's article. sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armando Christian Pérez (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 September 2015‎

This user is new, I think we can hold off on CIR judgements for a little while. This place is complicated. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 03:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, except for this. You don't have to be Hawking or a long-time Wikipedian to recognize that kind of thing as an obvious mistake which should have been corrected by the editor immediately after it was made. BMK (talk) 04:40, 26 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.

Misuse of talk pages

A relatively new editor, Nn9888 (talk · contribs), recently posted long essays on Talk:Philosophy of computer science, Talk:Chinese room, Talk:Imagination (very long), full of personal opinions and devoid of any mention of sources. I removed them and explained on his talk page why they didn't belong. He responded by putting the essays back, with section headers saying, "Article can be improved if the following is considered". It would be helpful if somebody other than me would explain why that won't fly, and the inevitable consequences of persisting in it. I don't think a block is called for at this point, but some sort of notice that a block lies down the road would be helpful. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth a try to simply hat the discussion, which doesn't remove it but also makes navigation for editors who are uninterested in reading it easier. I started to do so on the imagination page, but I see someone removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought about that too but it didn't seem like the right solution. If nothing else, this behavior has to be nipped in the bud sooner or later. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this isn't a new and recent issue with him. The mediation request he posted in July was for the same thing. KoshVorlon 16:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Both KoshVorlon and Randykitty have posted warning notices on his user talk page and he hasn't returned to editing to see them yet. Looie496, can you update this notice if he returns to posting inappropriate material to talk pages? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Liz He just tried to re-open a mediation that was previously rejected by adding me into the mediation, the mediation was promptly closed by Transporter Man . This was definitely in response to my comment on his talk page, as I hadn't edited on the page he opened the mediation on. Also see his response to me about comment on his talk page. Someone's not getting it. KoshVorlon 11:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Island6

I'm shamelessly advertising a discussion on COIN about (alleged) shameless advertising. The discussion involves an art "platform" Island6 and associated articles (there's a lot of them), and its editors. I just reverted a slew of promotional edits made by ArtaMell and Karashanghai on two articles, Zane Mellupe and Ifa gallery. These articles, as well as the discussion on the noticeboard, need more attention from more editors and, really, administrators. I've trimmed some of those articles and posted a few warnings here and there, but it should not be left to me alone, especially after having trimmed those articles, to decide on blocks or editing restrictions. But that there's something fishy going on, with COI accounts and possibly socking, that much is clear. Eyes please. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There might be a bit of socking but it looks to me like a case of poorly coordinated meat puppetry. WP:MEAT is vague about what constitutes evidence of such activity and what the remedies are. I can only say that this situation reeks of unethical behavior and IMHO something should be done to restore a semblance of integrity. Vrac (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Δ talk page

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 long-banned user has been using his talk page at User talk:Δ to discuss various topics unrelated to his ban, e.g. [108]. Someone noticed this and removed the comments, which seems quite reasonable because banned users are not permitted to user their talk page in this way, per WP:UNBAN. However, the banned user (!) and other users have restored the deleted comments. More eyes would be useful on this; I am not going to be online for a day or so, so I am simply leaving this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBM (talk • contribs)

However, some of Delta's comments were related to a request to consider his appeal, which are allowed under BAN. The removal was taking out all comments, regardless of nature. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Some were, but those comments are quite old by now, given that we know Arbcom did receive his appeal, and Arbcom is the place the appeal needs to go (it is not a community ban). Really, the page could use a courtesy blanking.

Just posting to note that the above statement is incorrect. I am the one who made the removals, and specifically left in place all comments even tangentially related to an appeal. The comments I removed were related to different aspects of automated editing. Surely a minimum of research would have been in order before making such claims. Belchior90 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, some looked like they were but on second check, I do agree that those were removed were not appeals related. But there were various edits in between that made it look differently. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A more useful question is why he still has talk page access. WP:BAN says that site banned users "usually not allowed" access to the user talk page. He can still appeal without talk page access, and at this point it seems appeals have already been tried, so I think it may be time to turn off the talk page to help him move on from English Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Delta's talk page should be cleared and locked. There is no reason for anyone to post anything on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Per the block log, delta's ban was specifically set to leave talk page access open per arbcom process to allow for appeals. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The real question is why the heck anyone should care about a banned user's talk page, unless they're engaging in personal attacks or issuing unwanted pings to other editors. Since the original poster has brought up The Rules, I noted they neither discussed the issue with the editor first, nor posted the ANI notification. I've done both. Perhaps we can simply wait for delta to reply before bringing out the WP:PITCHFORKS? NE Ent 14:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question were discussions with other users related to automated editing, abuse of which is the main reason why Δ is banned in the first place. WP:BAN is crystal clear on this issue, I quote: "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below." Thus, the real question is why this particular banned user should be given special leeway that is not given to others. Belchior90 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Because historically, as long as the talk page discussions are helpful to the project (and I don't see anyone arguin Delta's weren't), the community turns a blind eye and allows the banned editor to use his talk page to help the project, which should always remain everybody's ultimate goal. Such positive discussions are sometimes even used as evidence in an appeal discussion that the user is able to discuss and edit constructively. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've just archived all the talk page threads that were not related to an appeal (or this ANI and a discussion about the very use of the talk page). This AN/I thread should result in one of two outcomes: blocked talk page access, or continued positive use of Delta's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Even if there is talk of Delta making a new ban appeal, a talk page is not a venue for 'business as usual'. If I had noticed it myself I would have procedurally removed TPA. However, as this is now being discussed here, and as the user is not banned or blocked from viewing ANI, if the chatter does not cease very quickly on that page I will remove TPA and lock the talk page down too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My personal position is the Δ, once known here as Betacommand was one of our most prodigious contributors. I was not paying attention to Wikipedia when everything blew up and I was shocked that such a good contributor was not just banned, but very banned. I looked up the history and I can see why the community did it, there was an ongoing refusal to work within the community's expectations of automated editing, sock puppetry and other issues. That being said if there was ever a user for the standard offer to be considered this is the user.

He says he contacted arbcom on April 16 and that they did not respond. I would be hesitant to remove this users talk page access as I would still like to see the community consider letting this user back one day. I don't know if the criteria of the standard offer has been met or not, but if so we should not be too quick to forget how much help this person gave us in the past. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 16:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom says here that they have responded to all communication by Δ. Belchior90 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think there is much to be gained by cutting off community communications with this user. If they are breaking the rules of the ban to improve and maintain the encyclopedia then policy allows us to ignore that. Now would be a good time. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. Anything they post is subject to deletion, regardless of its alleged quality. The reason Beta/Delta was banned because he engaged in extreme belligerence against nearly everyone, to the point where even his erstwhile supporters were fed up. He ought not be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, not all of his supporters. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 17:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in with Chillum and Salvidrim. I don't see the point in cutting TPA. Who's being harmed by Delta and Carrite chatting a bit, esp. if they are talking about things that can benefit the project? What purpose, besides serving the letter of the law (and even that's not ironclad), does it serve to cut a longtime editor off from TPA? It only enrages, and for those who socked, it invites to do it again. Leeway is good. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, so:

1. User gets banned. Not for anything actually destructive like threats or outing or even copyvio; mostly for persistent obnoxiousness.
2. User occasionally uses talk page in perfectly civil manner to discuss matters that benefit the project.
3. Appeal to arbcom goes nowhere.
4. A month after the most recent non-appeal-related post on that page, a user with a 300-edit Wikipedia career mostly involved in Enforcing The Rules arrives to Enforce The Rules some more, against posts that had stood unchallenged going back to January 2015.
5. Everybody, off to ANI!

Some of you guys have way too much free time. His use of his talk page is obviously not disruptive, so leave him alone, close this, and everybody go write an article or go outside or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The block happened more than three and half years ago. Unblock, let them contribute (from what I've read here, they did good work in the main), and if they haven't learnt their lesson/step out of line, reblock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the ban was because the user did not do good work in main, and when people tried to help him stop causing problems, he kept causing problems, for years, until arbcom was in the end unable to see any option short of banning that would prevent him from causing more problems. I recommend reading through the arbitration case, and particularly "Evaluation of Betacommand's edits" [109] ("both concerns with the substantive content of the edits as well as concerns with Betacommand's ability and willingness to communicate the purpose and nature of the edits to other users.") — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone took exception to automated edits and blew it out of proportion. Hats off to Arbcom. I'll say it again: The block happened more than three and half years ago. Unblock, no automated edits allowed and any issues, reblock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an arbcom ban and beyond the remit of this venue; as the current committee has recently declined an unblock appeal, I don't think there's much chance of success of getting the ban lifted right now. NE Ent 18:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was surprised to be contacted by Delta, I was in the Not A Fan camp when his sanctions were just being decided. I don't think it wise to shut down his ability to use his talk page, so long as he is not editing project space. In fact, I think he could wind up being a very valuable contributor once again in a behind-the-scenes capacity, so long as he isn't using automation on mainspace content. I'd actually like to see a lightening of restrictions against him, replacing the ban with a topic ban on use of automation in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a ban on automation - Δ intentionally ignored it, many times, as documented in the arbcom case that led to his ban. One of the main reasons that he was banned was because he had used up all of arbcom's good faith that he would abide by any restrictions of that sort. Now it has been a long time since the ban, and in the meantime he was caught using sockpuppets. "Fool me once, shame on you, ..." applies here. Δ just needs to move on to other things at this point, rather than clinging to false hope that he will be unbanned. And we need to move on to other things, rather than clinging to a false hope he will be reformed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you present evidence of sockpuppetry? -- There are no confirmed socks at atWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacommand/Archive. NE Ent 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
      • See this comment [110] and the reply by Δ [111]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thx NE Ent 18:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• It would be nice if ArbCom read these comments. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: emailing the list is the best way to get ahold of us. I am off to bed so I haven't informed the rest of the committee about this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I am also support removing the block in favour of clear editing restrictions as deemed needed by the community. While previous restrictions were ineffective it has been years since we tried. This person was extremely helpful in the past, I think they could be again. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 18:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

All he helped with was creating massive disruption. The fact that he continues to hover around here, years after he was banned, is sufficient evidence that he should remain banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Per Opabinia regalis above, Belchior90 should be invited to do something useful, and to ignore Beta's talk page—pathetic behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Didn't realize we were being called upon to !vote about this. Oppose per Bugs. BMK (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• TPA OK on extremely short leash. BMK (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unban/unblock, Support removal of talk-page access. Massively disruptive editor on far too many fronts to mention. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever anyone !votes here, we can't override an Arbcom outcome. I don't believe for an instant that the current Arbcom has ignored or refused to listen to his appeal. All that said, if this were a major RfC calling for an opinion and not a simple ANI case, I'm pretty sure the community would come out in favour of maintaining the status quo and insisting that a ban is not 'business as usual'. Otherwise we might just as well throw the rule book out of the window along with our 5 pillars and everything else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose that if there was a torrent of calls for Betacommand/Delta to be unbanned, ArbCom would, at the very least, take it under advisement, but, practically speaking, you're certainly right that the removal or restoration of talk page access is really the only issue we have any input on in this thread. BMK (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you read between the lines here and on Delta's talk page, it sure looks like the Arbcom has already received and declined his appeal, possibly twice. I would not believe anything else unless confirmed by Arbcom, Delta sure does not seem to be a paragon of truthfulness and virtue. All this secrecy around communication with the Arbcom does not give a good impression. I say that if Delta wants to appeal, he should do it publically, with a public response from Arbcom - leaving no doubt about who said who. Here's my compromise solution: leave talk page access in place for 7 days, enough for Delta to post an appeal that fulfills the requirements set forth in his Arbcom case: "As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban." If no appeal is posted within 7 days, lock the page. Belchior90 (talk) 09:01, 27 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.

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 there a reason for your interest in Beta? It is hard to understand given that your account was created on 25 February 2015 and has 305 edits, 11 of which were to articles; the first edit was to a WP:UAA subpage. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Those first few edits are quite remarkable! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This obviously wasn't a new account. "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", to quote WP:SOCK, and abusing policies to harass another user removes any doubt that might have remained. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 27 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 talk:David Spiros Fitness (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

---

After being blocked for spamming, David Spiros Fitness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps spamming on their talk page. They should probably have their talk access removed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 26 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.

Western50 vandalism

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

---

Western50 has been notified on Talk page. In the past hour or so, he/she has been making vandalism edits on the religious pages of nations, [| here], [| here], and [| here] as only 3 examples. The edits summaries are all 'Fixed typo, fixed grammar', but in fact consist of random changes to statistics and falsification of pie chart colours. Akld guy (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked indefinitely for disruption--that is, until they explain what they were doing. Akld guy, your ANI notification was the most assholish notification I've seen in a long time. I suppose I'm glad you brought these edits to our attention, but the way in which you did it suggests that collaborative editing may not be your strong point. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Excuse me, but in what way is this not collaborative editing? Can you not see that the edits were just plain vandalism? Or are you referring to some other problem? Akld guy (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, their edits weren't so obviously vandalism, though I think they're disruptive enough. But that's just a disruptive editor, and for now that problem is solved. My bigger problem is an editor taking someone to ANI and in their notification saying "I hope it goes badly for you." Drmies (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: If I'm not mistaken, Western50 has a history of the same behaviour from months ago. I did hope it went badly for him and am glad to see the result is an indefinite block, thank you. I make no apology for making vandals feel unwelcome, and if I had been asked to apologise for the remark, would have refused. By the way, this was my very first complaint at ANI, but I don't care whether you bit me or not since I take a hard line myself. Akld guy (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can cite BITE all you want, but if your "I hope it goes badly for you" is alright, then certainly my saying that it's an assholish comment is alright too. People in glass houses etc. We're here to try and get along, not to wish ill on each other; perhaps 4chan or Conservapedia is a better place for you, if you prefer that kind of hard line. Somebody please close this. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 27 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.

Various issues with a number of users

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

---

This issue is composed of a few incidents so I will detail each one appropriately.

1. Firstly the issue with User:Primefac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would like to report this user for blatant harassment by stalking my edits and disrupting them as an apparent revenge attack for reporting him as a consequence in a 3RR dispute. I have warned this user a number of times via his talk page but shamefully to no avail. Here are a list of edits that I have issues about:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=682583551
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikipedia_essays&diff=prev&oldid=682696380
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&diff=prev&oldid=674894144
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=674521199
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants&diff=prev&oldid=674516392
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&diff=prev&oldid=674515506
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Cameron_(artist)&diff=prev&oldid=682919443
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Cameron_(artist)&diff=prev&oldid=682919220
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWiki-Impartial&type=revision&diff=674805926&oldid=674761749
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=682632633&oldid=682632036
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=682584614&oldid=682583551

There are more however I think this gives a basic insight.

1. The next issue is with the page Sheila Cameron (artist) which I originally nominated for deletion using the standard process however my mind soon changed to speedy deletion when I realised the subject of the article in fact requested the article. All relevant information and diffs regarding this issue can be found below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheila_Cameron_(artist) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheilaCameronArtist

• Issues: The article does not indicate significance or notability on its own however, since then it has come to my attention that the subject of the article in fact requested for the article to be made. This request was strangely accepted by a group of people. Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reformatted the diff list; Olowe2011, hope you don't mind. APerson (talk!) 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: It should be noted that not long ago, a user had mentioned that Olowe2011 was stalking primefac's contributions prior to this claim.  Checking... looking into the issue, will post shortly. --JustBerry (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: The title of the incident report seems to suggest that the filer is involved in conflicts, such as edit wars, with multiple users. Additionally, it should be noted that Olowe2011 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked for edit warring in the past. --JustBerry (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Great stuff. You will note in your checks that I have not been near this user. The only interactions that have existed since those so called edit wars have been from him with my edits. Olowe2011 ^Talk 23:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: I left a message on your talk page regarding the purpose of your alternate account, which does not appear to be addressed yet. Would you mind explaining how your alternate account abides by the alternate account policy? Although responding is not obligatory for now, it does raise some concern, as you had mentioned that the account was for making contributions to DRN. --JustBerry (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Just a note for User:JustBerry. I will strongly recommend some serious digging into this on your behalf because I have done my uttermost to avoid this user at all costs. That edit war was a mistake on my part which I have taken full responsibility for. Since then this user has been perusing my edits like its out of fashion and its getting to the point I fear to edit something because he might come along and have something to do with it. Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: No worries. As mentioned above, I will post some comments regarding my observations. --JustBerry (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry to bother, but I'm just going to give you a slight ping here, since you appear to have been active at ANI around now. --JustBerry (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• No bother. I'll gladly admit I had a beer during the Bama game (me and Tide rolls), but I can't rightly figure what this complaint is. About. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• JustBerry RE the issues with numerous users. Basically the user I reported for harassment made an edit to my content on that page which I reported here and it was my last straw after having warned not interact with my edits. So the issues kind of folded together. I don't have a problem with the users of the page that I have reported but I do have a problem with people creating biographies on behalf of the article subjects. The issue smelt fishy which is why I have reported it here (not because we got into an edit war ect.) Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• JustBerry and for the record can I get you to explain why you pinged a specific administrator to this discussion? Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Olowe2011: As per the reason I provided above "since you appear to have been active at ANI around now." --JustBerry (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• @JustBerry: Oh right :). Do you have any history with the user I reported out of general interest? Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: @Olowe2011: Not exactly. I was called to this issue by a user on IRC. --JustBerry (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Question: @Olowe2011: Is there a particular reason you chose to disregard the question about your alternate account on your talk page and above? --JustBerry (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Question: @JustBerry: It is just that you have taken a tone earlier in this discussion which seems Anti-Olowe2011 and I am trying to work out if that is in good faith (you are bothered that I might be disruptive or something like that) based on a stupid mistake that I have tried to correct or if you are acting against me. I am a man of my intent and if I feel something I will express it because its not my way to hide my thoughts about something. I will ask outright... Do you feel that you maybe bias towards that user which called you in IRC? This is serious issue as its been subject to Arbcom issues and I would prefer it if UNINVOLVED editors made assertions or that they make it exceptionally clear bias exists if you feel it does. Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: Firstly, the user on IRC is not someone who I had interacted with in the past. The editor had issues with your doggy tags from earlier. --JustBerry (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: @JustBerry: The alternate account question was answered here. Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: Can you further elaborate how this fits in with Wikimedia's alternate account policy? --JustBerry (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: If you want to complain about my alternate account can you please create a separate report and I will answer to it. Furthermore, you have not answered my question as to if you represent bias on this issue Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Olowe2011: Although Bbb23 has archived this report, the following will be noted for record purposes. The question regarding 'bias' has already been addressed in my reply above. --JustBerry (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary "If you interact with my work destructively again I will report for harassment. You MAY NOT edit out my contrib to templates without clear consensus..) " by the original poster seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the terms with which they submit every edit: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone NE Ent 00:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• NE Ent Is this a discussion about my understanding of Wikipedia policies or about harassment? I don't understand how if I made a mistake in misquoting a policy or guideline it effects the fact I feel harassed by the user in which I reported. But thanks for enlightening us with this information. Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• [I spent time on this so I'm going to stick it in, no matter if Bbb (cheers) closed this or not!] I don't see the problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Cameron (artist). The AfD will run its course. As for the matter with Primefac, what a mess. Those diffs are all over the place, and I will not look at all of them--though I will note, first of all, that holy moly you use a lot of words. Now, you cited two edits in Sheila Cameron (artist): you reverted Primefac, who had removed your A7 tag (and kindly restored the AfD tag, I think): Primefac was correct and justified, and your reverting their removal of the tag was disruptive. Now this here, from a month and a half ago, I don't know what your problem is--what I do note is that your passive-aggressive attitude will make you no friends. Now, I have a suggestion: you stay away from ANI and stop complaining, or someone (someone like me) is going to find a lot of things wrong with your edits, and "petulance" may be the least of it. Also, why do you have two accounts? Don't answer that here--answer it to yourself. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies I view that as a threat Olowe2011 ^Talk 01:07, 27 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.

The two accounts are clearly declared, so unless someone can produce of double posting to the same discussion I don't see the issue. NE Ent 01:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I'm violating my own closure; now there's a first. NE Ent, I'm not sure what you mean by "discussion", but at best this is misleading as it might well make other editors think there are more contributors to the essay than is in fact the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the only overlap between the two accounts, but I note that there were over 9 hours between the last Olowe2011 edit and the first of the two Wiki-Impartial edits, and 7 1/2 hours between the second Wiki-Impartial edit and the next Olowe2011 edit, so it's not as if the editor changed accounts in the middle of editing to create a misimpression. Still, if Olowe2011/Wiki-Impartial is monitoring this discussion, I think they would be well-advised to avoid doing that kind of thing again. In any case, considering the little use that they've made of the Wiki-Impartial account, I fail to see the real benefit of it, but that's just my opinion. BMK (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I mean; that is a bit of issue. Given it was accidental, I've posted a note on the talk page, which should be sufficient to address the concerns. NE Ent 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb23 you have seriously made a bad judgement call with regard to who or what you think I am about here. The issue with the essay was a mistake in the fact I was logged into that account by accident nothing more or less. Apart from that one mistake I have done everything to keep them apart. Thank you Beyond My Ken. Olowe2011 ^Talk 13:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying there was multiple account abuse going on--I was seriously wondering why there were two accounts, since I couldn't make heads or tails of the explanation given on the user page. As for the "threat", you've wasted a lot of people's time here with a complaint that had no merit but rather incriminated you: this edit, where you restored a speedy tag removed by someone who was not the article creator, is against policy, and then you did it again again here, even threatening the editor who--perfectly legitimately--reverted your re-addition of the speedy tag and removal of the AfD tag. And what is this I hear? ArbCom? Drmies (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies You are completely and utterly missing the point. This is not about the content of his edits and if they are right or wrong. It is about him preforming a series of edits to a number of things that I am involved with after being warned not to engage with me. It is that simple. Olowe2011 ^Talk 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks, abuse and copy-paste moves not stopping

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.

---

• PSL2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite attempts via edit-summaries and his talk-page to refer to Wikipedia policies over Copy-paste moves, user PSL2015 has not stopped it. 2016 Pakistan Super League and Haier T20 Cup 2015-16 have been affected. In his edit-summaries, he has made personal attacks too. Diffs [112][113][114]. I would request Revision Deletion of these diffs and a preventive action. Faizan (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If that last diff doesn't get them blocked, then it's time to nuke this place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't so bad that it needs to be rev-deleted. Also, my dear Lugnuts, the donkey balls comment isn't the worst--I blocked them for 31 hours for the others, the "are you stupid" kind of stuff. You warned them already for the copy-paste stuff so I don't have to do it--if that becomes an issue again, please, when you warn, stuck the diffs in there so an ignorant admin like me doesn't have to plow through diffs and search for stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've deleted the copy paste moves as the articles are at the original title and we shouldn't have this unattributed split off content randomly sitting at multiple locations. I didn't consider that one of the articles was at AfD and deleting the redirected title would cause a problem so I've recreated that redirect. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 27 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.

Shocking bullying of an IP user by an admin and some of his non-admin friends.

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.

---

Admin is User:NeilN and his friends are User:Amortias, User:NottNott and User:Beyond_My_Ken. #1: Edit Warring is done by multiple parties, you CANNOT just block one. #2: You cannot block that party from editing a talk page when they ask for equality. I mean seriously, is this an online encyclopedia or a nazi tribute? Sort it out guys! Oh, and #3: Rollback was used by the non-admin users to edit war instead of reverting vandalism, which is a shocking breach of policy. If you wish to keep a constructive editor in me, please deal with this as the presence of edit bullies do not encourage me to stay.

• bullied IP address talk page history
  • Pages of edit war were: Tommy Pickles, Angelica Pickles, Chuckie Finster & Kimi Finster
    • Thank you! Craig87x (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you're going out of your way to be problematic, given your WP:Sock puppet accounts. Admins, see AN3 request. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that was quick. I've been back from an unplanned Wikibreak less than 2 hours and im at ANI.

Rollbacked a user blanking pages and then redirecting them to another article. Reason for redirection was that the character didnt have an article the language used by the IP editor was interesting to say the least. Hate to start off on such a streak but obvious duck is obvious. Amortias (T)(C) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have indeffed the obvious sock. The IP was blocked for their rabid edit warring and the block was extended for their talk page abuse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 27 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:Carlipy

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.

---

Classic case of a Wikipedia:Genre warrior: Carlipy (talk · contribs)'s activity consists entirely of changing the genres in infoboxes of musical artist articles to suit their own point of view. Out of some 150 edits they've provided maybe a dozen edit summaries to explain why they're changing genres, and not once have they provided a reliable source nor edited in the talk space to try to engage with other editors. They've received all 4 levels of {{Uw-genre1}} on their talk page over the past 4 months, from 3 different editors, yet have not responded to these warnings and have continued with their behavior. Time for a block. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 21:36, 27 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:Megacheez

User:Megacheez changes number and numerical symbol styling on hundreds of pages in violation of MOS:NUM. The user has been asked to stop doing so numerous times over the past few weeks on his talk page, but he continues nevertheless. As another editor on his talk page notes, he is doing this on so many pages it is impossible for any particular editor to revert them all. The editor should be blocked before he makes an even larger mess. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I just manually reverted probably a bit over 100 of their edits. It'd take a while to sift through them all because they intersperse their edits with some text changes and I'm making sure the edits are actual MOS:NUM violations. Blackmane (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's some examples:

• 05 Sept 2015: List of NFL retired numbers: No.→#, number→# discussed at User_talk:Megacheez#Number_sign (MOS:NUMBERSIGN)
• 16 Sept 2015: Rogers Centre: three→3, seven→7, warning at User talk:Megacheez#September 2015 (SPELL09)
• 20 Sept 2015: Ricoh Coliseum: ten→10, five→5, warning at User talk:Megacheez#September 2015 (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Stroh Center: three→3, five→5, discussed at User talk:Megacheez#Manual of style (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: John E. Worthen Arena: eight→8, six→6, discussed at User talk:Megacheez#Manual of style (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Wells Fargo Arena: six→6 (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Auburn Arena: 0.573→.573, 6324→6,324, &c (WP:DECIMAL)
• 23 Sept 2015: Reed Arena: 1500→1,500 (MOS:DIGITS)

There are dozens if not hundreds of others. Some are changes between optional forms (e.g., 1500→1,500 or ten→10), but there does not seem to be a compelling reason (e.g., internal consistency) to change from one approved form to another. There are good edits mixed in with the questionable or bad edits. Megacheez does not interact with others on his talk page, so it is very difficult to say whether there is any change at all. For example, it may be possible that Megacheez learned MOS:NUMBERSIGN and so isn't making that mistake again, but hasn't yet digested MOS:SPELL09. On the other hand, it may just be that Megacheez has finished looking for places to insert the # and is now on to a new crop of edits. Obviously, there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm, I only wish it could be channeled in a more effective direction. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, and others are now corroborating, this user is creating a gigantic mess to clean up. There are literally hundreds of these edits to sift through and clean up -- I count about 100 from the last two days, and five hundred in less than the last two weeks. As another editor above stated, the user will not respond to requests to stop or even engage in discussion. The longer this is allowed to go on, the more work it is creating for other editors. This is disruptive editing distracting other editors from more productive work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a major problem. I've blocked the user with the following statement on his user talk page "Please note to any admin (or anyone else) who comes by here to respond to any potential unblock requests. This block may be lifted at any time by any administrator so long as Megacheez agrees to stop making the rapid MOS-violating edits he's been warned about above, AND agrees to discuss the matter with others. Once he starts communicating, and agrees to stop the problem, this block may be lifted." This should at least force him to agree to stop and communicate. Once he does that, anyone may feel free to lift the block. --Jayron32 16:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I trawled through another batch of their edits last night and manually reverted back. I'm doing the easier ones that are tagged (current). Quite a few articles been edited by others, which will require some care in checking. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hvarena

Could someone please take care of this guy? Quote:

"Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "

"Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "

Thanks in advance, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Which guy, Joshua? The link above points to your own edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes--the edits are made by an IP, the "this guy" links to edits pertaining to User:Searchpow who you say is a suspected sock of User:Adiagr, but the heading here is User:Hvarena. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right! Too many arguments. I've corrected the link; it's a diff for my talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion and some comments. Not in that order. a. This doesn't rise to a level which requires administrative intervention. b. Their comments are uninformed but not untypical. c. Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryian--Ethnologue says Indo-Iranian and that's good enough for me. d. I think you should tell your visitor, in one sentence or less, that thingies on Wikipedia ought to be decided by reference to reliable sources (such as Ethnologue), and that this is to be discussed on the article talk page, thank you for your comment. That's what I'd do. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• It appears [115] that the user started using an IP after receiving an edit-warring notice, clearly gaming the 3RR rules. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Darn it--thanks a lot Bbb23. You've taken away any grounds for blocking the IP (hardblocking, for extra Wiki-bucks). We can still slap Hvarena on the wrist, of course. Hvarena, whatever you're trying, it's not going to work. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Bullet-point conversation? Anyway, thanks for the advice, Drmies. I'll explain him. I was annoyed by the talkpage-spam, and the "accusations" of Zionism and Christian whatever. Sigh... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced – consisting of self-published and other non-reliable sources – and in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Update (14 Sep): As soon as the three-day full protection on the article ended on 9 September, ThorLives proceeded to make a number of additions to the article, including of non-reliably referenced material, which had to be removed by others. On 14 September, ThorLives again engaged in edit warring to restore information on pre-Christian religious movements, despite a Talk Page agreement from myself, User:Bloodofox, and User:Ogress that this information should not be included within the article. On the Talk Page they have also begun making accusations of "bullying" against myself, and accusing me of being unfamiliar with the subject matter (in clear violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy). This is getting to be a real disruption for the article and the editors working to improve it, so it would be appreciated if administrators could take action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Second update (16 Sep): Surprise surprise, but ThorLives is edit warring on this page again. As I specified above, on 14 September they restored a contentious reference that was being discussed on the Talk Page. Given that most editors involved in that discussion thought that this was damaging to the article (for various reasons), later that day their edit was undone by User:Ogress. On 15 September ThorLives simply restored it, ignoring Talk Page warnings that they should not do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Third update (18 Sep): Unsurprisingly, ThorLives has continued their edit warring over at the Heathenry page. Earlier today they added a Tag stating that the article's factual accuracy is disputed, and opened up a Talk Page discussion in which they repeated this accusation, without sufficient supporting information. User:Snowded, who has been otherwise un-involved in the article and its content disputes, removed that tag, explaining why it had to be removed. ThorLives simply then added it back in, (erroneously) accusing Snowded's removal of having been Vandalism. Yet again, the edit warring and incivility continues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.

Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

I could continue, but you understand the point.

I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.

As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, why would anyone want a long quote about medieval or ancient beliefs (or in this instance lack of consistent beliefs) in the lead of an article about a modern revival? That kind of material MIGHT belong in later sections comparing modern/ancient or on the articles about the 'old'. I fear you are arguing from a different 'base' from WP guidelines. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This looks like a content war with some edit warring and mild incivility. Outing maybe, possibly but its not clear. I don't see any 3rr warnings on ThorLives talk page and you should exhaust process there before coming to ANI for a ban ----Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading the talk, I get the impression that 'Thor' doesn't fully understand how WP works, in the event of nothing happening here, might I suggest this is a candidate for dispute resolution. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Forms of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, have already been employed. ThorLives simply continued with many of their actions regardless, hence why there was the need to turn to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I agree with the statement that ThorLives doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, however they have been repeatedly pointed to policies such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources over at the Talk Page, so I do not believe that they can legitimately defend themselves through claiming an ignorance of policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I posted this issue and the problem is simply continuing. Can an administrator please consider doing something so that the article can advance without disruption? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Could we perhaps get administrative support for a Topic Ban, which would be less extreme than a wider ban yet would put a stop to the constant disruptive behaviour which is damaging the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

At the moment its a low level content dispute with some incivility from Thor who evidently does not understand how wikipedia works. I'm not sure he can be bothered finding out either but lets see how it plays out. This has come to ANI prematurely and should be closed. Normal process can handle it ----Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What about out WP:Harrassment policy, which states very clearly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"? There can be no doubt that ThorLive engaged in attempted outing? Why are administrators turning a bling eye and the regulations being ignored in this instance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My only interest here is to prevent the additional degradation of the article on Germanic neopagansim. Midnightblueowl effectively rewrote the article using one book (see talk page), and I simply ask that other editors be respected. As to "outing," I am still convinced that he disrupted the article in the past under a different name. -- ThorLives (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, either provide some proof that "he disrupted the article in the past under a different name" or remove it/strike it through. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' claim that I "effectively rewrote the article using one book" is total and utter nonsense, as I demonstrate quite clearly over at the Talk Page. Their claims that I am the same user as Bleghorkbh are also entirely spurious, based only on the fact that – at different times – we espoused similar views as to how the article could be improved through the use of academic sources. Their attempt at "outing" was distinct from their claim that I am Bleghork and revolved around their attempt to name my off-Wikipedia "real world" identity - which if Wikipedia policies had been followed should have earned them an immediate block. Moreover, as their comment above shows, they continue to be totally and deliberately uncivil (using "he" when my profile makes it quite clear that I use female pronouns, etc). I'm genuinely bemused and frustrated as to why administrators haven't stepped in and acted on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive move requests

Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated more than a dozen pages at WP:RM in the last couple days, many for specious reasons like [116]. At quick glance, these moves are being resoundingly opposed (see here and here, for example). These requests are being made shortly after he was blocked for disruptive page moves [117]. At this point, I feel the moves should be speedy closed as Disruptive and the user in question instructed to stop filing such requests. Calidum 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the editor has made specious WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC arguments for moving Syria, Armenia, Mexico, Samoa, Sudan, Ghana, Mali, Guinea and Benin. Looks like deliberate disruption to me. BMK (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of disruptive move requests, not just at these articles but for language and ethnicity articles as well. During the summer he would propose a move and then when soundly opposed would argue for days and days without moving his position one inch or recognizing consensus. He is a wikilawyer and contributes very little besides endless move requests. On one day last summer he proposed 20-25 move requests. --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor has withdrawn all the requests noted above, and changed his "Semi-retired" notice to "Retired". I propose a very short leash here, and an eye kept out for potential socks. BMK (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

He's done the "retired" tag before, while continuing to edit and argue. BMK is right. --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No edits since he put the retired tag on his page six days ago, move requests have all been withdrawn, is there anything left to do here? I don't think so. Everymorning (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Diego Grez Cañete /MrWiki / Kuñal - again

User Diego Grez-Cañete has nominated various articles qhere I have edited [118] in what is to me a clear case of REVENGE because I have nominated various Pichilemu-related articles for deletion. He took me to the incidents page at the time for "disruption", albeit that resulted in a backlash and several other editors took on scrutinize Pichilemu-related articles [119]. Further Diego has been provoking Warko [120]. This user has a long history of previous misbehavior (that led to blocking an so on (check Diegos multiple accounts)) dating at least to 2009.

I wonder what can be done to end all this? Sietecolores (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And [121] does Vrac also exposes Diegos behviour. Sietecolores (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has closed the AFD's. I have notified Diego Grez-Cañete of this thread. (@Sietecolores: you're supposed to do this when you open an ANI case on someone...) Vrac (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying, Vrac, I always forget to check if that's been done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've speedy kept all 11 nominations; this is clearly using AFD as a weapon in retaliation. I've made it clear in the AFD close that good faith re-nominations by someone else for any of the articles is OK with me; I'm making no call on whether they meet GNG or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• This response is out of line. Given this and this(nominated several articles the target of the personal attack worked on: User_talk:Sietecolores#Nomination_of_Hern.C3.A1n_Trizano_for_deletion) it appears the user has no compunction about nominating articles based on revenge. Given this user has had 2 indef blocks both with conditional unblocks I think we may need to review what those conditions were and if we need new ones. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to chalk it up to feeling under fire and acting out (numerous articles of his have been AFD'd in recent days - I hasten to add, not under the same conditions as these 11 AFD's). Not acceptable, of course, and this can't continue, but maybe it explains things. I know an editor who I trust, and who is also trusted by Diego; I'd prefer to see if they could have a quiet word first, before the ANI Machine of Justice gets whirring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am content with that. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To that I would add that other Chilean editors have been, shall we say, a tad overzealous in nominating Pichilemu content for deletion. Not everything associated with that town has to be deleted; each article should be evaluated on its own merits. Vrac (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see a tit-for-tat getting a bit out of hand. I would urge Diego to consider Floq's words; that these AfDs were retaliatory even if with a possibly valid deletion rationale is clear. Step back, dear Diego, and let calmer spirits prevail. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing/Vandalism

Hi, a few days ago I reverted this edit on The Snowman. Pretty clear case of vandalism by misattributing credit for several production roles. I looked further into the IP's edits and discovered a hoax which was spread over several articles. It's about a show called the Joey & Fido Show which apparently doesn't exist. Here are a few examples:

[122] [123] [124]

I researched this "show" and the only references to it I could find were all related to this user's entries in the encyclopedia. There is one unrelated Deviant Art page. Almost all of this user's vandalism pertains in some manner to Martin Lambie-Nairn. I ended up having to give up fixing this user's edits after around 70 of them spread all over Wikipedia. Please feel free to review my contributions for a full list. It includes several BLP violations pertaining to Lambie-Nairn in particular.

This user has editing Lambie-Nairn's page each of the past three days adding in unsourced claims, and don't appear to be willing to stop: [125] [126] [127]

I'm in over my head trying to deal with this as I have very little expertise and only sporadic time to edit. I'm asking for some of you folks to please watch some of these pages, and am also concerned that if a user like this spread a hoax once they may be tempted to again. I doubt they'd have been caught if not for making the mistake of editing a popular page like The Snowman.

I apologize in advance if I reverted anything I shouldn't have but every one of those 70ish edits looked like vandalism after reviewing them. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I'm not sure if the hoaxing aspect requires more attention than normal.

They primarily edit from an IP in the range of 88.104.x.x, but not always. This changes almost every day. I will go and place the notification on their two most recent accounts.

Thank you Zarcusian (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Joey & Fido. here's more Looks like a new-ish animation, utterly non-notable. Not sure if it is the same thing, but it exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that is related to the deviant art page artist and is unrelated to these edits, I checked many times. This editor even refers to the show debuting in the 70s and having a feature film, etc.. Zarcusian (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a rangeblock. There are a bunch of IPs that geolocate to Manchester, UK, and if we can get a handle on their extent, we can see how much collateral damage would come from a rangeblock. Here's what I'm seeing:

• 88.104.0.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.2.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.2.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.4.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.4.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.7.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.8.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.8.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.9.120 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.9.147 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.10.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.11.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.12.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.12.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.15.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.15.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.141.193.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.150.172.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There are a few outliers which are obviously connected, for instance 86.135.131.130 from nearby Heswell. But the main problem comes from the range 88.104.0 to 88.104.15. I think this should be blocked for a month. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• 88.104.0.0/20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is what you are talking about, 4096 hosts, which isn't so dramatic. I'm not an expert on rangeblocks but I'm more than familiar enough. I've manually checked half the range and don't think there will be much collateral damage, so soft blocking for a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Excellent work. Thank you, Dennis! Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Editor has resumed under the 86.xxx range. They appear to be mixing legitimate edits with vandalism. Maybe it is a different editor with a WP:CIR issue, I'm not sure. Zarcusian (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Hard to tell. Probably need to keep an eye and see what IPs they use. It does look similar to the 88s, but I haven't compared to the other 86s. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

86.180.136.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) The same editor is back at it inserting hoax material into articles, seems to be on a static IP this time:

• Fake Acting Credit
• Fake production credit
• More fake production credits

Would it be possible to also block this IP for a reasonable amount of time? Zarcusian (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This IP has made five edits today, three of which directly inserted hoax material into articles, and two of which have re-inserted information into a BLP. This is the same editor who has been range blocked for a month. Can an admin please make a preventative block as I requested above? After the month long block has expired this vandal is going to resume. I really feel that this situation warrants more attention than it's receiving. Thank you. Zarcusian (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ian.Thomson

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 was wondering if I could get help with this Wikipedia editor? He keeps implying that I am tendentiously editing, which I am not. He also resorting to using ad hominem attacks, and threatening to ban me. Full conversation here.

If I could please get some assistance in this user who is badgering me, thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion Ian Thomposn made one comment so I don't see how that is evidence that he keeps implying anything. Also several people in that discussion were critical of your views so why is Ian Thompson being singled out?--174.91.187.135 (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Ian.thomson only posted once on the Village Pump page and not at all on NUP's talk page. clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 27 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:19999o

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 help us in dealing with a disruptive user in a semi-protected page? More specifically, the User:19999o is doing disruptive edits and has entered in an endless edit-revert war with the other Wiki users at the page Macedonians (ethnic group). We have already reverted his vandalism of the page about 6 times, and we send him already two warnings so far (check his talk page, here: User talk:19999o), and even notified a moderator about his disruptive actions. But the disruptive user doesn't seem to care at all and has ignored our warnings and is continuing his disruptive behavior. Any help is highly appreciated because I don't know what else can be done. --SilentResident (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) is subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. You may want to bring this up at WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: dear Blackmane, can you do this? First time I am reporting someone, I could really appreciate a little assistance from a more experienced user. Thanks --SilentResident (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat familiar with what goes on in WP:AE, I've not reported a user there before either. I'll have a look into it and ping you once I think I'm done. Blackmane (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane:Thank you for doing this, and also, thank you for informing me about article in question being subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Thank you and I appreciate what you have done for me. --SilentResident (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. I'll close this ANI thread as it is now at AE. Blackmane (talk) 05:02, 28 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.

Stalking

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.

---

@Jondel is stalking my edits (see [128]), i.e. all the AFDs referenced here, with boilerplate almost verbatim wording on each. User notified (see [129]). Quis separabit? 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalking? you have sooooo many AFDs (?) It seems like your >you're diverting attention <from your AFDs.--Jondel (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvited user, and I will get involved if you don't stop stalking, Best regards. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cookie it seems like [email protected] intends unfairly have articles deleted. Are you going to let this happen? Do we have a voice in the process?--Jondel (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jondel, you can have a voice as long as you don't stalk or harrass. Thanks. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And boiler plate verbatim? What is wrong ? Please investigate Rio , pull up your sleeves, check the discussion at Tambayan , under many deletions by same nominator. He also deleted a personal appeal at his discussion page. Stalking is something which is prolonged. I only proposed keep for one day. --Jondel (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're not being stalked, Rms, but your AfDs are. Having said that, Jondel's cries for help, such as this one, are--well, bothersome. Irritating. Irrelevant. Now, if Jondel's comments in those AfDs are really so boilerplate, the closing admin will see right through it, but I do agree that their edits and commentary are hardly improving the project or the atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Seriously? You nominate a bunch of articles from the same project for deletion, and you're surprised that the same person turned up to vote in all of them? It's called similar interests. It happens. Suggest you drop this and move on. AFDs will end and then you can go on your merry way. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"You nominate a bunch of articles from the same project for deletion, and you're surprised that the same person turned up to vote in all of them?" -- no, not surprised at all, a little sad, maybe. @Drmies got it right -- it is AFD stalking. I am not intimidated but it needed to be reported given the verbatim keep votes that proliferated, indicating keep votes just to make a point, which is not kosher. Quis separabit? 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And if it's no big deal then maybe the hysteria will die down at the Tambayan Philippines WikiProject. Quis separabit? 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be making it a big deal , this hysteria. Right now you're diverting the debate to Tambayan. A boilerplating, is stalking? And what about deleting a personal appeal on your discussion page. After 10 years don't you think that is irritating and offensive? Own up huh? We'll I've been here 11 years and then some. I own up. I do my best to respond not delete.

I don't want to make it a big deal. I want that you stop your delete campaign for articles related to the Philippines. We see those personalities in the media and it is ridiculous for us Filipinos to accept that these celebrities are not notable. Sources are not an issue. I 'm sorry if you felt that I was stalking or intimidating. However please desist from deleting this articles if the subjects of these articles are indeed notable. Let't not prolong this debate. If there is another issue, aside from notability, I need to know. --Jondel (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"However please desist from deleting this articles if the subjects of these articles are indeed notable."

Well, that is often the point of contention, during and even after many AFDs, CFDs, etc. Not all Philippines-related articles are notable any more than those of any other country. If there were a way I could know beforehand then I could save myself the trouble and occasional embarrassment. I do do Google searches (others' opinions to the contrary notwithstanding) but those often don't resolve the issue, as there are so many mirror sites and fansites; even some reliable sources give undue coverage to nonsense and gossip. I realize I made some mistakes in re some poorly chosen AFD subjects (Banawa, Reyes), which you and some others don't seem to be able to let go of, but the good thing about our system is that those kinds of mistakes are caught and corrected, often by acclamation, during the discussion process. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel your are not digging deep enough with your google search. Btw I notice you did sock puppeting back in '5? Please understand, I've been here longer than you.--Jondel (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been editing since before 2005!! I never bothered to check but that's impressive, although your attempt to raise issues from a decade ago is not. It also unfortunately means that you bear your share of the blame for much of the cruft that I am trying to remove which you allowed or encouraged to proliferate on this encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And you should certainly know after a decade or more of editing that comments such as "Just to make sure. I have to make sure since this debate is ridiculous.It is evident P.Arespochagaq is notable" and "She was notable since I was high school. The nominator is not Filipino is not familia [sic] with the Filipino media" are most inappropriate on AFDs or anywhere articles are being debated. Quis separabit? 14:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"I feel your are not digging deep enough with your google search" -- the problem for me, anyway, with Filipino sources, even those in English, is that they presuppose and presume an intimate knowledge with the subject and begin, usually not at the beginning but midway through whatever is being reported, making it hard to suss out, which is often the case with gossipy, salacious tabloids. Quis separabit? 14:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Look if they are non notable,have them deleted. If not please don't. Thanks about my time here. You're not so bad yourself. We will provide more legitimate sources for Sharmaine, but she is very well known and deserving of an article. I am also an admin at the Interlingua, and Chabacano wiki and a contributor at the (mostly)Latin and Spanish wiki. Res gestas tuas et de rebus philippinis admodum curo.--Jondel (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jondel: Mayroon akong walang anuman kundi paggalang sa napakalaki karamihan ng mga Pilipino kasama na ako ay nagtrabaho bilang mga doktor, mga nars, at mga guro. Ang kanilang mga hirap sa trabaho at resilience ay lubhang kataka-taka. Ngunit paggalang na ay hindi laging i-extend sa lahat ng mga "entertainers" ay tatalakayin namin. Quis separabit? 15:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for Tagalog, will provide English upon request.

Magka-bayan pala tayo?.Hindi para sa atin ang mang-husga, e, encyclopedia ito. It is not for us to judge. Entertainers provide a service and this is an encyclopledia. Kung pilipino ka pare, kahit doktor ka, nakaka hiya na sock-puppeter ka. Eh malay kong may unethical or unscrupulous modus operandi ka ngayon? It never crossed my mind to do sockpuppeteering. I also only delete vandalisms on my discussion page, never personal appeals. Please fix what ever issues you have with Obsidian. Pakiusap, wag mo na sanang ituloy itong Deletion campaign mo. Tapos ina-accuse mo ako ng stalking, an administrator. Please continue to contribute and develop good relations with other wikipedians. Please don't be smug.--Jondel (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate and encourage all of you in your efforts, CookieMonster755 for ninja-fast action,Drimies and SomeGuy for their enlightenement and even [email protected] to for his motivation and action to weed out wiki trash.Please assume good faith on the part and of the other guy and do make effort to develop good relationships with other wikipedians. Please eschew and avoid unethical and unscrupulous methods. Victoria praeparationem amat. Ave. --Jondel (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalking (redux)

@Jondel continues, with several other editors from the Tambayan Project Wikipedia, to stalk my AFDs, providing mindless boilerplate keep votes without exception using the same almost verbatim language, at least initially before beefing up his rationale, using other editors' work (see [130]). In his case, although possibly not the other editor(s) it has become a form of edit warring and harassment. See [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136] and [137]. Quis separabit? 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi [email protected]. This is what I am 'stalking' or following. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines. To admins be informed that this guy has a history of sock puppeteering back in 2005. Apparently he wants me to shut up and not vote keep. I don't >know <why he keeps putting up articles for deletion. Please refer to the first accusation of Stalking above. To Rms125. Where replaying tapes here. You can't expect me to not vote. Sorry. --Jondel (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"To admins be informed that this guy has a history of sock puppeteering back in 2005." -- Not a gesture of good faith to bring up nonsense from a decade ago. Quis separabit? 17:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll your manifesting recidivism. Be honest will you? You need to accept that someone will protect those articles as the subjects are indeed notable. And considering you would have had your way, you 've probably caused damage in deleting other articles of notable subjects.--Jondel (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"You can't expect me to not vote. Sorry." -- No one is saying you can't vote. But you cannot expect me not to challenge votes based on IMDb, boilerplate voting ("Keep: sources present"), tandem voting, and other such irregularities. This is not a case of shared interests, this is a WikiProject-organized voting exercise to make a POINT to keep articles that the Project members would normally not have bothered voting for, based on previous AFDs, which they now want to overturn, when none of these editors even bothered to participate. @Obsidion Soul boasted that he has 9000+ articles on his watchlist; I guess he is otherwise occupied. Quis separabit? 17:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Those articles attest to notable entertainers. Entertainers provide a service. It is not for you to judge. This is an encyclopedia and it should provide useful information on notable subjects like entertainers.--Jondel (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire situation came about due to disagreements at Tambayan Philippines WikiProject over AFDs I had made recently, more than a few, which evidently triggered their radar, but I wouldn't do it any other way as I was doing nothing underhanded. I have made plenty of AFDs about people from every country, including a bunch from the Philippines that passed that they are now threatening to try to reopen. I acknowledged that I had made mistaken nominations that should not have been nominated. I added that I would desist from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles pending the results of the most recent nominations and added that perhaps my vetting process had become flawed. I then ended my communications, assuming the matter was over, at 14:45, 25 September 2015. I actually attempted twice to disengage, once at 14:45, 25 September 2015 and later at 16:53 25 September 2015, but @Obsidian Soul would not let it go, accusing me of system Western bias and continued to escalate the situation, using threatening language ("Before I fully descend into rage mode") before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." I am never going to hear about most of them but I haven't AFDed every Filipino actor or actress. The entire thing is gamed anyway. They cite almost exclusively Filipino sources and unreliable sources like IMDb, which are obsessed with entertainment personalities, and then claim these individuals, including porn stars, reality TV stars, starlets (or "teenyboppers" as @Obsidian Soul called them), retired child actors, etc., and their relatives, are all notable. Maybe they are notable on Tambayan but not in English. Have the Tambayan Project editors transcluded all these articles into every other language? Of course not. @RioHondo stated "This wholesale AfDs for local Miley Cyruses have been going for a month and IMO that is disruptive." I haven't been AFDing for a month just for the last two days so I don't know to whom he is referring, but -- and far more importantly -- are they all the equivalent of Miley Cyrus?? In that case don't just delete the articles but then disinfect and cauterize. I wish I could AFD Miley Cyrus' entire post-Hannah Montana career, but ....

These editors, particularly @Obsidian Soul, are obsessed with what they call systemic pro-Western bias and have inundated Wikipedia with so many crufty articles, all boilerplated, that Deb (an admin) had to go waste time and energy on Herculean efforts to seriously trim the DOY pages which were becoming way too overgrown and unmanageable (and let's not discuss the provenance of the overwhelming percentage of said articles). Quis separabit? 14:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your other issues which may indeed be valid. However, I am simply exercising my vote which you seem to misinterpret as STALKING. You need to respect votes and other opinions. I am alarmed at your AFDs. As a human being you should hear that other guy (Obsidian Soul?) out as best as you can. But you're being smug like deleting my personal appeal on on your discussion page. You can 't expect people to respect you after you do those things, especially if you have a history of sock puppeteering. If things are crufty then that is where a wiki works best. People like fixing things, and they get better by themselves through editors. I don't know about gaming. Why does Hannah Montana's article need deletion. This the essence of an encyclopedia, good info on everything --notable--. I am alarmed that you are putting soo many articles on delete but as far as I know I am following due process. You however are intentionally misinterpreting me when I vote.--Jondel (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not "smug" because I don't consider this to be a "personal appeal". Quis separabit? 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• The people only known for a single appearance on a Big Brother type show are not notable (WP:BLP1E), that's been repeatedly confirmed on the UK/US versions. The actors are a different matter, but they'd certainly need more than sources showing that they have appeared in a show (and not IMDB). Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close. AGF, this does not appears "stalking" to me. All the relevant AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines, so it's pretty natural that editors who use to edit Tambayan Philippines-related subjects (as Jondel does) will note these AfDs and eventually will cast their votes in them. The closing admin will weight Jondel's and others' comments and will close the AfD discussions accordingly, this is not the place to discuss their merit. Cavarrone 18:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• For anyone interested in what actually happened and not his garbled summary, see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Many AFDs by the same nominator?. Note that this involved a WikiProject and him. Not just me and Jondel. The issue is very simple. User:[email protected] is blanket nominating articles of people from the Philippines without doing the preliminary legwork of actually checking if they are notable. He refuses to acknowledge that he is forcing the entire Philippine WikiProject to follow his every nomination just so we could save the notable ones. We are asking him to change his vetting process of how he picks which article to nominate, by actually checking notability first before nomination. No one actually cares if he deletes the non-notable ones. But the fact that he is regularly including people whose notability can easily be verified with a simple google search is lazy and far too much for us. He has already made multiple mistakes in the past, nominating people like Gladys Reyes and Carol Banawa, and has deleted at least one person Laurenti Dyogi, who passes WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER, but has been deleted because neither the nominator and the people who !voted actually did a google search. That should be in deletion review already, but yeah, they don't really care about actual notability, right? He seems to regard the number of successful AfDs as a badge of honor, regardless if they were actually notable. There are probably more, but I'm too scared to look

Now for the finer points of ANI drama:

• I did not boast about having 9k pages on my watchlist. LOL It was a direct reply to his question on why no one from the WikiProject commented on the AfDs of the notable people who got deleted. Notice that he is in essence, admitting that he relies on other people to tell him about the notability of the articles he nominates. Maybe he thinks that the members of the WikiProject have nothing better to do than look for AfDs?

• Moreover, does he even know that we do actually see every single nomination he did of Filipino celebrities without going through his contribs? Not because we're "stalking", but because they're automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines. The WikiProject is dedicated to Philippine-related topics. What deletion sorting topics should we be watching if not that?

• "They cite almost exclusively Filipino sources and unreliable sources like IMDb", "Maybe they are notable on Tambayan but not in English" <- Examine these sentences. For people who actually know the notability guidelines. What's wrong with them? Do you understand now why I'm accusing WP:Systemic bias? I don't think the concept of national notability has ever occurred to him. Might be because he's American and a New Yorker and he simply can't fathom the fact that other countries have different famous people, different TV networks, different magazines, different movies, different shows, etc. But seriously. If this is how most western editors sort which sources are WP:RS (i.e. they must be western), then it's no wonder the systemic bias is this bad. For a brief summary of the most common secondary sources we have nationally: ABS-CBN and GMA Network are two of the largest TV stations (similar to NBC, CBS, or FOX in the US). Notable national newspapers include Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star (or "Philstar" online), The Manila Times, etc. The fact that most of these are exclusively Philippine-based is irrelevant. They provide national coverage (to a nation of almost 100 million people), sufficient to prove notability, regardless if a New Yorker has never heard of them ever in his life. This is the ENGLISH [language] Wikipedia, not the Western Wikipedia.

• And lastly, the most important part. I am losing (have lost, really) my temper because he accuses all of us of being "fans" or "obsessed" about all these people. And he thinks that that is the reason why we're criticizing his behavior. Variously implying WP:COI, WP:Sockpuppetry, or in this case, WP:Stalking. I don't have to explain why that is inexcusable for an editor supposedly this experienced, right? I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009. I'm an article writer/expander, focusing on biology topics. In all that time, I am pretty sure I have never created nor edited a single article on Filipino celebrities, films, or TV shows. The only interest I have in this topic, is the fact that I am Filipino and know that they are notable nationally. And no, I do not know Jondel (or any of the members of the Philippine WikiProject) in real life. I have never even interacted with him on Wikipedia. The fact that User:[email protected] is repeatedly assuming conspiracy rather than addressing the issues is extremely frustrating.

Since this topic has been here twice already. I think administrator intervention is needed by now. If anyone actually cared that is. I think the cabal might already be at work. LOL. Is he on IRC? Meh. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I had made mistaken nominations in the past. I added that I would desist from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles pending the results of the most recent nominations and added that perhaps my vetting process had become flawed. @Obsidian Soul would not let it go and continued to escalate the situation, using threatening language ("Before I fully descend into rage mode") before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." And I did not delete Dyogi or any other article or anything ever on Wikipedia as I am not a sysop and have never had and do not have that sometimes enviable but never unfettered power. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"User:[email protected] is blanket nominating articles of people" -- untrue I looked and selected those whom I believe are not notable. Doing more than two or three in a day does not mean I am "blanket nominating". If I do one nom a day based on what you say is my faulty criteria, isn't that blanketing over a long period of time? Or is it "pillowing"? Quis separabit? 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"No one actually cares if he deletes the non-notable ones" -- that is true aside from the fact that they are all necessarily notable at Tambayan else they would not have been created, and what is or isn't "notable" is almost always subjective, debatable and contested, to varying degrees. Quis separabit? 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC

"The only interest I have in this topic, is the fact that I am Filipino and know that they are notable nationally" -- unqualified claims to notability by presupposition, and the notion that anything notable in the Philippines is notable everywhere else in the English-speaking world (and yes I include the Philippines in the English-speaking world for the purposes of this debate). @Obsidian Soul has found almost every nom (minus 1) worthy of keeping in the current revanchist-dominated AFDs. @Jondel has the same record, plus 1). Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Untrue -- I accused the media (including media organs you named above) in the Philippines of being obsessed with these "entertainers". I also never asked if you know @Jondel. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually at the first stalking colloquy both @Drmies and @CookieMonster755 both supported my stance. If they still do, I don't know. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not insert your replies in the middle of other people's comments. It confuses everything. And learn to indent, ferchrissakes. I don't care who supported whom. This isn't a popularity contest. We have been and always have been talking about policies and guidelines. The fact that you are actively avoiding answering the issues opened and instead see monsters where there are none is your fault.

I repeatedly tried to explain to you why your nominations were problematic to us, yet what you actually latched on was accusing us of being "obsessive fans" for even daring to challenge them (and yes you did, apparently I was a fan of Laurenti Dyogi because I know who he is). Then opening accusations of stalking on ANI. Can you blame me if I get angry eventually? For someone who accuses people of gaming the system at the drop of a hat, you don't seem to realize that's exactly what you're doing. All my !votes, despite the obvious anger behind them, are still relevant to the articles being discussed. Every single editor in Tambayan Philippines are independent of each other. We're not a hive-mind, if that's what you're implying. Open a checkuser if you want. You probably have an admin friend who can do it for free too.

It was YOUR responsibility as the nominator to check for notability FIRST. That is very clearly outlined in the AfD guidelines. Neither the people who did not participate in the AfD discussions for whatever reasons nor the administrators who did the actual deletions are at fault for wrongly deleted articles. The fact that you apparently mainly focused in AfD for years is incredibly alarming if this has been your attitude from the get go. And no it's not "notability by presupposition" LOL. Or do you really just ignore the evidence I gave on my Keep !votes? I have a general idea of the notability of local personalities for the same reason that a New Yorker can generally tell which person is notable in America - media saturation. But most importantly, I don't use that as my reason for my Keep !votes.

Claiming you did your research is a slap on the face, when as others have pointed out, you have already made seriously impossible mistakes. Mistakes that couldn't have been made if you really did do your homework beforehand. Mistakes that still exist because your refuse to rectify them (apparently ever) out of spite. Same thing with your apparent dismissal of several WP:RS because the content is apparently just "trivia and gossip", regardless of the depth of coverage. Apparently misunderstanding what "trivial coverage" actually means.

And saying I know your intentions are good does not mean I "liked you" nor that I was conceding the point. I still do believe you are acting with good intentions and have done good work with AfD in the past. But the fact remains that your recent nominations were problematic, and your understanding of the notability guidelines with regards to non-western celebrities seem to be flawed. They are not mutually exclusive. Making a conditional promise on possibly desisting in the future does NOT address the issues raised. Because sooner or later you'd do it again. Maybe not for people from the Philippines. Maybe the celebrities of Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Lithuania, who knows? Nominating them on the basis that someone from New York has never heard of them. And maybe they won't have enough people in their WikiProjects to resist your apparent misunderstanding that "English Wikipedia" means Americentrism. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"...before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." - Also what?? LOL. You do realize I was describing YOUR behavior, don't you? I wasn't admitting anything. A behavior clearly evident in all your other comments here. Including from the struck-out rant below - "However, as Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning. The fact that so few if any of the people I nominated have been covered in media outside their native country doesn't inspire confidence in their inherent notability and thus I became accustomed given a fairly good success rate at using my instincts." You are literally nominating articles based on the fact that YOU haven't heard of them. More importantly, you seem to think that notability requires international coverage. o_O Whut? *facepalm*-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe that as media saturation and notability are linked inextricably, especially in fields like entertainment, sports, etc. But I actually disdain the Keep !votes by @Jondel, which are a joke ("Keep: sources present") LOLOL. Can you smell the revanchism in the air? Perhaps, Obsid, you should not misattribute to other editors your own motivations or erudition. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How can something be "seriously impossible"? Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"English Wikipedia" means English-language Wikipedia, not Americentrism, I agree. What has that to do with hundreds of non-notable Filipino entertainers, all churned out almost identically with the same boilerplate format, mostly the same credits and origins, the same extreme avuncular descriptions of schooling and families and love affairs, etc? Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC

First, I was being sarcastic about "back when he liked me"; hope I didn't burst your bubble. Second, and far more important, "[m]aking a conditional promise on possibly desisting in the future does NOT address the issues raised" -- NO, it was unconditional but you refused to accept, choosing to escalate the contentious and tense atmosphere, rather than accepting my acknowledgement and continuing to beat a dead horse. After acknowledging that my vetting system may have become flawed (an admission you agreed with), you could have been more of a help than a hindrance by showing me how to navigate through Philippines media sources because, as I explained, Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning, at least for me. I will still nominate Filipinos or anyone else I deem non-notable. My track record is not one of picking on people of any particular ethnicity, although the more articles out there the more likely they will and should fall under scrutiny. But I realize that I will be presumed to be acting out of pro-Western bias and sloppy research. Thus forewarned, I am forearmed. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

o_O Whut? *facepalm* -- I don't know what that means, believe it or not, but it sounds like a transplanted Americanism. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Urban Dictionary: facepalm BMK (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant horn blowing. BMK (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ASSORTED COMMENTS TO/ABOUT ME IN HAPPIER TIMES "I would like to congratulate and encourage all of you … even [email protected] to for his motivation and action to weed out wiki trash" (@Jondel) "I know you mean well and have done well" (@Obsidian Soul) – that was when he liked me "When a large amount of your recent nominations are for Philippine celebrities, some of whom are quite easily verifiable as notable with a simple google search" (@Obsidian Soul) – YES, IDEALLY. However, as Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning. The fact that so few if any of the people I nominated have been covered in media outside their native country doesn't inspire confidence in their inherent notability and thus I became accustomed given a fairly good success rate at using my instincts. "Don't attack the nominator there, no matter how lazy he is, because WP:Wikilawyers will eat you" (@Obsidian Soul) – doesn't that include all nominators? Quis separabit? 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is childish

I'm bowing out of this discussion until the adults arrive. Thank you to anyone who actually reads our points. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am outta here too. Without @Obsidian Soul it's just no fun. Besides he was my ride, now I gotta hustle. Last one out please turn off the lights. Quis separabit? 02:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

I've restored proper indentation for readability after User:[email protected]'s edit deliberately disregarding my earlier appeal for proper discussion layouts to avoid confusion. Note that he's now adding superfluous {{od}} templates on his AfD nominations as well. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I re-indented after @Obsidian Soul twice reverted my edits. He claims I didn't indent (or indent sufficiently). That has rarely been a problem for me and I didn't see what was wrong, although there are so many threads it was hard for me to keep track. So I reindented any edits of mine to which he could have been referring because after two reverts I had had it (see [138], [139], [140], [141]). However, I was not doing it on purpose to irritate him as he suggested to @Amaury in his edit summary. To paraphrase Obsid: "Ooh. Conspiracy! (LOL)" Quis separabit? 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

* One comment only For a sysop that claims to have been around a long time | I find this to be rather disturbing , IMDB as a source ? Pretty much everyone (except newbies) know IMDB is not reliable as a source. It doesn't seem to look good for Jondel at this point. KoshVorlon 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't think IMDB had such a bad rep.

To ObsidianSoul and Rms125 kindly resolve your differences as best as you can, we all need to work together and this is a big head ache >for<mom and pop, I mean, wiki-management. --Jondel (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC).

Ako madaling makakuha ng kasama, madaling pagpunta at mapayapa. 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Quis separabit?

Please consider me a friend and guide. Many people think they are helping and saving the world when they are actually destroying it. I think if you grow in spirituality you are doing your part in saving the world.--Jondel (talk) 11:55, 28 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.

Jeo^人

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 administrator Jeo^人 is totally incompetent. The reasons for such conclusion Made an article, totally about facts and dates. found out deleted-reason possible violation of an author's rights Asked to discuss this, because when you post a history only about facts and dates, it is not something about possible violation of an author's rights. Instead to discuss with others , warned and closed my account for a month. Not a single argument... I have heard about people complaining, that some stuff are acting in Wikipedia totally like self proclaimed kings and governors, forgetting about why they are here and what they need to do. This type of people refuse to admit any possible mistake by their side and make a feeling of being treated bad in their childhood. There must be a way to deal with the issues like this, as they discredit Wikipedia project and as a reason, some of us may not be bale to participate in the project. --Piktard (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Two major problems with this complaint:

• User:GeoO is not an administrator, and has made only 11 edits to Wikipedia - none of theme have been deletion nominations.
• Your account has never edited except for this complaint.

It seems likely to me, at first glance, that you are complaining about an event on a different-language version of Wikipedia (probably hy-wiki). The English Wikipedia administrators have no jurisdiction over other Wikipedias, and you will need to raise your concerns at the appropriate venue there if you expect anything to be done. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:53, 28 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.

Talk:Honey

• Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 85.211.99.93 (talk · contribs)
• 85.211.101.34 (talk · contribs)
• 85.211.102.121 (talk · contribs)

IP User 85.211.102.121 (prior 85.211.99.93, 85.211.101.34) is referencing past ANI incidents and Tag Teaming regarding research into medical usages of Honey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that appear to meet MEDRS standards; the IP User is at minimum correct in that the edits were mislabeled as referencing Primary when they are review articles that do appear in PubMed. Not sure if this is entirely the right place to put this or how much detail to put, or what other editors involved in the discussion to mention; There appears to be prior history and prior history that involves Administrators outside of the specific question of whether any part of the purposed content changes meet the standards of MEDRS and how to word correctly those changes with regards to FRINGE, which is the concern of the MED editors. Falconjh (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. The article is protected now and the ip is discussing the matter on the talk page. That comment [142] might demonstrate some prior familiarity with Wikipedia, but to me looks like an inexperienced editor that has read criticisms of Wikipedia's treatment of fringe and alt-med topics. If this is a sock, there's little to work from. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do share some potential sock concerns especially with how quickly this IP was to accuse me of gang behavior and digging up some false accusations from others to link on that. Seems to be someone with a chip on their shoulder anyways. I think we're fine with the semi-protection though, and I wouldn't want to semi-protect the talk page due to personal attacks, etc. because we do get other IP editors who are civil and would want to propose edits. I don't think we can do much more since this is a dynamic IP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

UMM The report is also of the Wiki ganging and tag teaming, which I think actually does need to be looked at here as in the talk page MEDRS is repeatedly being violated in blatant attempts to keep off any mention of the research; the user is in my opinion completely justified in just this instance feeling GANGED and if there are past interactions that needs to be looked at. Falconjh (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is frustrating to attempt to try to make alt-med related edits, then find out that there is a huge amount to learn regarding such edits. Editors who don't wish to learn should move away from topics where ArbCom enforcement applies. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, the rules aren't being followed as I stated, so it doesn't matter if the user is learning or not; I realize that I am not an expert in this field but the rules are being broken here. AS in multiple MED editors have stated that the sources are in compliance with MEDRS, while others are still attempting block based on criteria that isn't in MEDRS or specifically spoken against in MEDRS. Falconjh (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So we have a dispute over the quality of potential sources. Editors differ on their understanding and application of MEDRS. In this case, some editors would like us to use articles from journals that others find questionable. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As Ronz has now become involved and moved from critiquing the journals to critiquing the nature of the research itself as additional journals which can not be questioned were discovered, would it be possible for some other admins to look at this? Again MEDRS clearly states that "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." and as the research is in multiple review articles from academic journals of high enough quality to no longer (being the journals) be questionable the focus should be on crafting some wording to put into the article, not looking for a way to keep it out as it isn't fringe.Falconjh (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Topic Ban User:Swamiblue from editing Swaminarayan Related Pages due to long-term disruption

(Move to AN. BMK (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)')

Bizarre edits by anonymous editor

Someone might want to look at the recent activities of an anonymous editor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone who just recently found the edit button is now making test edits. He's been warned. If he continues, it would be appropriate to give him a final warning and then send report him at WP:AIV if he continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User made test edits/vandalism to six pages in less than two hours (but now apparently discontinued); final warning issued to help ensure prompt intervention if disruptions resume. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Shahzada Mohiuddin

Hello, for the 2nd time here I'm asking attention for the repeated removals of a picture I added to the article Shahzada Mohiuddin. One ore more anonymous users with ip addresses starting with 182.18... have now ten times been removing it. On no occasion any explanation has been given. The first time I brought in this item here, someone stated something could be wrong with the copyright. As a result, the image was tagged with a permission request on Commons. In one of my undo actions, I pointed to that, saying a proper process there should be awaited. Nevertheless, the 182.x actor continues with these very irritating removals. A block? Apdency (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest the image is left out until the permissions issue is resolved. At the moment, the image could be deleted at any time. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd rather choose for the benefit of the doubt. Someone's doubt about the copyright started as a result of this edit war. I don't see a reason that this file should be suspected more than millions of other files of which uploaders say are their own work. Apdency (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, if there are suspicions that use of an image might be a copyright violation (and/or, as in this case, the uploader has provided no evidence of its copyright status), it should be left out until it is decided. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and @Apdency:, you are edit warring against a number of different editors, and you must not do that (even if you're right). I suggest you stop now or you could be blocked. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the "number of different editors" are interrelated, as they are all similar IP addresses which have only edited that one article. But still, it does look like a violation of WP:3RR has occurred. Best to wait this one out, although I'm not sure what the procedure is for establishing permission? The user who uploaded the image is not a regular contributor.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Suspect" is an understatement. IP, remember, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right--wait, you said that already. If Apdency has reverted enough to warrant a block, so do you. Of course, you're hopping around and so a block is useless, but I could always revert to the wrong version (what in your opinion is the wrong version) and then protect the article. I don't rightly know if you're the same cat as the Pakistan IP that keeps reverting (and if there's anything that pisses me off it's reverting without explanation--lazy-ass snobbery) and I don't really care, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that you are, via remote control or whatever. Amakuru, we need a Commons admin to sort this out. Cirt, didn't you run Commons? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Actually, I only reverted once. If you check the other IPs you'll find they're nowhere near mine. I'm with Virgin Media Limited, UK, and they allocate fixed IPs. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My point was that I can assume whatever I want, especially when I'm in a bad mood. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, a hard-pressed admin always has my sympathy on that score, of course ;-) (I happened to take a look in here and thought I could offer some advice about copyright and edit warring, but I can see how multiple IPs can look suspicious - especially to an admin in a bad mood ;-) 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we do assume good faith (I reckon this image is probably OK - it doesn't look like a screenshot from the actual TV broadcast and it has the EXIF data intact) but we still need evidence of permission. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, for your remark on assuming good faith. But why do we need evidence more than in all the other cases? I also upload pictures on Commons which I say are my own work. Now I made people aware of that, is there a reasonable ground for suspection against my files? Apdency (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see that no one has decided to actually use the talk page Talk:Shahzada Mohiuddin to say discuss the issue. The IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. Inserting it will just be an academic exercise in that it may soon be deleted and then a red link will continue. I don't know nor think either way is better but the point is, (a) has anyone brought it up at the talk page and (b) does it really matter at the time? I will bring it up there and we can cut all this ANI discussion off as a typical content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also requested page protection. The proper remedy is to discuss the insertion of the image (the copyright issues are not for here but if this was an image here, it would be a separate argument) and/or request protection first and then discuss to show consensus to override the protection and get the image restored/removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm less sure than Ricky81682 that the IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. I pointed to that in this discussion already, and now I also questioned it on the file talk page on Commons. Apdency (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Copying my reply from the Commons talk page: :"I think a difference here is that this photo appears to be a professional studio shot rather than an editor's amateur work, and copyright would usually belong to the TV studio - and that's what I think has prompted the suggestion that further disclosure/release is needed." 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: In reality, I think it's unlikely that anyone is going to sue over copyright (and it's a good encyclopedic photo which I hope we can keep), but Wikipedia is very strict concerning copyright. My thought remains that when copyright is disputed, it's better to omit the photo from articles until the matter is settled. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the matter is 'settled', that is, the image has been removed on Commons. User 182.x with its persistent silence can be contented in silence, and also over the fact that he, although being the reverting party in this, was not seen as such by some colleagues (one of them even referring to 182.x as a number of different editors). Hereby I thank all people who helped 182.x on his behalf, while we know 182.x never speaks for him/herself. Apdency (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, will you stop with the accusations against me please? I am not a "colleague" of 182.x, I am simply an independent editor who tried to help (and I offered some thoughts at Commons). And when I referred to "a number of different editors", I did not know that the different IPs were the same person (and I apologise for not spotting that), I simply saw that you had reverted around 10 times and I know that amount of edit-warring gets people blocked whether they are actually right or wrong - and I was trying to help prevent it happening to you. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. With 'colleagues' I didn't mean "people collaborating with 182.x", but simply "fellow Wikipedians" ("colleagues of all of us"). And "the accusations" seems to suggest I've posed accusations to you before, but I can't remember that. Maybe Drmies did (at 15:28, 23 September), but not me. Also I want to make a remark regarding the words "I simply saw that you had reverted around 10 times". The whole story started with me adding a picture (that already was on other pages), and then there came the reverter (whose motives we still don't know, maybe it had nothing to do with copyright). Inserter Apdency (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, apolpogies if I've misunderstood your used of the word "colleague". But on the revert thing, you added a picture, then someone else reverted, and then you reverted, etc - and that cycle repeated about 10 times. After that first add/revert cycle, you were *both* reverting each other and you both could have been blocked, and you don't get to say "I'm not reverting because I was the one who made the first change, so I can do it as many times as I like". Instead of repeating your action, after having had the addition reverted you should have started discussing things then. Please do have a read of WP:EW and WP:BRD, because people are frequently blocked here for violating them, and you're clearly doing good work here and I don't want that to happen to you. As for the deletion, it was clearly a professional studio photo, and as such it was not properly licensed for use. And in that case it simply has to be removed, as it is a breach of both Wikipedia's rules and of copyright law. It's disappointing, but carrying on blaming the other person doesn't help, and you just need to accept it and move one. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I will make no efforts to try to get the picture back, and I know the reasons. But maybe someone who agrees with the deletion would like to take a look at this photograph as well; it's uploaded by the same user and it can not be made by some random amateur. Apdency (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting an anonymous SPA

86.167.118.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be a WP:SPA that’s done nothing but edit-war, including labeling legitimate, consensus-based edits as vandalism [143]. I’ve tried talking to him, but he has yet to touch any discussion page including his own. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: If the issue becomes more serious, you can report it to WP:AIV. --JustBerry (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know if the user should be considered a vandal, but he’s already provoked semi-protection on two articles. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50:I'd suggest that you should consider reporting only if problems persist after this point. --JustBerry (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: All right, but again, it seems to me to be more a case of disruptive editing than vandalism—“if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism.” But I’ll wait and hopefully not post here again. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: Agree --JustBerry (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hardblocked one week. This is someone who has hopped IPs and has been edit-warring there before. Some socking going on.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Berean Hunter: Looks like he might have hopped IPs again: Special:Contributions/81.104.87.37. But note that that was a Virgin address, and this is a BT address. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, just hardblocked one week. I may be headed towards semi-protecting some articles that you are tending. Any chance on getting you to get an account? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Motions

There are currently four motions drafted by the Arbitration Committee (at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions) that involve rescinding, extending or changing editing restrictions in previous arbitration cases. The specifics of the restrictions and links to each case are included in the motions and your input as community members is invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Input? Since we can neither propose a motion or vote on any motion, it looks like no one except the arbs actually has any input to offer. (Not being a dick here, just stating the obvious ) KoshVorlon 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did think myself that it was kind of like being told that the Duke of Westminster has just made another blooming million; very nice for him but of no earthly use to anyone else. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Much as with cases, where we ask parties to furnish us with evidence and suggest remedies, it's always a good idea for arbitrators to consider the wider community's opinion when making decisions. As such, while you aren't asked to vote on the final decision directly, opinions and suggestions are very much welcomed, and will be considered by the voting arbitrators. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui - I respect the Arbs and know they've just about got the hardest jobs on Wikipedia, however, with respect, it's not that we're not asked to vote on the final decisions, we're literally told that we cannot vote on any motion. Since those motions effect all of us, arb or not, how about allowing us a say (meaning a vote ) on it? KoshVorlon

I don't think you're getting the essence of what an elected representative does. BMK (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it would work to allow a nonarbitrator to vote on a Motion but it already looks like editor feedback is influencing the motion regarding changing sanctions on articles concerning New Religious Movements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Liz, where is this discussion happening - the one on New Religious Movements? Link? Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements.

Everyone, 'your input' means your comments, what you think of the proposed motions. We really are open to suggestions on these, and I haven't voted on all of them because I'm waiting for more comments from the community. Doug Weller (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been my experience that when I comment on an arbcom case, motion, or AE, my comments are taken under consideration, and sometimes the final decision cites something I wrote. You just have to be aware of what arbcom needs. Opinions don't help them much. Pointing to specific policies and guidelines helps them some, but they pretty much always already know the policies involved. Posting solid evidence in the form of timelines with diffs, carefully double checked for errors and including all behavior by both sides helps them a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:DynEqMin

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

---

Note: I have taken the liberty of removing DynEqMin interspersed comments, which made the posting utterly incomprehensible. If DynEqMin wants to add rebuttals, DynEqMin should do so in a less-incoherent way --Calton | Talk 02:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article.

The issue has come to a head with this user placing a {{POV}} tag on the article, and subsequently placing {{POV-statement}} tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy").

When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable.

When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring.

A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page.

I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material.

My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments.

Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with.

I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies.

At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly talking about libel can easily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I had a look at the article and did what could be best described as 'aggressive pruning'. I suspect the subject is notable enough for a bio, however the sourcing is generally not the greatest to demonstrate it. As for DynEqMins comments - they are comprehensible to a degree and in many areas not technically inaccurate, however they are not remotely close to what is acceptable when working in a collaborative environment. Far too obtuse, difficult to parse, meandering away from a point etc. There is also the subtle (and not so subtle) inference that they know better - which doesnt help when you use language that is not in common use to someone - it comes off as arrogant/aloof. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DynEqMin's response, all 11,000+ bytes of it, collapsed for convenience

=== Replies To Accusations === DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. Reply to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered. Continued: This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. R: Rude remarks already and meaningless. C: Look at your own words and yourself as a person. C. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual. C. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. R. their: abuse. C. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article. R. Wholly untrue. The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy"). Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to. When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). R. Following is also a wholly misleading record: When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable. R. Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts. When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring. R. You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism. A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page. R. Fibs, like here the waffle is clear. I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. R. No. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. R. I already did. C. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. No, you are wrong and disorientated. PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC) More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. R. Compare my edits to the ones previously and after. Continued: More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed. Thanks Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. R. Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. R. These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either. This complements the outlines I suggested. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is. I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. R. The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct. Continued I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. R. Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down! I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material. R. You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past. Cont. My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. R. Contradicts the replies I give here. Cont. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with. R. These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate. Cont. I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. R. Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor. Cont. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. R. I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. R. And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page. Cont. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic R. Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true. Cont. (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies. R. We are talking of qualified needs. At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. This is not true in any sense. These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). R. You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements. Cont. As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language R. Such as yours you really mean (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, R. No, no you are pretending. Cont. thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their R. Insult. Cont. lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Respect you. All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) @DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. R. What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that. Cont. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. R. Wholly untrue. Cont. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. --DynEqMin (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A readable version of the above

Replies To Accusations Complaint (C) DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. Reply (R) to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered. (C) This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. (R) Rude remarks already and meaningless. Look at your own words and yourself as a person. (C) A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. (R) Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual. (C) The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. (R) their: abuse. (C) They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article. (R) Wholly untrue. (C)The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy"). (R)Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to. (C)When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). (R) Following is also a wholly misleading record: (C)When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable. (R) Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts. (C) When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring. (R) You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism. (C) A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page. (R) Fibs, like here the waffle is clear. (C) I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. (R) No. (C) I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. (R) I already did. (C) They are clearly too close to the subject. (R) No, you are wrong and disorientated. (C)PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. (C)More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. (R) Compare my edits to the ones previously and after. (C) More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. (????)Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed. (C)the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. (R) Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this. (C)The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. (R) These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either. (C) I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. (R) I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is. (C) I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. (R) The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct. (C) I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. (R) Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down! (C) I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material. (R) You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past. (C) My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. (R) Contradicts the replies I give here. (C) If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with. (R) These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate. (C)I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. (R) Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor. (C) There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. (R) I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years. (C) This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. (R) And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page. (C) We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic (R) Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true. (C) but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies. (R) We are talking of qualified needs. (C)At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. (R) This is not true in any sense. (C)These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). (R) You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements. (C) As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language (R) Such as yours you really mean (C) (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, (R) No, no you are pretending. (C) thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their (R) Insult. (C) lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. (R) All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (C)@DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. (R) What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that. (C) Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. (R) Wholly untrue. (C) It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. (R)I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@DynEqMin: your massive wall of text is dispiriting to read and such presentation will not aid your case. This includes (lack of ) paragraphination, bizarre and repetetive use of initials and abbreviation, and minimal distinction of quotations. I notice you have not taken User:Calton's advice re. incoherency. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have put a readable version below. Suffice to say it is comprehensible with work, however the substance of the replies indicates he doesnt get it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have lost track of how many people here have looked at DynEqMin's writing and judged it incomprehensible or gibberish. There is clearly an issue of competence involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He's had a piece of chalk thrown at him. Possibly all will be well from this juncture. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Which they've removed and will probably ignore. The CIR block edges ever closer. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

We now have this, which leads me to believe that this user simply refuses to engage in a meaningful fashion, and lacks the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Can an admin please take the necessary action? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well its either a troll with too much time on their hands, or a non-native English speaker with some sort of involvement in the subject area. Individual sentences can be parsed but only with great difficulty and only if you can get what he is aiming at. Example: "It should be noted first-off that as he does not advocate yet another belief system for science, or spirituality, and the extraneous remarks formerly in a ‘criticism’ section of his Wiki (now not present although still as false kinds records on the Talk page as together with a completely bias writeup of the biography because Wallace was a primary founder of the introspective branch of 'contemplative neuroscience') were kept there without visible intervention, and look like a kind of counter-intuitive joke like a Zen Koan on humility (plain deformation of character as reported to UNA UK and other legal organisation)." - So his previous complaint was primarily that Wallace was being portrayed as advocating a new religion/spirituality, when in fact he is just a religious scientist involved in research involving aspects of eastern religion. So this was a legitimate complaint given the sourcing at the time (prior to when Dyn started editing the article), Wallace is involved in research and isnt in any form that I can see advocating a new form of belief. The article did tend to muddle this distinction. However none of that is in the article now and even if it was, removal/rewording by someone semi-competent in English would have fixed it in short order if it had been pointed out in reasonable and concise way. Instead we get TLDR semi-comprehensible screeds and edit-warring. Agree Dyn is not really competent to be editing articles, however if he can be educated into keeping posts on topic he might have something to offer. I am not sure the effort is worth the reward though.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet more word salad. WP:CIR is clearly an issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And today we have this 62K addition to Talk:B. Alan Wallace which even includes copyright assertions! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block

I propose that DynEqMin be blocked on CIR grounds. We've seen enough disruption and incomprehensibility to warrant that, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator, a CIR block. Either indef (which CIR blocks usually are), or length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as original reporter. Given this user's reluctance to listen to other editors, I'd recommend an indef block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have not commented on this case as yet, but clearly, this is an editor who either lacks competence or is simply unwilling to abide by standing practices, even as simple as linking and indentation in discussions. From an outside POV, the editor appears to be here to use Wikipedia as a repository for his (chaotic) ideas and to treat the Wallace article talk page as a forum, not to build an encyclopedia. @WikiDan61 and the others are to be commended for trying to get through to him, but clearly, he is unwilling to adapt to the "Wikipedia way", if you will, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. --Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support After today's addition... ye gods. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Anybody who, even after being warned and brought here, and having had their problems explained to them, expects other editors to read ~8000 words in a single comment is clearly incapable of productive collaboration, and that's not to mention the content itself... BethNaught (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support My vision actually blurred as I scrolled down that screed. The ability to communicate concisely and effectively is paramount on Wikipedia. The inability to do so is either gross incompetence or a total lack of respect to other editors. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support He's repeatedly ignored requests to provide a readable, brief synopsis of his complaints. It's impossible to collaborate when a) you don't understand an editor's complaint, and b) the editor threatens legal action when he's not happy about the way things are going. clpo13_(talk) 01:27, 29 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.

SageRad

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.

---

SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an anti-Monsanto activist whose commentary currently dominates several talk pages, including WP:BLP articles Kevin Folta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A lot of time and effort has been expended by several people explaining to SageRad that simply disagreeing with his strong POV is not evidence of malfeasance or complicity in some sinister agenda. He seems unwilling to accept the possibility that his opinion may be wrong and this three-edit diff is emblematic of his approach to those who disagree with him, and the fact that, in his view, the problem is always everybody else and never him. I think his talk page shows him to be a Warrior For Truth™, with all that entails.

As an editor, I think SageRad needs to be formally cautioned. He is well informed (if only from a single POV) on glyphosphate and I think has made valid contributions there, but his edits to articles like Monsanto legal cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) display substantial bias and I think if he is not counselled in strong terms, he will end up topic banned and will probably leave as GMOs and Monsanto are his principal interest - and that may be a net loss to the project. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is being evaluated by ArbCom, and SageRad is a proposed involved party, I think the issues should play out in that venue and not here. Minor4th 17:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SR has pretty much involved himself there. But his editing behaviour is ongoing. All due respect to due process, but how long is it going to take? I share Guy's concerns about this "Warrior for Truth". The concluding paragraph of this impressive rant at Talk:Monsanto legal cases presents his motivation clearly:

There is a principle involved now, and this particular question has become emblematic of the systematic obstructionism that has been going on at Wikipedia for far too long now. It's high time to get the cards out in the open. It's high time for the simmering conflict to come to a head and be truly exposed and eviscerated. There is a place for caution and care in sourcing, and going slowly, and tempering the zeal of new editors who wish to include every primary study under the sun, but there is also a point where editors are going too far, and have become the lapdogs of the industry, effectively, and have frozen the progress that Wikipedia could make in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world in which they live.

Personally, I think Wikipedia does just fine in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world. We do it well. If we allowed every crusader for Truth and Justice to have free rein, we would be a repository of fringe nonsense. Well, far more than we are already, anyway, SageRad needs to accept that he must edit without causing disruption, no matter how strongly he holds particular views. --Pete (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Says the guy who just tried to push a synthesis into an article to the benefit of Monsanto, against the outcries of multiple other editors, and who called has called me venomous names and used 5th grade mocking behaviors, and much much more.... I hold to what i said and i reject your attempts to twist my words around. I mean them as i wrote them. Please stop wasting my time and leave me alone as i've asked you about 50 times now. Do your work and let me do my work. I'm far from being disruptive. I'm playing by the rules and with integrity, and holding dialogue where it's possible, and calling it out when there is a lack of integrity in process. Sorry if that bugs you but that's the way i am, and the way i will remain. SageRad (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at the pending ArbCom case, not at ANI. The fact that it has appeared here may be attributed to ArbCom's delay in opening the case, but that still does not mean that ANI should handle it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All of these things asserted by JzG are coming from his really biased place as well his apparent vendetta against me. I advise any reader of this section to simply look at the record of all my participation on various talk pages, and think with an unbiased mind about the dynamics that are present.

I won't even take the time to respond point by point, but simply to put it simply, i am not an "anti-Monsanto activist" though i do seek the best information as close to reality to be represented in Wikipedia, and not for it to be biased in favor of the chemical industry nor against it.

I personally think that JzG needs to be cautioned against being an "activist admin" and against hounding me as he's been doing for a while now, and against falsely accusing people of things, and of coming from a place of serious bias himself.

There's some bad stuff happening in the whole topical area around the chemical and agrochemical and GMO industry topics on Wikipedia. There are people who are promoting pseudoskepticism (biased agendas in the guise of being "more scientific" than thou) ... and constant accusations of bias, when a neutral person could come to a page and see that in many cases it's actually the more industry-aligned editors who are showing serious bias and who are being seriously unethical in their actions and words.

I am totally willing to look at myself, and to admit mistakes when i come to see them. I work well with other editors, even those with different points of view, when they treat me with respect. When treated with respect, i return the respect equally, and i have been able to really boil things down to their constituent elements and then work out compromised in some cases. However, there are too many toxic editors who are totally unwilling to do this, and JzG lately has really had it out for me. It's very bad how he's been hounding me. Look at the record if you want, and if you want me to provide diffs and more, then ping me. But he's wasted way too much of my time already with his aspersions and attempts to pull me into drama, and i'm so done with him. So done. I ask him to just let me be. I think he could use a block against attacking me, if anything needs to be done admin-wise. It troubles me that he's an admin and does these things.

And since i wrote this reply, now Pete has also chimed in. He is the other principle editor who's been attacking me with really vitriolic words. He makes edits that are unprincipled, does not reply honestly to concerns and questions, and recently tried to push a conspiracy theory synthesis into the Monsanto legal cases page (see the talk page, it's very clear to many editors that he was doing so and yet was incredibly stubborn to admitting to that and to backing down) and told me the "sun doesn't shine out of your ass" and various other lovely invectives, whereas i've remained civil even while pointing out his atrocious behavior and is strong bias. Now they're trying to reverse the charges, essentially, and make it out like i am the problem. Admins, i call on you, if you do anything, to simply look at the records that are all over talk pages and article edits, and please consider taking action against these two. They're really holding back Wikipedia from being a good editing environment where editors can work for the best articles we can create. They're obstructionist and downright vitriolic and venomous against other editors, especially me of late. They're using up my spare time and they're doing a serious disservice to Wikipedia.

These are people acting in very, very bad manners and being really mean to me, and to other editors. I hope there are enough admins with unbiased eyes left on Wikipedia to assess. Otherwise it's just ideological gang warfare and Wikipedia is done. SageRad (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Notice that OP is heavily involved in these articles (GMO related), recently made a controversial RFC closure, and is very aggressive against other editors he frames as anti-Monsanto activist. This user should at least have the patience to await Arbcom decisions in regards of edits to the related articles.prokaryotes (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Question - SageRad, is there any particular reason why you chose to ping five other editors (including the one who has responded immediately above) about this ANI discussion via your user talk page? (Ironically, in a section headed "Great search for the uninvolved".) I remind you of WP:CANVAS: …canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. --Pete (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Clears throat. ArbCom has now opened the GMO case. SageRad is a party. Please let me suggest that this discussion be addressed there, and that this discussion here be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 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 editing and behavior

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 apologize for filing this complaint but I am involved in an edit war with an experienced editor who has filed several false complaints against me.

This matter concerns two pages: [Center for Security Policy] and [Frank Gaffney]

I made changes to these pages earlier this month to add balance, to update them and to make corrections. I tried to leave all the criticism in place, including material I disagreed with.

These pages were extensively edited by editor LAVABARON in July. He or she apparently was on vacation this month according to his user page. When he or she returned, the editor used a mass revert function to remove several weeks of edits by several editors. The editor did not use the TALK page to explain these edits or ask for discussion.

Another editor and I reversed these changes twice. LAVABARON responded by asking for a sock puppet investigation which was declined. This editor also made COI, BLP, SPA charges. LAVABARON filed a complaint on a [Fringe] discussion page. This discussion was closed. Today he filed a "duck" complaint and has said on talk pages that there are several ongoing investigations of me. I doubt this but I don't know how to confirm this claim.

I believe this comment on the Fringe page best sums up this dispute: ". . . it's now clear to me from this edit that LavaBaron isn't interested in working with others and is merely looking for validation of his/her own POV. I suggest this be closed and moved to NPOVN. - Location (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)"

I have asked or 3rd party review of the Center and Gaffney pages. Today, LAVABARON asked for comments on one of his changes to the Gaffney page, but I believe this is an effort to distract from his or her mass deletions.

I don't like people filing false charges against me. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor but I assume Wikipedia does not condone this kind of behavior. I agree with the "Location" editor above that LAVABARON has POV issues with these pages and is not interested in working with people who disagree with him or her.Zeke1999 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The SPI case is still open. Only the checkuser request was declined. @Zeke1999: what admin action are you requesting here?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

By "mass deletions" I assume you mean your mass deletions? [144] Other than that, I have no idea how to respond here since there's only one diff in this all-encompassing denouncement. I'm sure some IP editors and just-registered accounts will be along shortly to spice this up, though. Please let me know if anyone has any questions. LavaBaron (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Improving an article is improving an article, whether it happens in one large edit or in a number of small ones, edits are not sacrosanct simply because they were made when no one was looking. When someone looks, and finds that they are not useful, removing them is perfectly legitimate. So.... I would say that this is at core a content dispute, as none of your "charges" against LavaBaron violate Wikipedia's policies or behavioral norms. Work out any disputes on the article talk pages, and don't bring content disputes to the noticeboards, which only deal with behavioral problems. The sockpuppet charges will be dealt with at SPI. Closing. BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 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:Mohombi Nzasi Moupondo

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

---

Please review the edit history of the editor mentioned above here and take the appropriate action. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am generally loath to call for sanctions right off the bat but this looks like a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Suggest indef per WP:RBI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed by Acriterion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 29 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.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Okey Uzoeshi. Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm only coming back here because of the fact that you're a new contributor. If you remove the templates once more without discussing; I'll have no choice but to take your issue to the administrative board. Whatever happens to your account after that is your own doing. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers Your tone is extremely unappreciated and I suggest you indeed take this issue to the administrative board. YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT READING ANYTHING and JUST ADDING TEMPLATES ON IRRATIONALLY and frankly I AM EXTREMELY irritated. What is you reason - you have refused to give any.

The page has been edited continuously. I am getting a tad bit irritated by all this. At least read it and leave the talk page and my comments and leave reasonable templates that actually reflect what the issue is so that they can be fixed. Are you just being irrational because you can. This is really frustrating

220 I'm learning to use indents, yayy!!! Again thanks for all your help!

Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive administrator abusing editing power and disregarding community guidelines.

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.

---

• Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Permanently deleted from the revision history a suggestion to rewrite an article made on the article's talk page at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, citing his undid revision edit summary as a nonsensical conspiracy theorist accusation despite fully sourced information provided from the reputable Associated Press news media outlet. Later discussion with Acroterion on his user talk page regarding the deletion of the information lead to him removing the discussion from his user talk page. Negligently deleting and removing content without accurate reasoning. 24.205.110.111 (talk) 05:04, 29 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.

Cyber Bullying

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.

---

Following up on [Ticket#2015082610011754] to report cyber bullying, cyber stalking, revert(s) by random reasons and removal of contents on Hindi page by following users: Kwamikagami https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Kwamikagami&page=Hindi&max=500&server=enwiki JorisvS https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=JorisvS&page=Hindi&server=enwiki&max=

In there own words from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindi: "It is possible that the area of the map and the cited population do not match. But we can only go by our sources." "It's impossible to map Hindi because it's not a language. It's Hindustani spoken by Hindus, and India has a mixed Hindu/Muslim population. It's also a standard register of Hindustani designed for Hindus, but that can't be mapped because it's no-one's native language." "What makes something Hindi and not Urdu? I don't know" "Hindi language", what does that mean for you precisely? Hindi Belt Hindi, Hindi languages, Modern Standard Hindi, or Khariboli Hindustani under the name Hindi?" Why these volunteers are allowed to edit Hindi pages? They have repeatedly misused their super user rights and done more destructive edits than any constructive edits.

Why can not be this article be like http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language or Spanish language or Bengali language ? Not unless above 2 users are active in forcing their POV on each edits. PradeepBoston (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No "super user" rights have been misused and disagreeing with you is not cyberbullying. The accusation of cyberstalking probably deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. This is a content dispute and there are no "shortcuts" to getting your preferred version accepted. Also, you have not notified the users named above of this discussion as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do people not realize that every time they label "edits and opinions contrary to mine" as cyberbullying they actually trivialize the pain and angst experienced by those who have actually been cyber-bullied? When the word is thrown around so non-nonchalantly I automatically discount everything you have to say as hyperbole. It's the new Godwin's law.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Excuse me, Black Kite, to update this after your closure. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep276.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 29 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.

BC/AD war all over again

Please give Ogress (talk · contribs) a warning and/or block this one for a period of time for nonstop violating WP:RETAIN and WP:ERA. His so-called "clean-up" is not just a clean-up: [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]. ༆ ((talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

༆, you have not notified Ogress as you are required to do and you have not provided any links to previous discussions with them about this issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A) Have you discussed this particular matter with Ogress before coming here? Links will be helpful to demonstrate a good faith willingness to discuss the matter first. B) These edits were over a month ago and Ogress has since declared retirement,[150] so a block at this point is out of the question. I personally would like to hear Ogress's rational for changing Anno Domini notations to Common Era, because these seem to be arbitrary on the surface. But if he has retired and he hasn't explained it elsewhere, we may never know. —Farix (t | c) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• What an awful, awful guideline. There is no conceivable reason why the Christian way of dating should be imposed on an article like Trưng Sisters. Ogress is supposed to discuss on the talk page why this change needs to be made? I'm glad the editor with the character user name didn't revert all of Ogress's good work, but really, sometimes RETAIN just sucks. And if we go back in the history, we find that the first introduction of the AD dating is in this edit, the fifth edit to the article, made in February 2004, by someone who added a sentence and a half in order to save it/make it better. These edits were NOT made by an expert in Vietname history, or an anthropologist with a Ph.D., or a professor in comparative literature. In other words, there is really nothing to retain but a first edit. And we're dragging Ogress to ANI for this? That's a real crappy way of saying "thank you for making us more better". 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is the direct result of an arbitration case over a wide spread edit war over Anno Domini and Common Era notions. It is meant to require editors to discus the reasons for changing between Anno Domini and Common Era notion and to gain a consensus. If you don't think the requirement for a discussion, then petition WP:ArbCom to overturn the case. —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The law has a letter and a spirit, TheFarix. I have tried to indicate how in this one particular case these two may well be at odds. The background of RETAIN is well-known to me, and its text is not as iron-clad as one might think. Item 2, "Optional styles", reads "When either of two styles are acceptable...", and it is not difficult to argue that in this case, the one I examined, only one of the two is acceptable. And the "Findings of fact" makes mention of "general articles"--again, it's easy to argue that Trưng Sisters is not a "general" article, whatever that may mean exactly. This is not to say that it would not have been wise for Ogress to discuss the matter, but dragging her off to ANI and calling those edits "not just a clean-up" (in plain English, "agenda-driven" or some such thing) is way too far. You yourself indicated that ༆ should have discussed the matter with Ogress before coming to ANI, but no, this edit summary, "stop this kind of edit, u violated WP:RETAIN", three weeks ago, that's all we got. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

General articles would be anything not directly related to Christianity and Christian history. So the articles in question would fall into the general article category. But as I said before, there is nothing actionable here because this occurred a month or more ago and Ogress has declared retirement since. If this was an ongoing issue, I would have advocated a warning that Ogress was violating an ArbCom ruling (༆ discussing the matter with Ogress first would have served as the warning) and a block if the actions persist. —Farix (t | c) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with the assertion that those are general articles. General articles, in this context, are anything not directly related to religion. Looking over the ones affected here, almost all are either directly or indirectly related to Buddhism. Just like articles related to Christianity and Christian history get BC / AD, articles related to any other religions gets BCE / CE -- that is clearly sufficient for a reasonable person to at least believe that they satisfy the "substantial reason for the change" in that decision (it's directly analogous to the "English spelling if the article concerned an English subject" mentioned in the example.) Now, if someone disagrees, the appropriate thing to do is for people to discuss it, and I can agree that Ogress should have discussed before changing a bunch of articles -- but I don't think it would be appropriate to block Ogress even if they were still active. Switching from AD to CE in articles related to Buddhism (as most of those edits are) is not a violation of the ArbCom decision. --Aquillion (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom did not specify that general articles are anything not directly relate to religion. They left the determination of what a general article was to the community. Obviously, Christian related articles would use Anno Domini notation, but the same isn't true for all other articles on religion. This is exactly why I believe that Ogress's edits were out of order and they should have discussed them per WP:RETAIN and gain a consensus. But if the behavior continued without gaining a consensus, then they earned the block. —Farix (t | c) 18:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Trưng Sisters isn't about any religion at all. And I read "general article" very differently--Trưng Sisters is it's an article that is not about a general topic, like lizards or the geography of Australia or gravity. It's This is on a specific topic, within the general area of the history of South-East Asia, at at time when Christianity was....well, the sisters apparently lived c. 12 – c.43 AD. Using AD dating for such an article is ridiculous, and having to get a consensus for these changes in this article is also ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely disagree with your assertion that a Buddhism-related article would be "general" for this purpose, especially if you're implying that a Christianity-related article would not be. The topic here is whether or not to use a term with religious connotations, and therefore any religious article must be definitionally "ungeneral". Certainly I feel it's indefensible to argue that CE can be changed to AD on Christianity articles while arguing that the reverse isn't true on Buddhism articles -- if AD has special Christian meaning, then that meaning is sufficient justification to remove it from articles on other religions. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Aquillion, I tried to clarify my wording a bit--some of the referents/antecedents were not very clear. Main point here is, though, that this article is not on any religious article at all. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I started an RfC on the article talk page, for anyone who's interested. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Impersonation of a real world person

This anon user 2601:448:C201:6FA:11D7:51F3:810E:1715 is attempting to impersonate as "Matt Overmyer" and going as far as to give out a phone number to the restaurant from the saved edit. I have a feeling that he's impersonating as another person with no viable proof whatsoever. Can you help deal with the issue? If he has no proof, then he's clearly impersonating as someone else. 70.45.58.178 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@70.45.58.178: You must notify anyone reported that there's a report regarding them either via a mention or on their talk page with the ANI notice template.

2601:448:c201:6fa:11d7:51f3:810e:1715. Amaury (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please rev-del the edit summary of this edit per WP:PROMO? BMK (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers: Conflict of Interest

Hi - I need a second opinion on this article please. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and one of the editors seems to think I am somewhat conflicted. I find this pretty discouraging as I was planning to update a few more pages as I felt the information held on there was somewhat limited, given the amount of information available online

The page I edited can be found here What is particularly disturbing is that I referenced pages such as as Kareena Kapoor; KikI Omeili; Chiwetel Ejiofor and I am extremely confused as to why they do not carry the same badges. Despite re-editing my updates, these badges have been re added to the page and finally been advised by the editor in question that it is not my place to edit the article or correct it. I thought there were no limits to how many times one could edit a page on Wikipedia and also I was of the opinion that we were all trying to get wikipedia up to a decent standard. Is someone able to adequately give a second opinion on this page and also advise on how to ensure I do not get into this mess anymore. I also read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and I am mortified that someone will even accuse me of this.

Thanks --- added by Adeadeyemi21 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Adeadeyemi21, you are making a high number of edits in this article over today and Jamie Tubers comment was primarily criticizing you for removing tags regarding notability and conflict of interest. You have escalated this situation dramatically in a short period of time.

Every editor receives talk page notices and disputes ("messes") are common on Wikipedia. There is no reason to be mortified. You need to slow down, consider the criticism offered by other editors (especially regarding using reliable sources and promotional language) and keep it in mind while making future edits. The goal of Wikipedia is to have strong, well-referenced articles and you should assume that other editors are working toward the same goal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Adeadeyemi21: I never said it wasn't in your place to edit the article. Of course everyone is welcomed to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. I said it was not in your place to remove the maintenance tags, but other editors. I am pretty busy, and I advised you to make use of the beginners' links that have been provided at top of your talkpage; atleast visit the teahouse. Don't catch feelings or be discouraged, instead try to get accustomed to Wikipedia and its guidelines by following my advice. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Obstinate user repeatedly edit warring his own Original Research dates for mythical antediluvian kings into Sumerian King List

I believe the actions of this user User:SamEV over 2 months have become problematic enough to note here, since he is basically thumbing his nose at the Original Research and Verifiability policies, and repeatedly inserting his own concocted dates, found in no available source, for the mythological kings. In fact there is no known reliable source asserting these ten kings from Alulim to Ziusudra were historical at all, let alone estimating a date when they lived. If such a source were provided, it would put a completely different complexion on the matter. However, User SamEV is instead pointing to some kind of imaginary "consensus" or "agreement" he claims the article wikipedian authors came to on the discussion page, as justification for edit warring his OR dating scheme. There are two serious problems with this for your attention, one, such "consensus discussion" to assign these arbitrary dates on the discussion page seems to be invisible, and second, even if there were such a consensus discussion, such a consensus could not possibly trump the OR policy and allow new dating theories of individual editors to be promulgated by wikipedia, which to date has been his only response, despite repeated warnings not to edit war his original research. Thank you, Philip Mexico (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I refer anyone interested to Talk:Sumerian King List for my rationale for the edits in question.
I also request a sanction against user Philip Mexico for his repeated distortions of my position and uncivil attacks against me, not to mention his edit warring to revert what was essentially a stable version of the page that was indeed based on a compromise. I note that even after opening this thread he reverted immediately. SamEV (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page regarding this matter. The additions of information without RS to substantiate it is unacceptable, particularly when it can be reasonably challenged. On that basis, I suggest that SamEV either find the requisite sourcing, or cease his actions. I am less than sure that further administrative action is necessary at this time, although, if that editor reported continues to edit in a problematic way here, that might easily change. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute about a list that is partly mythological. If the presence of mythological kings is attested by scholars on the mythology, they can be included. I suggest moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard as the next step in resolving a content dispute about what is partly fact and partly mythology. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, I do not have to prove the existence of the antediluvians, as I do not claim that they existed. Maybe they did or didn't, but I'm agnostic on the question. What I did, to which user Philip Mexico objects, is state what scholars do: that the antediluvian era would have a terminus in c. 2900 BCE. That's already reliably sourced in the article. Because I am agnostic on the existence of the alleged antediluvian kings, I even add the word "purported" to the dates. A parallel would be to state that Abraham is not attested outside the Bible, but that the latter's internal chronology gives him a purported birthdate in c. 2200 BCE. What's wrong with that? SamEV (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC), 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: "purported", being in the passive voice, avoids the question of who has done the purporting so is somewhat of a "weasel word"... it should be no problem to state that specific antediluvian kings were "purported" to have reigned at a certain time, or that Abraham's "purported" birthdate was around 2200 BC, provided you could find someone actually purporting that (not a wikipedian or a blog etc). I haven't seen any sources making those claims in either case, so I'm not sure how Abraham's birthdate is a useful analogy. Philip Mexico (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

can someone please delete my account

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 made mistake in spelling my name. please delete my account. My username is now someone else's name that I don't want it to be. Thanks Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Go to WP:CHU and request a name change. BMK (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is also another avenue. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

will I get in any legal trouble if I used someone else's name here? Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffreyscottgrimm: As long you didn't do it with any malicious intents, which it looks like you didn't, then I think you're fine. Even if you did, though, the odds of something happening are extremely low. Amaury (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't give out legal advice. BMK (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It wasn't advice, it was an opinion. Amaury (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one, but if you offer an opinion about a legal matter, it is indistinguishable from advice to someone who doesn't know who you are and what your qualifications are. That's why it's not a good idea to offer opinions or advice about legal (or med ical)matters on Wikipedia, all it can do it get you (and potentially the WMF) into trouble. BMK (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not lawyers and we cannot know what the consequences may be in your jurisdiction of registering with someone else's name. But as mentioned, simply follow the instructions at WP:CHU and your username will be changed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, accounts cannot be deleted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 28 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.

Woland2k

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.

---

There is an unblock request at User talk:Woland2k. The administrator Karl Dickman suggests unblocking, and I agree. Karl Dickman has consulted the blocking administrator, JzG, who says "Ask at WP:ANI, I don't object if others agree but I'd want other admins' input." Well, Karl and I make two other admins who agree that an unblock should be considered, but in line with JzG's request, I am posting it here. Obviously, any other opinions will be welcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I invited review because the user's only contributions to date are promotional, and I think he will need to be monitored. I myself would not unblock but if people are prepared to "trust but verify" and think that the advertising will not recur then be my guest. I have no reason to suppose that JamesBWatson and Karl Dickman are wrong, or to distrust their judgement. This just strikes me as one that needs a bit of discussion and if the above think the discussion to date is sufficient then I have no special reason to disagree. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From the editor's undertaking on their Talk to contribute positively I'd support unblocking. A reblock won't cost anything if we've misjudged the situation.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, JzG, Philg88, Karl Dickman I went ahead and unblocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 29 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:Derevation

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.

---

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

User Derevation has been tagged as a suspected sock of TekkenJinKazama for a while now, and is continuing the same trait of activities, mostly the uploading of non-free files (see here and here for examples). Is there a significant reason why this user has not been blocked for being a sock of a banned editor? samtar ^(msg) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Editors should not add such a tag without taking the matter further, typically to WP:SPI, or at a minimum to an administrator requesting assistance. The tag's been there too long. Why the user didn't remove it is beyond me, expect perhaps they felt they were not permitted to do so, which is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Bbb23, that was a significant influence in why I've asked here. Perhaps Ravensfire may wish to chip in? samtar ^(msg) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, the main reason is probably because I didn't report him to SPI. TJK created a rather large number of socks, discarding each of them as they were spotted and on to the next. You can go through their talk page and see the discussions between Derevation and I where they've admitted they are TJK (Jin, as I often call them). The tag was so they'd know that others knew who they were and they needed to work within Wikipedia expectations to remain an editor.

As Derevation, he seemed to reform, generally following policy. When I would notice behavior that went too far, I'd comment on his talk page about it, trying to nudge him towards a better goal. I think that when he's interested in work with others, he's a net positive for the project. TJK's biggest issue is when he disagrees with something, they ignore it, do their own thing and will edit-war and sock to get their way. At times, he's left some exceedingly unpleasant comments/insults for me.

Up to others what happens now - they are the most recent account that TJK uses. As I said, when on good behavior they are a net positive that generally uses sources in an area where far too many editors don't bother (Indian films). I remain hopeful that with advice and guidance they can become and even more productive editor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure he can - the purpose of creating this was not to get him blocked - only to bring this to the attention of the administrators, as I believe he has been off their radar for a while (which I can only suggest means he's been behaving :) ). samtar ^(msg) 15:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say after the little interest this has generated, and the statement by Ravensfire, that the user is reformed. I am personally happy to have this closed. samtar ^(msg) 14:11, 29 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.

Incorrect labeling of 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.

---

User NewMutants has labeled articles of deceased individuals as biographies of living people.

This is valid for recently deceased people. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP defines "recently deceased" as six months, one year, two years at the outside. Those articles that I've checked are for people who died in 2010, which would put them outside the BLP requirements. That said, unsourced articles can (and usually should) still be nomiated for deletion via other processes; e.g. WP:AFD. @Zee money:, just because the articles you are creating do not fall under the BLP policy does not mean that you are exempt from adding sources; indeed, the mass addition of unsourced stubs is actually disruptive and should be curtailed. Please make the effort to add sources to your articles, or do not create them in the first place - it is not the task of other editors to shore up your stub creations with appropriate sourcing. In addition, you are required to notify any user that you bring to ANI, per the large red message at the top of this page and the large alert at the top of the edit window when you edit here. I see no evidence that you have done so. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I made mistakes while prodding. At that moment those articles were unsourced. I asked Zee money to add references and change my BLP prod.BLP is about Living People not every Biography. I think this ANI is about those Chinese politicians? No issue from me.NewMutants (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New Mutants is a sock and is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:20, 29 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 talk:Shieldgreen

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.

---

Another blocked user spamming on their user talk page. Worth bumping up the block a bit?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Spam removed, TPA revoked. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:11, 29 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:95.114.225.100

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

---

This IP user has been trying to unsourced material to the list of fallacies page, which was removed by User: Richard-of-Earth. The IP user then re-added the information, which I again removed. I posted a few warnings to the talk page of this IP user regarding adding unsourced material, and disruptive editing [151]. The IP user then deleted the templates I added to his/her talk page a couple of times, stating it was spam. [152]. They then proceeded to add a section to my talk page [153] accusing me of adding spam to their talk page. Can I please get some assistance with this unruly editor? Thanks. New User Person (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've converted your refs into inline ELs, which are easier to deal with on a discussion page. BMK (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to be contrarian or anything, but:

• Users are allowed to blank warnings on their talk pages. You shouldn't be edit warring and templating them about it.
• You reverted the IP for adding unsourced material, but... it was sourced. It was unsourced when Richard-of-Earth reverted, but the IP editor added a source before you reverted. And said so in their edit summary. I've no opinion on the quality or content of the source.

So maybe back up, apologize to them, and (if you disagree with the material, rather than just being mistaken about it being unsourced) discuss on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. You are totally right, and I just realized it. Sorry about posting this ANI. That was my fault. New User Person (talk) 22:22, 29 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.

[email protected]

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 made a comment about language within an article (Ray Combs) on the talk page there and this guy decided to make it personal. Would Wikipedia like to inform him of the rules, or can I go off on him personally? I'm happy either way. UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Username is actually User:[email protected] (just incase anyone else jumps on this). samtar ^(msg) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• UnsanctionedStyle, I don't think [email protected] meant "Your own extremely modest economic pricepoints are impressive -- do you live in a monastery?" in an overly offensive manner. Yes, it was personal, and not needed, but I think mentioning how this made you feel to him directly would straighten things out. samtar ^(msg) 16:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Assuming you mean This comment, I find it in poor taste, and mildly incivil, but not of the level that merits involvement of an admin. In other words, yes it is wrong, and no we don't need to block him for it. --Jayron32 16:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• My sincerest apologies for rocking the apple cart... Thanks. UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• No need for you to apologize. He should not have said what he said. --Jayron32 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Peace, harmony, and happiness come when editors treat each other slightly better than they wish they were treated. I would characterize this as a personal comment, but only a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. Rather than "going off on him personally", making a comment that might rate a 5 on the scale (to which he might respond with a 7, and you a 9...), which causes instability and disharmony for both of you and for people that have to step in later, just let it slide. That would be my advice. If it helps, I agree with you on the underlying issue; "paltry" and "meager" don't seem encyclopedic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We can preempt these escalating comments by just blocking them both, immediately. And then we block almost every other editor too, and by that time my check from the WMF ($5 per civility block) won't be so paltry anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone feels like "going off on him [me] personally", then go for it. I can take it. I stand by my comments about Carson and his paltry $25,000 to a widow with six children whose home was foreclosed. Quis separabit? 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • I've just been civil to an IP editor. Where's my money WMF? Cough up a buck, you cheap bastards! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:31, 29 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.

MisterMorton continues removing infobox parameters after coming off 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.

---

MisterMorton (talk · contribs) recently came off a 72 hour block for a long-standing pattern of removing legitimate infobox parameters, especially those related to education. In thousands of edits he never leaves an edit summary, or attempts to discuss on article or user talk pages, or responds to warnings. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#User MisterMorton for the previous report. He recently started the same behavior again: [154], [155]. Thanks for any help. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and given the standard "If you start communicating with others and agree to discuss with others when they object to your edits, you can be unblocked" type message. --Jayron32 15:16, 29 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.

Re-recreation of deleted material/probable sock (Cannes/Indian cinema)

From April this year I raised a request for deletion of a page that had been deleted several times before, and recreated by a blocked user. I've just stumbled upon this article, which is a duplication of the deleted page. Created by User:Luxpapa within a couple of weeks of them registering an account (July). I suspect this is a sock account too. Appreicate if this page can be deleted too. I'm happy to log a sock investigation, if needed at WP:SPI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to JzG for sorting. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yaroslav Padokh

Yaroslav Padokh was Ukrainian, f.e. Shevchenko Scientific Society at Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Chubaty, Mykola and others. He wasn't not Pole. Kmicic introduces its Polish spelling of name Jarosław Padoch. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I use only English sources, because according to the Wikipedia standard the most important think is how one is describe in English sources. In English sources, even close to the Ukrainian minority, is using the form Jarosław Padoch (btw he sign himself Jarosław Padoch and he was called by his own daughter as Jarosław Padoch).

User Бучач-Львів put false information, because in references was no Polish source. He did not respond on talk page, when I explain this situation. He also removed my massage from his talk page.

User Бучач-Львів try to put his POV into many article. See this [156], especially what he try to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Kmicic (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PS [157]. Kmicic (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Letter ł are in Polish, in English they is not. In Polish letter V is absent.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is not relevant information to the topic. This variant is used by English sources. I do not use Polish sources in this case. Kmicic (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

please, Stop polonized articles about Ukrainians or Ukrainian descent peoples.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be Jaroslaw, not Jarosław, but surely not Yaroslav. Kmicic (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

surely not Jaroslaw or Jarosław. Read Shevchenko Scientific Society at Encyclopedia of Ukraine --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Internet version of "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" is enough to mention the second version of the name of Jaroslaw Padoch, but not enough to moved the article under the new name, because it would be against the Wikipedia rules. Kmicic (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your sources is old. All modern, esp. in Ukrainian science, take only my option.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Everybody can see the article and compare sources using both versions. All modern is only the Internet version of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and we could even suppose that changing of the name of Jaroslaw Padoch was invention of the editors of these encyclopedia as Prochak sign himself as Jaroslaw Prochak. Kmicic (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody stop, because he reverting even my minority technical edition [158]. Kmicic (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR may interest you both. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

Бучач-Львів (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term POV-pusher. They have engaged in a move war at the named page. His disruptive behaviour has already been discussed at ANI here, and here, including about the Kiev/Kyiv dispute. His talk page is a slew of warnings. He also pushed POV on Vladimir the Great, cf. my talk page for an example of his WP:IDHT persistence. He must have known about COMMONNAME, as proved by his talk page, but blithely carries on. BethNaught (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the name Ukrainian scientist has written due to the Polish system? About Vladimir the Great. Vladimir is in Russian. Therefore it is appropriate to specify and Ukrainian variant Volodymyr.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Ymblanter not enough to know the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Please see history of articlje about Zhovkva. We were with him earlier another point of views, but he has administrative credentials. Please do not You see that I had en-1.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Also see Teodor Andrzej Potocki. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t. Vladimir, this is a perfect example of the user refusing to acknowledge COMMONNAME. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken regarding about my acknowledge COMMONNAME. general and probably not heard option Voldymyr as they say in the English translation of Ukrainian scientific journals. Moreover, I do not pretend to rename.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I do not impose anything - just stating a fact. Please see Volodymyr Sviatoslavych.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) same time does not stand still - much changes.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC) But while the English Wikipedia often uses sources that actually originate from the Soviet era when for the whole world that the Russian Federation, Ukraine were just Russia. Without any difference. Therefore, there is a certain problem.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, Бучач-Львів (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be banned from making unilateral page moves. They not only have made numerous controversial moves in a short period of time, without asking for an WP:RM (although they were asked to do so), but on some occasions went and made small edits to the redirect page for the original name, making it impossible to undo the controversial moves without admin intervention. I don't know if this was done on purpose or not, but whatever the intent, it's certainly disruptive and a pain in da'butt to fix. Volunteer Marek  13:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If he modified redirects to hinder moves by other participants, all such pages should be automatically moved back per this Arbcom decision. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Volunteer Marek  15:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not even want to hear of anything that opponent says. You - and your supporter, fellow Pole Kmiсic. In the articles talk about the Ukrainians you falsely call their the Poles, though they were only official of Polish Kingdom. Using the fact that the English-speaking world knows little difference between the Slavic countries. Similar, Kmiсic's actions [159] demonstrate nothing except my contribution see nothing — why you don't see this? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please show where I falsely call any Ukrainian a Pole. I am really tired of being accused of things I didn't do. Kmicic (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would definitely support a page-move ban, without prejudice to any further sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Google search for Yaroslav Padoch include German, Polish and other Latin letter languages.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• After looking over the two previous ANI discussions Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#User:.D0.91.D1.83.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.87-.D0.9B.D1.8C.D0.B2.D1.96.D0.B2 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#User:.D0.91.D1.83.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.87-.D0.9B.D1.8C.D0.B2.D1.96.D0.B2) it has become clear to me that the only reason the editor wasn't indef-blocked earlier was a lack of interest on the part of the administration. Now done, for disruptive editing, POV page moving, refusal to listen, possible lack of linguistic skills to enable editing on Wikipedia, and making ethnicity and nationalism a touchstone for commentary. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Ymblanter. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, good block. Are there any moves that still need to be sorted out? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

merge of page "Secular movement" into "irreligion in america"

consensus on talk page appears to be pro-merge, I also support merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: This is the wrong venue. If you support the merge that is being discussed at Talk:Secular movement, then make your comment there. This isn't a matter admins need to handle. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

posted here because from what I noticed, only admins can delete pages after merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

An FYI for Mahfuzur rahman shourov. Pages are generally not deleted after merging. The original title remains as a redirect to the article merged to. Also at any talk page or forum like this, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPA, POLEMIC, POVPUSH, CPUSH of by Nishidani

WP:NPA Personal attack – "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme" and after I continuously asked him to delete. [160] [161] [162] [163] His answer was "it is impersonal, and does not name you" which I find more insulting then the original. Who was it directed to then??? It hasn't been deleted yet!

WP:POLEMIC Quotes such as "a convenient political story to allow people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area..." or "...the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales..." might not be personal but I find them very offensive. To say they expose extreme bias would be an understatement.

Repeating violations of WP:NEUTRAL (WP:POVPUSH)

• Morally wrong POVPUSH – [164] [165] [166] [167] The assailant is presented as the victim. How about this – Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after (allegedly???) killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo.
• Severe POVPUSH – "Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO, one that, according to its critics, is described as a 'settler-colonial NGO'.[1"] - I believe it speaks for itself. Completely off of any imaginable line.
• In editorials on Jpost two NGO members falsified Yaakov Havakook book. While the Regavim person was 'demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim', B'tselem person was found to have 'impressions of reading Havakook's book'. I can see no reason but PPOV.

Repeating violations of WP:CIVIL (WP:CPUSH) Is there a good way to give evidence for CPUSH beyond asking one to read the talk page?

• Demands other editors to quote policy for removal of material[168][169] but himself support removal removal based on lengthy explanations not based on policy.[170][171][172]
• On Susya#WP:OR again.Settleman for example I asked Nishidani help build consensus ("You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion") instead of removing material. Then again started a whole conversation about Regavim which was discussed on the talk page and RSN.
• Havakook's book (Hebrew), quoted by the UN, scientific publications and NGOs on both sides, was questioned again with some allegations of no oversight etc'. (This is from an editor who uses all kind of NGO material published on their site). At the end I had to translate for him an additional part of the book.
• In regards for Havakook (again in Hebrew which he doesn't read), He pushed me again and again on whether the chapter talk about Susya, which I had to answer several times. Then here he just drops in text that doesn't even mention the subject of the question (status quo on Temple Mount) and when asked about it give some lengthy explanations[173][174].
• Oppose 'pro-Settlers' info b/c it is 'generic'/'political statements' and edit-in 'anti-settlers' info b/c it 'has also been mentioned'.

I was debating whether to file this before or not but the double standards Nishidani has are just impossible to work with. He hold other editors to one strict standard, but don't hold himself nearly to the same demands, meanwhile, he just wasted my time. Then comes the NPA which he refused to delete and POLEMIC statements which really do not belong anywhere on wikipedia. Some of POVPUSH he exercise isn't just pushing a point of view but like the example above, presenting attacker as a victim is IMHO immoral.

Note - I prepared this for WP:ARBPIA3 but was told by one of the admins that it doesn't belong there but here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 September, 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, if anything, a WP:BOOMERANG is in place. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you ...Settleman, who first start an article about said (hardly notable) "Yaakov Havakook" (Havakook does not have a PhD, and has never worked for any academic institution), then proceeds to push him as an "academic". This, while at the very same time "branding" David Dean Shulman (a professor at Hebrew Uni., ) as a  mere "Ta'ayush activist": here here, here, here, here and here. It is simple, really; if you support Israeli settlers on Palestinian West Bank and the expulsion of Palestinians from their land: then you are instantly hailed as a genius. If not: Booo: you are a "Ta'ayush activist" ..or worse. So predictable. Get over it, Settleman: however offended you are: it is still a fact that many (most?) people consider Israeli settlers on the West Bank as absolutely nothing better than thieves. Yes: thieves. And if people don´t want to be called thieves; that´s simple: don´t steal. (And don´t give me that history part: unless we want, say Romans to come to London, and kick Londoners out of their homes because "London was once ours!". Sorry, it doesn´t work that way.) Huldra (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, instead of so many words in a forum manner: let's be more simple and read his author page:

• "David Shulman is the Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an activist in Ta’ayush..."

already existing in a "Huldra, Nomoskedasticity & Pluto2012 reverts" topic where you are nebtioned too. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman is WP:NOTHERE. He is on wikipedia only to defend the image of Israeli settlers as proven by his edit war here or his pro-Arutz Sheva pov-pushing (here, here or here). He was warned for this. He also accuses other editors to be hypocrite at the ArbCom despite he was asked to avoid such attacks. There are sevral other exemples of WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing directly linked with this issue of pro-settlers [paid?] editing. At best, he has a deep conflict of interest. I add that I am amazed by the number of policies Settleman knows as well as the arcanes of wikipeida, this just after 6 weeks of editing. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: the answer of Nishidani to this WP:AN/I request (Added by Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)).

I strongly endorse Huldra's suggestion to consider this a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Zero^talk 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: A time-honored tradition here is that people who report someone have their own behavior looked at too. I honestly believe that you would not come out looking good from any dispassionate comparison of your editing with Nishidani's. Zero^talk 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Is it your private opinion or as administrator's one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the rules I don't have extra authority as an administrator in areas of the encyclopedia which I actively contribute to. So my comment should be taken as the opinion of an ordinary editor with experience of both people under discussion. Zero^talk 02:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To all who criticizes Settleman: do I understand right that you have no claim to Nisidani (i.e. he did not break any Rules)? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user obviously doesn't understand the policies and guidelines he linked to above. I also support a WP:BOOMERANG for Settleman. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: @Pluto2012: @Zero0000: @Sturmgewehr88: - This has nothing to do with Shulman or WP:BOOMERANG. Except for 1 comment on Huldra talk page, he wasn't even part of the discussion (I accepted and remove similar LABELs from Arutz 7). This has everything to do with I wrote wrote above about Nishidani's behavior towards other editors. You comment are nothing but an attempt to derail the discussion from the real issues. Settleman (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: per WP:BOOMERANG, if an editor comes to ANI with unclean hands, they can also have sanctions imposed on them; i.e. It's not "derailing the discussion", it's pointing out "the real issues". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I'm not pro-Arutz 7, I just think it is as reliable as Ma'an which Nishidani uses quite often. You are most defiantly anti-Arutz 7 as you falsified a source to title it Neo-Zionist (even on a good day it wasn't just OR. The source doesn't even mention A7 and neo-zionism in the same paragraph). For anyone who looked for a WP:BOOMERANG, here it is. Settleman (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Huh? The interview is called "An interview with Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher", where Fleisher is introduced as their "director of programming"...and he defends "neo-Zionism"....and you claim it has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva?? Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Again, you *really* needs to address this. You accuse Pluto2012 of one of the worst wiki-crimes there is (in my book): falsification of sources. But your diff does not back you up. So please explain, or withdraw your allegation against Pluto and apologise to him. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I stand by my accusation. A question in an interview with one staff member of Arutz 7 about another organization, Kumah, is completely irrelevant to A7 and thus consist of falsification of the source. Do you really argue it isn't? I removed it 3 hours before stating 'Not supported by source' and Pluto's answer 'Is there really a nuance ? That was supported by the source' which is false.

@Settleman: That is not how I read it at all. The way I read this, with that headline, was: here we get the official Arutz Sheva´s view. At most, the mistake was to say "In the media, Arutz Sheva defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism," instead of specifying: "In the media, Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism." (Btw: your "ping" did not work: I have no idea why) Huldra (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Your proposal fails OR, SYNTH and probably more policies I don't even know about. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I honestly do not agree. But I would like to hear "outside" opinion on this, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: You opposed titling Shulman as Ta'ayush activist when the book name in Hebrew is "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist" but you propose titling a whole organization b/c of the opinion of a staff member? And opposing post-Zionism does not equal neo-Zionism. By all mean, take this to WP:ORN. Settleman (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: If I saw an interview, in say jewishpress.com named "An interview with Ta'ayush's Shulman", I would assume that the opinions voiced were those of Ta'ayush (and presumably also Shulman), yes. But you are telling me that assuming that a jewishpress.com interview called "An interview with Arutz Sheva's Yishai Fleisher" has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva; more than that: you actually accuse Pluto2012 for falsification for making such an assumption. I think people can draw their own conclusions from this. Huldra (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: You might have been able to make such excuse if this was the 1st time the source was entered. We all do mistakes. But Pluto's edit was made 3 hours after I have removed the source and my edit summery says "Not supported by source". Pluto have read enough to come up with "Is there really a nuance ? That was supported by the source". Please, lets not be naive. Settleman (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Again: I repeat; I find it a totally legitimate edit, even the 2nd time around. But then I share one thing both with you, and with Pluto2012: none of us, (AFAIK), have English as our "native tongue" (it is my 4th language) ...and none of us, (AFAIK), live in a English-speaking country. I would therefore like to hear what one of "the natives" (eh, native English speaker, that is) has to say about it, before I draw any final conclusion. I still think your claim of Pluto´s "falsification" is way, way over the line. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left Settleman an A-I alert warning; discussion here made the need for that clear. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for tendentious editing, look carefully at this, from Settleman: he use google books for finding books which have *both* the words “taayush radical”", (see here), and then puts the result into the Ta'ayush -article. Now, that an editor, who searches the net for certain biased info, accuse other editors of being biased; what is the word for that? Ah, yes. ---- Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air and your settlers=thieves comment above is an evidence for your own bias. I don't think this is an issue if you respect the encyclopedia and other editors. Even for Susya where I was very involved, I presented text that supported Palestinians (Albeck+int'l law) and on al-Tuwani (proof of village existance).

This complaint isn't about Nishidani's bias but conduct. So derailing the conversation to our different biases is just that, derailing. If anyone wants to give comments on my own conduct, I will be happy to get the criticism and hopefully, explain. Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior. Settleman (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman: you see, that´s the difference between us: I have never, ever searched the net for, say: Israeli+settler+thief ..and then inserted the result into Wikipedia articles. But YOU search the net for taayush+radical and then insert the result into a Wikipedia article. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment. ‘Theft’ is how an expert on international law like (John Strawson) with Middle Eastern area competence describes the practices. That virtually all practices of dispossession in the West Bank contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention is well known. They are not acted on because of a technicality. UN Security decisions regarding the conflict are passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and hence not binding, as they would be were they passed under Chapter V11, due to a 'political arrangement'. We justly do not use such language in wiki articles, because it does not look neutral and Israel disputes this. But it is not a ‘bias’ to consider the colonial enterprise in these terms: far too much of the technical literature supports that view. The Susya article, where you are so active, is an exemplary case-study of the Kafkian rules: there, the Palestinians have legal title dating back to 1881, title recognized as valid in Israeli law. The justice of that title was acknowledged by the military run 'civil administration' in 1982. It was reconfirmed by another CA expert in 2015. Notwithstanding this water-tight case, everything they have has been smashed, cemented over, stolen, with the complicity of the authorities, and they have been uprooted and trucked out and dumped on roadsides, because the settler project wants them to disappear. Law even in Israeli terms is not binding in the 'Far West' Bank, where as that idiom implies, the natives are Injuns: deemed by an aggressive colonial constituency you support to be aliens in their own land. It takes considerable serenity to handle these issues fairly, with justice, even if it really works out to balancing Israeli myths and the Palestinian realities. Wiki demands neutrality even in the description of a clash between a violent party and its victim. That does not mean that everything relevant to the conflict, if injurious to the aggressor's self-esteem, must be underplayed. The sources you are habitually pressing to have recognized as RS, Arutz Sheva and Regavim (NGO) don't recognize international law or human rights. And now, I am off to Ireland. My absence should not hinder administrators from making any judgement they feel due, against my behavior or otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman who writes: "Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air (...)."

Once more, you prove you don't understand what is wikipedia.

We all have opinions outside wikipedia, and of course these opinions has consequences on the way we edit wikipedia.

But having a 'bias' is more than this. It means that our personal involvment in the topic is so strong that we cannot comply any more with NPoV.

Having opinions IRL doesn't prevent somebody to put WP:PILLARS above his own opinions because he is there to develop a project of free encyclopaedia first.

But when you edit areas in which you can be involved IRL, it is nearly impossible to put your interest above wikipedia principles.

You have been given several chances but you proved you are in the bad category:

• when you introduce material in an article in order to blame some Muslim women about their (fanatic) actions on the Temple Mount whereas you "forget" what is done on the other side (suggesting to bomb al-Aqsa)
• when you insist deeply to make A7 WP:RS despite its background
• when you add sentences defending the image of a group to which you seem to be affiliated (settlers).

It would be my decision, I would ask you to make 100 edits in introducing pro-Palestian and anti-settler material (only). But what is asked you is on any topic, to sort everything by yourself and add everything alone.

@Settleman who writes: "Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior."

Nishidani is a excellent contributor who has been the target of many biased editors and as anybody who can lose temper but I don't see where he would have done it in the current case.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I believe my edits are NPoV and I welcome changes as long as they aren't just removals in order to hound me. What you describe is irrelevant content dispute that nobody prevented you from fixing. I added some later.

@Nishidani: The title for the land is far from proofing the existence of the village but this is a different discussion. I didn't removed any well sourced info that supported Palestinians and actually added some that supports Palestinian's position. But this complaint isn't about some content dispute but mostly the way you interact on the talk pages in addition to a few NPoV violations that go far beyond the definition of POVPUSH. Settleman (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could we please have an admin issue a BOOMERANG for Settleman ASAP? WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc., etc., etc. What a fiasco! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I have no problem with being checked myself. I believe I will come out in pretty good shape though obviously not perfect. Everyone does mistakes.

• I can present the many times I took issues to the talk page when other editors disagreed with me and tried to build consensus. I have agreed to other editors suggestions even when I wasn't completely happy with them. Compromised.
• I initiated complete and well deserved overhaul to Susya from the state it was for some years.
• I went to the library to look at a book at Huldra's request.
• I presented photos of offline books and translated parts from Hebrew.
• I made a phone call to an NGO to ask for their source which then I used in the article.
• I started a new section at Temple Mount about status quo at Pluto's request, edited in 6k which by now grew to ~9k by other editors.
• I actively participate on WP:ARBPIA3 as though I am a relatively new editor, I believe there are many changes due.
• I have added meaningful pro-Palestinian information and on long text, I tried as much as I could to adhere to NPoV. For small facts like Ta'ayush being considered radical left (by Ta'ayush activist Neve Gordon and well know fact in Israel), my edit comply with WP:DUE.

I will probably not be online for the next 12 hours. Shana Tova. Settleman (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huldra, sorry, but I deprodded the Havakook article--there's plenty of citations that prove the guy is notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies, no need to say sorry, (I never edited the article): I just object to "promoting" a person with a MA to "academic"....while at the very same time "demoting" a professor to "activist". (I just don´t count just a MA as an "academic". Though this might be different in different countries: I recall as a mere Master-student, ordering some articles from Germany, and getting them, addressed to "Professor Doctor" me. Now, the Germans take titles seriously!) Huldra (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Academic or not, Havakook book is RS. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I also have found myself repeatedly at odds with Huldra, Nishidani, Zero0000 and Pluto2012, as well as IRISZOOM, who is so far absent in this discussion, usually with more than one of them at the same time. Would there be anything uniting these editors? Fairness forces me to admit, that I have been both right and wrong, although I always try to make the right edit and think I usually succeed in that goal, and I still feel that in some instances I was forced into a situation where I had to agree to a less than optimal version. I would dislike the idea of a group of editors teaming up and dominating certain articles or a specific issue simply by numbers. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would there be anything uniting these editors? Yes, probably: They're not here to promote a maximalist ethno-nationalist political ideology.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But are they here to demote it? Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing at "there's a cabal". It's the last bastion of editors with a childish attitude. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy As an editor who was once himself accused of being part of a cabal, in a ArbCom case many years ago, I want to stress that there is nothing illegitimate or childish about worrying that Wikipedia should not be unduly influenced. Otherwise, ArbCom would not hear such cases.

I am not saying thesse editors constitute a cabal. At the same time I must admit that, having been opposed at times by 2-3 of these editors, one can not avoid the impression that there is strength in numbers. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Apologies for taking so long in responding. I wasn't ignoring you, but thought this AN was winding down. It would be dismissive to pretend that 'groupthink' doesn't play a part in particularly contentious articles, but Wikipedia is a huge resource with thousands of areas being covered. The reality for regulars is that as volunteers, while we work across the board to an extent, the majority of our work in within limited areas of our own specialisations and interests. We do have limited numbers of editors who have the tenacity and true resiliency to hold their own on content that meets policy and guidelines for truly egregious articles. Resultantly, the same editors do develop such articles and, just as you and I have done in the past, will agree and disagree on content-related matters. That is not a sign of a cabal, but a sign of editors being able to work through issues and form consensus (even though it can get, er... heated). For a new editor to jump into the deep end and cast WP:ASPERSIONS of this calibre is not only a highly deleterious sign of inexperience, but is disruptive to the nth degree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence presented shows nothing like what is alleged, as others have already noted. My own feeling is that such issues cannot really be legislated. Settleman's first "case" at ANI resulted in Pluto2012 getting blocked unilaterally by an admin - without a single editor supporting a block, let alone having a consensus. My feeling is that this has given Settleman some distorted ideas about how ANI works, and if this litigiousness continues, he will only get himself into trouble. This will only lead people to conclude that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I asked Pluto to self revert not once but twice before reporting him, same as I asked Nishidani 4 times to delete his NPA. Can you say you see nothing wrong with what I listed above? I appreciated your interjection and overall focused editing and to-the-point discussions but put yourself in my shoes, where another editor insults you and have double standards for the way s/he edits or you edit.

I'm yet to see one editor who actually justifies how Nishidani conduct is sensible and doesn't violate policies instead of putting a smokescreen by focusing on me. Settleman (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I don't want to re-open the other case: the sanction has already expired. However, as anyone can see with the naked eye, there was no consensus, or even support for a block. As to people "focusing on you", that is standard procedure at WP:ANI. The conduct of all parties is investigated. Perhaps the reason people don't "justify Nishidani's conduct" is because they see nothing which requires justification. As a final thought, consider the following fact: In my whole editing history in WP:ARBPIA, I can't recall a single RfC where we both participated, and I didn't agree with Nishidani (roughly). Yet you have very different opinion of us. This suggests to me that the differences are in minor matters of style rather than anything major content-wise. In the talk page at Susya, often Nishidani made a long point with much background and digressions, and I simply rendered the main thrust in WikiSpeak. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So you believe it is OK to insult another editors? Use polemical language? Present attackers as victims? have double standards? etc' etc'

You defiantly didn't think Nishidani's edits on Regavim was sensible since you changed the lead. I enjoyed working with you b/c you were clear, spoke to the point and didn't have double standards so even when we didn't agree (and I don't expect people to agree with me all the time) at least you were reasonable and consistent. Settleman (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I was talking about RfCs above, not general edits. It would be hard to not disagree with someone over the course of a thousand edits (unless one is a meat/sockpuppet). As to the Regavim lead, I simply rearranged it, without any change in content, to be more coherent. It is generally a good idea to define a subject before tearing into it. While we are at it, let's look at the version which existed before Nishidani's edit. Regavim is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land, sourced to nothing, but presumably is a self-description. That's very neutral, isn't it? The article was a stub, had no criticism, no funding details, no background, no mention of connection with settlers. Almost all of the above relevant content has been added by Nishidani. I am not knowledgeable enough to do this, I recognize that what I did was mere WP:GNOMEing: anyone could have done what I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The article was created less than 24 hours before Nishidani joined the party. It was a matter of (short) time before the pile of criticism/smear (some of which is due) will hit the fan and my experience from Susya told me, it will be done soon and with enthusiasm. I wasn't wrong!

Sometimes WP:GNOMEing is where the WP:WEIGHT is hiding. Lets repeat a trick that worked for us before - Can you look into my (virtual) eyes and tell me that putting criticism in the first sentence, even before a neutral description, isn't a glaring violation of WP:NPOV (and probably a few more guidelines I'm not aware of). How about the rest of the list. If anyone would have made the slightest attempt to explain why I'm wrong, why Nishidani's pratices are within the policies and guideline, I would have withdrawn this request but so far, nobody did. And we both know why? Settleman (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: This is a fundamentally wrong way to think about things. You yourself edited the article before Nishidani did, yet you did not see fit to change the unsourced, wholly misleading and hagiographic first sentence. Was that not a violation of WP:NPOV, by the same criterion? It is not the responsibility of other editors to dig up basic, but unflattering information on an organization and add it to the article. That way lies the WP:BATTLEGROUND. The information Nishidani added was well sourced, basic and relevant (almost all of it remains in the article). If you find Nishidani's edit jarring, just rearrange it as I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Call me an eventualist if you want and in this case, it was an absolute certainty someone would show up. I made a minor contribution to Regavim and moved on. When I created Murabitat which most sources about them write about clashes with visitors and the police, I believe I made a pretty good job of WP:NPoV before another editor took over. Settleman (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Eventualism is just a fuzzy label, while WP:NPOV is policy. What I said above is simply a paraphrase of the following quote: Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I assume we agree that the current state of the article (it seems relatively stable now) is better in respect to NPOV that the older one. Given the initial state of the article, Nishidani's edit (since almost all of the content remains) moved it towards this state. If you feel that it overcompensated, just rearrange it as I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You blame me for an edit I didn't do b/c I contributed once to an article while protecting Nishidani's edit that even you, who usually agree with him and have very different (if not opposing) POV than me, felt it was violating WP:NPoV. We have interacted long enough for me to believe you don't really think that way. I respect the camaraderie but sometimes it is good to tell a friend - "Hi bud, you went too far". Settleman (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just note the "policies" Settleman links to

• WP:NPA: not about Settleman: not an NPA-violation
• WP:POLEMIC—>WP:UP ..which is not relevant (.aaaaaand if you think what you quote there is insulting, try reading Donkey punch! (Warning: NSFW))
• WP:POVPUSH —> essay
• WP:CPUSH —> essay
• I think we can all(?) agree that this report from Settleman was without merit. I have not made up my mind about WP:BOOMERANG yet; what sort of "boomerang"? And Settleman: about Ta'ayush being considered radical in Israel: have you heard about Confirmation bias? Try googling for "respected+Ta'ayush": is not Tanya Reinhart Israeli? Oh, and Settleman: please don´t ever write "pr Huldra" again: when you have done that, you have mostly totally misread me. Please don´t hide behind me again: I´m perfectly capable of doing my own edits, thank you very much. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I have removed the NPA and POLEMIC claim. I think think they both extremely unsuitable in a discussion between people, just like your comment about settlers=thieves. I do not think that all Palestinians are terrorists, but how would you react if someone wrote that. is that constructive? Settleman (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The way I saw it, POVPUSH and CPUSH were code names to excessive violation of expected behavior from a Wikipedia editor. WP:Wikilawyering over what exactly are the violation is missing the real point. When editors act like WP is the Wild West and they can do whatever they want, admins need to realize, there is a problem. Several uninvolved editors who responded seem to see nothing wrong with Nishidani's behavior which is beyond me but maybe I'm naive. Right now, I feel like I'm editing in a Zoo. I can be pushed around with nonsense claims by people whose protested bias is as strong as mine if not stronger (I voted to the center these last elections). Again, WP:ARBPIA3 might address some of this.

WP:CPUSH has detailed suggested remedies and is basically part of WP:CIVIL. POVPUSH means excessive and repeated violations of WP:NPOV. If this isn't enough to look at the case and see the WP:WikiViolence, I don't know what will. Settleman (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: You've been quoting a lot of policies/guidelines/essays for a new user, but you've missed the mark. Take NPA and POLEMIC for example (and gladly you've struck them out). NPA equates to personal insults directed at other editors, i.e. "you are an ass hat". Talking about the subject of an article critically isn't a violation of NPA. POLEMIC would be gathering "evidence" or slander on other editors and storing it on-wiki. You yourself "violated" POVPUSH, and how could someone be a civil POV pusher and commit NPA? You need to reread WP:NPOV and think of how it relates to your actions, and maybe even WP:WWIN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman:Thank you for removing this two first "charges" against Nishidani, but I´m still tearing out my hair in frustration about all the time we have to waste with your various allegations, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Now all left for you is to explain why presenting a terrorist as a victim or why having double standards in order to remove material one WP:DONTLIKE are sensible and do not constitute of WP:Disruptive editing. Settleman (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Why, oh why, should I waste my time on this? Each time you have cried "wolf" before, and I have come running, looking for that horrible wolf, all I have found is at most a small dog. Or a *picture* of a wolf. Enough, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: No Wolves and no dogs. You have avoided the main subject issue here since the beginning and instead turned the table on me. Well, it worked. Congrats. Apparently you support Wikipedia being a place where a request to look at the highly questionable conduct of another editor is punishable. At the same time, the original complaint get virtually no attention. Settleman (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: are you kidding me? The entire reason your report became a WP:BOOMERANG is because your "original complaint" was looked into and found to be comepletely baseless, while you, on the other hand, had unclean hands. Stop playing the victim. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I understand then, you embrace having double standards or presenting terrorists/assailants as victims and think it is completely sensible to edit that way. I really hope WP:ARBPIA3 will deal with it. Settleman (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As for my unclean hands, do you compare not contributing enough in a new article to the terrorist/victim example? And looking for "Radical Ta'ayush", search for it on google or maybe even better, in Hebrew and you will get thousands of hits. The article was (and still is) completely undue presenting the activists as a bunch of Kumbaya singers when they routinely clash with the police etc'. Instead of bringing some low-RS source, I found a book that has a quote by Ta'ayush member, high-RS. If this is unclean hands, I'm at fault. Settleman (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG for User:Settleman

• It's hard to see who it was who added this as a separate section, but it is more logically a subsection of the section immediately above, and I have adjusted accordingly. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added here. Settleman (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Which, presumably, means that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi supports such a sanction, as it is generally the case that someone supports their own proposal unless otherwise stated, but I guess clarification might help. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I gave you 'public thanks' for your edit User:John Carter, when you made this a subsection (well-spotted) assuming that would alert you ("Tis I Leclerk!" style). I am not directly involved in the discussion, but it has had much discussion. A new section for the proposed sanction would keep things tidy. I do think that User:Settleman was perhaps ill-advised to raise this here; but it's for the community to decide eh? It also provides an arena for the editor to argue otherwise? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote earlier "I have no problem with being checked myself. I believe I will come out in pretty good shape though obviously not perfect. Everyone does mistakes."

• I can present the many times I took issues to the talk page when other editors disagreed with me and tried to build consensus. I have agreed to other editors suggestions even when I wasn't completely happy with them. Compromised.
• I initiated complete and well deserved overhaul to Susya from the state it was for some years.
• I went to the library to look at a book at Huldra's request.
• I presented photos of offline books and translated parts from Hebrew.
• I made a phone call to an NGO to ask for their source which then I used in the article.
• I started a new section at Temple Mount about status quo at Pluto's request, edited in 6k which by now grew to ~9k by other editors.
• I actively participate on WP:ARBPIA3 as though I am a relatively new editor, I believe there are many changes due.
• I have added meaningful pro-Palestinian information and on long text, I tried as much as I could to adhere to NPoV. For small facts like Ta'ayush being considered radical left (by Ta'ayush activist Neve Gordon and well know fact in Israel), my edit comply with WP:DUE.

I Joined wikipedia b/c the Susya article was embarrassing!!! No structure whatsoever! False information! Two completely separate communities have their information mixed, not to mention, nothing about Israeli view of Susya and more. I was faced with so much resistance and bias on legitimate information that I was amazed. I hope WP:ARBPIA3 will resolve some of those issues. Settleman (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic ban and mentorship - Nishidani has done nothing that Settleman accuses him of, the "policies" that Nishidani supposedly violated are either not policies or not at all relevant to Nishidani's actions, and it appears that Settleman is just a POV pusher who hides behind "eventualism" and ignorance. This whole report is a WP:CIR issue. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a strange section and even stranger accusations. What the Boomerange should be, I have no idea. But it shouldnt be drastic. The account is about a month and a half old. They need to broaden their editing and learn more about WP. AlbinoFerret 03:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a warning along the lines of what John Carter recommends would be enough of a sanction. AlbinoFerret 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions, given the very recent establishment of the account, pending evidence of sockpuppetry from other previous accounts of course, if that is found to be the case. I would however strongly urge him to either seek some form of mentor or otherwise get some assistance in dealing with the policies and guidelines here, particularly considering he seems to edit in a very heated, contentious area which has discretionary sanctions in place. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Why did you bring up sockpuppetry? No one else has made that accusation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just covering all the bases. I have no reason to think that this individual is a sockpuppet, but there seem to be a hell of a lot of them around lately, and some topics seem to get more of them than others. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic-ban, from ARBPIA-articles. Yes: User:AlbinoFerret is absolutely correct, Settleman needs to "broaden their editing and learn more about WP." Though I would keep the pages connected to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 outside such a ban (it seems unfair that he should not be able to voice his opinion there, if he wants to.) Besides the fact that Settleman goes around, actively searching up sources which supports his views (see above), I am frankly sick of him "assuming bad faith" about everyone who do not share his views. The fact that he accused Pluto2012 of "falsification of sources" (an extremely serious charge, IMO), on the most flimsiest of evidence (see above), was the last straw, coming after the fact that he accused Nishidani of WP:NPA- when there was obviously no such thing. Enough. Settleman: please go and edit other parts of Wikipedia for a while, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 month topic-ban (per Huldra) with the provision that s/he actually works on other articles in order to gain valuable experience and knowledge of policies and guidelines. Working on the assumption that Settleman is a newbie, it's hardly uncommon for new users to come in swinging their 'righting great wrongs' batons in any of the ARB sanctioned areas presumably due to lack of experience. While it's uncommon for them to evolve into good editors, I've certainly seen this occur... but some things should be left as 'enough rope' issues. [EDIT] ... and suggesting that, judging by the continued all out warfare being continued by the user and a couple of others playing tag with him (below), the noose is getting tighter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mentoring and three month trial period where Settleman proves he is capable of editing in a more moderate fashion. I would take up such a role with all party agreement, although my last mentoring attempt met with mixed results. Irondome (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wholehearted support from me. I am not much good as a mentor myself, but I would be willing to offer any assistance I can as I can at his request. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Moreover, I'd ask again (see. my "14:41, 14 September 2015" above) to escape for a moment from condemnation of Settleman and to give a specific analysis (yes / no / why) of his examples for the (possible) Nishidani's violations. Unfortunately, at the moment, this discussion seems me another attempt of the same "judges" to punish an editor who dared to criticize one from a current Wiki-establishment. That's the pity, but it isn't a first such case. If I am not mistaken, the last such Case against Nishidani lasted 37 minutes (!) till its 1st condemnation, and 10 hours - until its final closure.):) As I think, the current Case will be a good example too for a Palestine-Israel articles 3 discussion, because it characterized well a current situation in IP sector. I hope that has to be a way to repair its current status when Wiki isn't NPOV, and being only a spokesman for one of conflict's parties, only distorts an existing reality in the region. Sorry, but it's how I see it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a pointless dispute. Settleman is inexperienced, had piled Pelion on Ossa itself founded on sandy foundations, and the whole mess is unreadable. There is far too much wild citation of policy in obscure content disputes. Since he is new, he should be told to refrain from throwing round policy tags without showing much evidence of understanding how the guidelines are used in practice; to desist from using A/I frivolously. Simon, one of the steadiest men around here, has offered to mentor him, and that should be enough. I don't speak of a normal upfront control: but merely to ask Settleman to talk some issues through with Simon via email, and the occasional request on his page. If something like this can be organized this should be closed. Either that or just a warning to exercise more care and attention, and to focus on issues without multiplying them so that things get out of hand, as they have here.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with taking some mentorship though editing Susya was quite a crush course. This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of If the judge said to a man, 'Take the splinter from between your teeth,' he would retort, 'Take the beam from between your eyes.Baba Bathra 15b My example of misconduct are like speeding through a red light and other editors throw at me violations of rolling stop. Shabbat Shalom. Settleman (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of

Throughout your editing you have adopted a rhetorical strategy that, rather than being resonant of an individual voice, smacks of Regavim. As I showed in detail on that article, exponents of Regavim are thought by scholars to have availed themselves of a strategy of mirroring what their 'antagonists' say:

• If 'rights' is used by Rabbis for Human Rights to defend the Palestinians, then Regavim spokesmen make much of the 'rights' of settlers. 'Human Rights discourse' is answered with 'Jewish Rights discourse'.
• If 'settlers' are spoken of as people who seize and settle on land that is not their's, then Regavim spokesmen say Palestinians are immigrant 'squatters', which is notoriously contrafactual.
• If RHR or B'tselem speaks of international law as a decisive element in securing Palestinian entitlements, then Regavim will employ its best resources to document infractions of Israeli law by Palestinians as a grounds for removing the latter. This 'mirrors' or mimicks the discourse of the 'other', while erasing the differences that defy all analogy. Why? Because Israeli laws are military instruments of an occupation (thus defined by Israel itself) which is, in international law, governed by international conventions, not by the national interests of the Israeli court system. Thus in Area C, the Israeli law says that Palestinians cannot build without a legal permit even on their own land, whereas Israelis can build on Palestinian land sequestered to that end. The practice is, in international law (RHR) illegal: the discrimination is validated by the violation of those practice under Israeli law.

When you wrote above:

When editors act like WP is the Wild West and they can do whatever they want, admins need to realize, there is a problem.

• Again I hear the strong resonance of the Regavim strategy. Settlers, in particular the extremist hilltop groups have long been described in Israeli newspapers as acting like sheriffs or guns-for-hire in the West Bank. It goes back to a prophetic remark recorded melancholically by Victor Klemperer in his I Will Bear Witness (1933 to 1941), the entry for November 2, 1933. What you have again done is to invert this standard trope, used against violent settlers, and relabel it as characteristic of 'pro-Pal' editors on Wikipedia.
• I could list numerous other examples of you using the process of inversion characteristic of the settler NGO's public and legal campaigns, which I have quietly noticed in our interactions. That is why I raised earlier on the issue of WP:COI: to me you are hewing far too closely to a known settler body's publicitarian project. The point is underlined by your choice of handle. You have mastered that system, but you have failed to understand wiki's system, and nearly all of your citations of WP:OR, WP:RS (Havakkuk is not RS in a strict reading - but no one is being intolerant by sticking to a strict reading of the law), WP:NPOV etc. are wildly out of focus. Those are two reasons why you need to have someone clarifying matters when you are confused, and Simon is a Zionist (no one has issues with that: it is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position in the field), who has offered to help you on this. Were those editors you object to, with a decade of experience, as bad as you say they are, it is difficult to understand how they survived what is a very stringent, at times, system of administrative oversight.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact you believe the Palestinians have the moral upper hand is your opinion only. Myself, I'm center when it comes to politics but what I've experienced on Susya, and peeking around on some other edit showed me how Wikipedia is used for propaganda. Duma arson attack‎ has quotes about settlers violation while it is general suspicion (if that. the suspicion is on extremists which correlate to some extant with minority of settlers) but a quote from Ya'alon in a briefing about Duma got harsh resistance from a few editors. Regardless, this will be discussed on WP:ARBPIA3. But a small request, can you explain how presenting an assilant as victim isn't violation of NPoV? How is it even moral? Settleman (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support some form of administrative oversight here on Settleman. Okay. I've tried to be reasonable. I'm having second thoughts. You're gaming things. You went for UserPluto2012 and got a suspension for WP:Hounding, which is precisely what you just did a few minutes ago.

• I made an edit at ##14:58, 19 September 2015 partially involving a compromise between User:Pluto2012 and User:Settleman at the article Temple Mount which I have long edited.

• You asked me to justify it at 15:11, 19 September 2015.
• I duly replied.‎
• I posted a request at 15:11, 19 September 2015‎ for an AfD at 2015 re the 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing article, which is an astonishing distortion of the sources (see talk page). Your attempt to delete a request for discussion by then changing the title from 'murder' to 'death' is no help, since the title still says what sources maintain has yet to be ascertained ('death by stone throwing'). Earliest reporters on the scene it may have been due to a heart-attack. This is gross POV pushing anyway it is phrased, until RS clarify and either charges are laid, an autopsy done, and a verdict rendered.
• A mere five minutes later you show up there, and revert me (15:16, 19 September 2015‎ I'm not sure if this is important enough but the removal seems premature. AfD is more sensible) at a page he has never edited.

There is no way that can happen except by consulting editor's contributions, and acting adversarily on them. In this case it looks like a good example of retaliatory reverting on another page. The article is, secondly a patent farce, and (as I requested someone who knows how to do it, I don't) requires a proposal for deletion discussion. This, you cancelled. So you track me, as you protested Pluto's putative tracking of yourself. You can't have it both ways. I think you need to back off, under supervision.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Compromise? You have left out most of what he deleted. And with no explanation whatsoever. As for the 'hounding', I changed the name of article as you suggested and wrote the editor s/he should rethink it. That wasn't meant to confront you and it is defiantly not a habit. Now, will you answer my question about attacker/victim misrepresentation? Settleman (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on. How did you get to that new page in just 4 minutes?Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on, answer the question you avoided twice. And yes, I saw you edited that page but I didn't edit it to confront and even changed its name per your request. Now, can you answer? Settleman (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman, I'm curious about something. You seem to be concerned about morality. Editors in ARBPIA often seek to emphasize victimhood in the Israel-Palestine conflict based on ethnicity. I'm talking about things like this. Why do they do it, in your opinion? Do you think it is "morally wrong" for editors to focus their efforts exclusively on Israeli casualties or exclusively on Palestinian casualties of the conflict? Do you think it is a policy violation? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: If they stick to neutrality and give the facts as they are, I think it is moral. Not sure it fits WP, but moral - no question. I haven't participated in such articles deletion requests that were open since I joined wikipedia [175][176] though I saw E.M.Gregory was involved because I wasn't sure it fits. Now, picturing terrorist as victims? What do you think? Until now, everybody simply deflected the question and preferred to examine my edits with a magnifying glass. Settleman (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm not sure I agree with you there because of framing/sampling issues, but never mind. As for "picturing terrorist as victims", I'm unable to see the 4 examples you gave the same way you see them. To me, they just very briefly describe some violent incidents in a pretty cold, nameless, context-free, matter of fact way, without taking sides and making moral judgments. Actually I don't have a problem with "Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo" either (setting aside it's ridiculous brevity). It's just a description of what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: The four examples you provided are totally fine except for Nishidani's use of the word "allegedly" so often (if someone was "allegedly" attacked, then how do you know that they were "lightly" wounded?). However, it would require much more evidence that Nishidani was POV pushing to prove that he was. He is also not "picturing terrorist as victims", he is giving the facts as they are. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem; just don't violate WP:NPOV to support Israeli settlement, as even your username implies. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re 'alleged' (per the Palestinian sources) There are 2 POVs here, the Israel and the Palestinian. This, together with the fact that 4 out of the 5 sources customarily used on that page, provide the Israeli mainstream perspective, and the fact that there is no follow up on court cases involving these incidents, means that we have the Israeli 'a Palestinian did such and such and Israelis reacted' narrative, and the Ma'an reports, which follow English legal customs in using 'alleged' of police reports concerning incidents still sub judice. I'm always troubled by the lousy quality of both reports, and have to give mostly the Israeli version in a factual form, and the Palestinian 'alleged'. We don't know, because these sources do not do the work required of serious newspaper journalism, except in major cases. The 4 diffs illustrate the problem, for which there is no solution. But to imagine that every time an underreported incident of an assault which never went through any police or judicial review can be stated as factual because Israeli sources describe it thus would violate NPOV. There are book length studies of IDF/Border police as chronic liars (for example John Conroy's Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, University of California Press, 2000 pp.48ff, passim and p. 212:'Justice Moshe Landau,( who had been the presiding judge in the 1961 trial of Nazi Sturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann). . . concluded that GSS agents had systematically committed perjury for sixteen years, lying about the fact that they used brutal physical and psychological methods to get confessions and information. He quoted from an internal GSS memo, written in 1982, that set out guidelines about what sort of lies should be told.'. Nothing has changed much. A large part of our reports on violence are paraphrases in newspapers of what the relevant press releases from police or the IDF state, and their record for precision and veracity is such that one cannot take them at face value.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be a dispute about content in the Susya article. Logically the article should be mostly limited to its subject, ie the archaeological site at Susya, with a short mention of the land disputes and surrounding communities. The land disputes themselves should be moved to an article dealing specifically with such issues, such as Israeli settlement. Even if it is true that Israel is in the wrong, I do not think it is helpful to Wikipedia to turn every article about West Bank locations into a prolonged grip about Israeli policies. Kwork2 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about Settleman's accusation that I am a dangerous POV pusher over numerous articles, not about any one specific article, such as Susya.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Virtually every editor regularly involved in Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a POV. The WP articles in that category have become virtual extensions of the actual conflict, with editors on both sides fighting it out here. How many times have you made an edit that reflects positively on Israel? Kwork2 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There has already been an RfC on the Susya talk page about this very issue (it expired recently, just needs someone to close it). You are of course entitled to have your opinion about what the article should cover, but that is not what this WP:ANI is about. And if you believe that "virtually every editor actively editing here is pushing a POV", then short of wholesale banning (which many people including some admins think should be done though I don't think that would solve anything), there is hardly a solution to this conundrum. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I had stated what I think is rational. RfCs do not always have a rational outcome. My main point is that virtually every editor involved on a regular basis with Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a point of view, so for Nishidani to deny what is obvious is absurd. I do not know of a solution, because Wikipedia functions on the assumption that sincerer and conscientious editors (such as Nishidani) will not push a POV, and that is an incorrect assumption. Kwork2 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidently you do not know my editing history since 2007 and you should have added 'and reflects poorly on Palestinians' (numerous in both cases cf.(Albert Antébi,Bruno Hussar, the work on synagogues or places sacred to Jews (Joseph's Tomb, Susya - I don't write re Palestine or Israel: I write of individuals.)Hebron:'Hebron was 'deeply Bedouin and Islamic',[138] and 'bleakly conservative' in its religious outlook,[139] with a strong tradition of hostility to Jews.[140][141])). And it is quite untrue to recycle the meme that several editors here, while having their sympathies, are like everyone, POV-pushers. Several go to great lengths and exercise extreme scruple in getting the facts, at whatever the cost. We don't hesitate, frowning over possible implications, if we find some crucial evidence that makes one side or another look 'bad'.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the issue is that that virtually every editor involved on a regular basis with Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a point of view. That 'game' is played out extensively here on WP:AN/I, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, with the goal of getting the opposing team's players sidelined by blocks, the longer the better because it lowers their ability to enter unwanted content in articles. It is obvious, by observing which editors are acting as a claque to defend an editor from a block, or to advocate for a block, which side of the dispute that editor is on. The situation on WP:AN/I, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, allows editors to come here with the intention of eliminating as many editors as possible from the opposing side. That is deplorable. Kwork2 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again you are making a strong generalization from a vague impression. In 10 years I have made an administrative complaint 3 times at the most, and only as a last resort, and never until 2 years ago. The game played out extensively on AN/1 and AE in my regard consists in dozens of complaints. I have been more severe applying my own suspensions for inadvertent rule-breaking (see my page) than has AN/I or AE. This last frivolous complaint is one of several made against me in the last year, all by editors who have been suspended or abandoned Wikipedia in disgust at a failure to secure conviction of an 'antisemite'. So please drop the generalizations.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I described the situation as it exists among editors of Israel/Palestine conflict articles. My observations are not directed at you, nor even at editors one side. It is an accurate description of the situation. The editing situation of those articles is as dysfunctional as the actual conflict it claims to describe accurately. Rather than calling it neutral editing it might be better describe as re-enactment of the conflict. Kwork2 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh'. Virtually every editor regularly involved in Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a POV.' Disingenuous.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm ("Kwork2") has just come off a 6 year ban from Wikipedia for calling everyone who disagreed with him an anti-Semite. There are various blocks and bans related to this habit extending further back, but the history has been mangled by various sockpuppets, "rights to vanish" and the like. So when it comes to vicious partisanship, he knows of what he speaks. It appears that a condition of his unban was that he be topic banned from "all pages related to (a) The Israel-Palestine conflict and relations between Israel and Palestine; and (b) Judaism, both broadly interpreted." Dan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the negative editing situation in the Israel/Palestine conflict articles. For instance, I wrote above that "The editing situation of those articles is as dysfunctional as the actual conflict it claims to describe accurately." Dan Murphy's ad hominem responses, illustrates my point perfectly. It would be difficult to find a better example of dysfunctional editing. Kwork2 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kwork2: I see no ad hominem responses, and if you were indeed topic banned from Israel/Palestine topics, then I would cease commenting here if I were you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is ad hominem because, instead of discussing the topic I raised, or trying to refute my point, he decided to discuss what he thinks is wrong with me. Kwork2 (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kwork2: well in that case see Ad hominem#Non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Nishidani: (16:04, 19 September 2015) "the 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing article, which is an astonishing distortion of the sources (see talk page)"

As usual :( (and proving this Case), such you claim as "The whole article is preemptive in its judgement, fails Notability, and distorts by its selective use of sources.It should be deleted" isn't correct. See (only) such appropriate sources (including of Reuven Rivlin, Benjamin Netanyahu) in "What "fails Notability" & "distorts" and who does "selective use of sources"?"+.

I hope, it'll clear for you too, that after these RS & changing the title by Settleman, this claim is already not relevant. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• 3 months topic ban and mentorship during that period on other articles. I read Settleman complaining about double standards, morality issues, the idea terrorists would be presented as victims, hypocrisy, the fact that the settler's newspaper Arutz Sheva is not recognized as WP:RS on wikipeida whereas other sources are. He is WP:NOTHERE to develop an encyclopedia but just to defend the image of a group. Whichever this group, that's not allowed. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - A suggestion by an extremely involved editor who got blocked for hounding me. Settleman (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion by an editor extremely involved in the wikipedia projet, who has been here for nearly 10 years, who is a former Arbcom member from wp:fr and who wrote 7 FA and 1 GA. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have struck out the comment by Kwork2. He is topic banned from the I/P area, "broadly constructed", and has just been sent on a weeks "vacation" from Wikipedia, on account of the above posts. As for the rest, are most of us agreeing that Settleman ought to have a 3 month vacation form the area, together with a mentor-ship? What do you say, User:Irondome? (I can only say I think it is brave of you to offer to mentor him! From what I have seen from this report, I am not very optimistic,) Huldra (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - This hole conversation is an embarrassment. I have complained about Nishidani's conduct on an admin advise then come all Nishidani's friends (Huldra, Pluto and more from IPA and Sturmgewehr88 seems to aligned with him as well) and completely deflect everything back. What am I blamed for? NOT adding info to an article created 6 hours before and got 'balanced' within 24 hours by Nishidani and some nonsense about Shulman and Havakook. Pluto and Huldra are just as much at fault of NPoV violation[177],[178] claiming a result of WT about settlements can be used for an NGO.

The topic ban suggestion is not preventative but anywhere between punitive to revenge to an attempt to ban an editor some don't like. (This explains the lack of pro-Israeli editors. Someone gets in your face and when you complain, you get punished for that. great system.) Iryna Harpy, as far as I can tell you are the only truly non-involved editor who supports topic-ban. I urge you to check the conversation I have conducted on various talk pages and get your own impression. See how many times editors answer my questions or just deflect it. Also please check WP:ARBPIA3. Settleman (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am taking a few days out with my partner in the lovely city of Chester. I apologise for not being on-line for some days. My offer still stands, if Settleman et al are comfortable with it. Have done an inadequate speed read of the issue since I left (above). Will reply more fully as soon as I am back. Cheers all. Simon Irondome (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think in terms of a period or topic ban, though had this been raised at AE the boomerang would have met some severer response. I'd leave this to an informal arrangement between Simon and Settleman, and suggest this not be closed for a week until this can be negotiated between the two, something along the lines of consulting with Simon whenever Settleman, as often, sees something that strikes him as requiring urgent action. A lot of futile clashing could be avoided with a wise word, or a suggestion of the proper policy procedure or even tactic to be taken in those cases. I should add that Simon knows he will find me more than ready to listen if he does find my own relationship with Settleman culpably antagonistic. This should work.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly strikes me as being a reasonable compromise. As noted, however, this AN discussion should be kept open until Simon's return as it is contingent on Settleman's being prepared to accept it and work within proscribed parameters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is however one rather obvious problem. If Simon is gone now, he has a very good chance of being gone again, maybe in the near future. He actually has that chance anyway, whether we acknowledge it or not. If he isn't around when a problem arises, how will it be dealt with then? Under the circumstances, ideally, I'd like to see Simon have at least a few people to take his place in that event. As I indicated above, I could try to help out in his absence, but be warned, my prior efforts in that sort of thing haven't had very good results. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Having a mentor is always subject to the problem of the mentor not always being available. I'm more concerned that Settleman hasn't agreed to being 'adopted' at this stage and is still actively editing. (As an aside, Settleman, I did not jump into this without acquainting myself with the issues, and I was most certainly following WP:ARBPIA3 as it went down.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have answered about a week ago here and on mt talk page I have no problem with some help and guidance. Settleman (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I am back. I am asking Settleman if our colleague is indeed confirming that he would accept my, and perhaps John Carter's mentorship. For the record. I am a pro-Zionist editor, and I believe Settleman makes some relevant points in some of his concerns upthread. This a legacy of the sometimes bitter history of the I/P issue as covered by WP. I would ask Nishidani to slightly moderate your tone. It has become uncharacteristically acerbic of late. It's not your style Nish, and I suspect you are slightly still under the weather due to your recent health problem. Again, I appeal to all colleagues of good faith and whatever POV to all stick together in seeking an NPOV tone and a constructive and non-threatening atmosphere in this most difficult of WP areas. Our much missed colleague Malik Shabazz I suspect would agree. I have said my piece. Shalom/Salaam to all colleagues of Good faith. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess the only question which comes to mind to me, and I would welcome @Irondome:'s input as well as that of @Settleman:, is the kind of mentorship this is. I am not particularly involved in the I-P area in general, although I am I guess someone who leans toward the UN side, which is probably more or less consistent with the Palestine side. That being the case I wonder whether we would want to make this a less formal mentorship or whether we would be thinking of something along the lines of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, which has the advantage to the mentors of making their status a bit clearer to others so that they can be contacted more directly or pinged if there is a problem away from Settleman's page which we might not notice otherwise. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe a less formal model John. Any difference in POV leanings with two mentors sounds very balanced also, which can only be good! ;) Seriously, I would suggest that maybe @Settleman: might be amenable to having this mentorship placed on his user page, so that colleagues know, and who to contact so that any issues (I am hoping that in fact Settleman will grow and learn in WP experience and this arrangement will be short-lived) can be diffused with minimum hassle. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

David Miscavige

The above article is I believe under discretionary sanctions. I would welcome any uninvolved admin reviewing the recent flurry of edits from more than one IPs to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the IPs has been blocked already, but I've gone ahead and semi'd the page as well; something seems to have drawn attention to the article this week, and I'd rather not leave a BLP unprotected in the face of that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism

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.

---

Sandra opposed to terrorism has been making a lot of unnecessary and controversial edits on the 2015 Thalys train attack article, which have been reverted by me, Pincrete, Mezigue, and a number of other users. However, she continues putting those edits back into the article, and she has continued to do so despite ongoing discussions about them on the talk page. She also been making overly assertive comments in support of her positions regarding the edits. In addition, she needlessly criticized the quality of the article even though it's obvious she's the only one who has a real problem with what is being accepted as content. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness now and I think this problem needs to be addressed. Versus001 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• [included user name Drmies (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)]

• You're going to have to be more specific. Which edits? I looked at a dozen, and while I can find fault with some of them, maybe, I don't see the problem. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits regarding the inclusion of Chris Norman being born in Uganda and the flags in the reaction sections, to name off the top of my head. Versus001 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. That will be the easiest way to get results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There were so many incidents, and I've lost track of the history. Sorry. Check the article's talk page; there are a number of discussions relating to these conflicts. Versus001 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I can't go fishing for what I think you may think was against policy. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to bring attention to what's happening in this article somehow. Sandra's showing no signs of giving up on these useless edits she's been making! IF you talk to Pincrete and Mezigue, they'll agree that she's been a source of trouble as of late. Versus001 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, Sandra is an inexperienced editor, with not very sound judgement, who has nonetheless succeeded in alienating most editors on the article by capricious, rather than vandalistic or PoV editing or behaviour. Individually, the edits (and edit reasons), are largely 'silly'. Sandra appears to get 'a bee in her bonnet' about an issue and invents spurious arguments to re-insert the wanted text. As an example, the majority opinion about a French actor, who happened to be on the train and who cut his hand trying to raise the alarm, but who was in no way in contact with the train attacker, was that he should be in one section of the article, where he is mentioned extensively, because of defending this argument, editors were accused of being 'anti-French', pro-American' etc.. Sandra was not winning the argument (she had none really, apart from caprice), so this message was left on French WP:Mort - Les Américains détestent M. Anglade . Ils ont retiré son nom de la liste des passagers. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, aside from the absurdity that a large number of are not US, but French or 'other' why 'Mort' ?

I could provide many other diffs, but will not do so, as I don't believe any 'ban' is called for at this stage. What would be useful is if someone could remind Sandra that if other editors object to an edit, one should engage on talk until at least the majority are persuaded, not simply leave a message on talk or in the edit reason that justifies the edit to oneself, especially as the messages and edit reasons make no sense to most of us much of the time.Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo Pincrete's comments. The problem is that SotT's contributions to discussions don't make much more sense than her edits. I suspect this user might be a child, in which case I am not sure what the appropriate reaction is. (If they are not a child I know even less!) Mezigue (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, individual comments would suggest to me 'young adult' or older in terms of age. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, Sandra opposed to terrorism is a WP:SPA. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the 'classic' sense of an editor who came here with a single PoV purpose. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. :) Versus001 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete's statement in that I don't feel that any ban or action is required at this tine. I couldn't find any edits made by Sandra opposed to terrorism on the article to justify that any action is required. All users involved should be reminded to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. On a side note, Sandra opposed to terrorism - you should not close ANI discussions where you are involved, as you (did earlier) to this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest a ban. I just wanted the higher-ups to be aware of the problem and give an appropriate response. Versus001 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring again!. Where on talk is the discussion that justifies this Sandra? Where is the evidence that this info has consensus as being relevant? Because at least 4 seperate editors have expressed the view that it is NOT relevant, and only you think it is (though your reasons remain a mystery to all of us). You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious, and that you are unable or unwilling to learn. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I merely restored then improved on another editor's improvements. SEE Green Cardamom here [179] Your complaint is not an ANI (administrator's incident). Also supported by a third editor from Canada. [180] Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless they can verify their reasoning on why the edits should stay, we're going to continue opposing it, because so far, you're the only one actively defending your edits and you're not making a good case for yourself. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again another example of Sandra disregarding warnings and discussion. And an example of Sandra trying to implement every single detail that has to do with the article, regardless of triviality. Versus001 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lo and behold, another example of Sandra's disruptive editing. For the record, there is a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the length of that section, which she seems to have been unaware of. In addition, she has made some pretty strong accusations about the article being "gutted" and "vandal[ized]". This is getting REALLY alarming now. Versus001 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

More examples of Sandra's disruptive behavior (continued DESPITE conversations on the talk page) here and here. Also, she has continued her accusations against the other editors for "gutt[ing]" the article AND Wikipedia itself here, all the while seeming to indicate more obliviousness (or perhaps unwillingness) to check another, more relevant section of importance. Versus001 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Smear?

nb Sub-section heading added retrospectively Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the 'editor from Canada', at the time he left his post, had been an editor for had edited for the first time less than 4 minutes before, he had made no article edits and this was his 3rd, very minor 'talk' edit. Green Cardamom, has expressed no opinion on this subject either way, except that he thinks Daily Mail is RS on this (which isn't really disputed, especially as Gdn etc also say the same thing) - I don't know what GC thinks. Are those really the best justifications you have? Because, if so, I repeat what I said 'You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious', and indifferent to the arguments of other, (mostly more experienced), editors. 'Ugandan' or 'African', is factually wrong, 'Born in Uganda' is mildly interesting, not very relevant, and I have no strong feeling either way about its inclusion. I DO have strong feelings about editors who aren't prepared to co-operate and respect others and argue their case in a rational way, and who instead edit in an 'I'll make a point now' way. It makes you look foolish. On WP, being inexperienced is no sin, neither is knowing less than others or making a few mistakes or … … BUT, not listening, IS a sin. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) amended slightly, I was previously approximating Hickley80's inexperience, but have been challenged about the inaccuracy. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is wrongly smearing another editor, saying he has been here for 4 minutes. No, he was here since November 2014 but may have had some contributions deleted due to the article being deleted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Hickley80 I have written to Hickley so he can defend himself. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your link is crap. Could you relink please? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Link works for me. It shows the log showing the creation date of the account. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Hickley80's contributions link is here, IF Sandra has access to proofs that I don't, then this is clearly an error on my part, not a smear. My suspicion is that Sandra is simply wrong (again) and desperately defending an untenable position. Sandra has not simply 'written to Hickley', but made PAs about me to this 'newbie'.

This is precisely the sort of foolish/careless behaviour that has alienated Sandra from almost all the editors Sandra has been dealing with. I, who came here defending Sandra, but hoping an admin would 'have a quiet word', now think that she is determined to prove herself 'beyond hope'. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:Nat Gertler, now this makes sense, Hickley80's account was created in November 2014, but the only edits so far were made on 11th September this year. I hardly think that changes my comments about Hickley80's inexperience by one iota. He had registered as an editor 10 months before, but actually edited for the first time 3 minutes before! ... or what??

Now what exactly does Hickley80 have to do with Sandra editing capriciously against consensus? Because it looks like a rather inept attempt at deflection. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what're you getting at? I just searched everywhere for the smearing you claim Pincrete gave this guy, and I have found absolutely ZIP. Could you provide the diffs, please? Otherwise, I will have to agree with Pincrete that you're trying to deflect the argument/make your detractors look bad. In addition, if you think Pincrete was indeed smearing this guy, couldn't you have started a completely separate discussion on here, or at the very least urged him to do so? Because this is EXTREMELY off-topic; we're talking about YOU and YOUR EDITS, not what Pincrete said to another user. Versus001 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, clarification, I haven't said anything pertinent to Hickley80, I described Hickley80 above as an editor for 3/4 minutes (based on the edit history). In fact Hickley80 has been an editor for 10 months, and either never made any edits till 11 Sept., or all the edits have been deleted from the record. Either way, I don't believe I slandered Hickley80 by pointing to his/her inexperience. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I was merely saying that she needs to provide concrete proof that you were indeed smearing Hickley80, and that if she has it, she needs to begin a completely separate discussion. I do agree with you that this is anything but helpful to the discussion. Versus001 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra Can I ask you please to delete this post on Hickley80's user page?, for his/her sake as much as mine. This person has hardly ever edited and doesn't need to get sucked into an ANI before they have started. I hope it is clear that YES, Hickley80 has been registered for 9 months, NO, as far as we know Hickley80 had not actually edited before a few days ago. Therefore there was no 'slander' or 'smear' on my part. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN has Sandra disregarded the current discussion on the talk page and made a few edits suiting to her own needs. On her first edit, she has also stated "as discussed in talk page, moving chronological events so they are together", but the aforementioned discussion had YET to reach any sort of consensus at the time of those edits. Versus001 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

AND it's not the first time with this edit, but she did send me a cookie, which I guess makes everything OK. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, already covered later in the article, despite clear opposition on talk to presenting the info here, or in this way. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

nb struck through as copied to and updated in section below.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

forum shopping

I brought this to DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) and some of these complaining editors declined to participate. Them bringing an issue here is, therefore, forum shopping. Editors who forum shop should be blocked.

I explain my edits. I do not edit war but look for better references and give in to some ideas when a convincing reason is given. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a discussion had been opened there at the time. In fact, I am sure I was blocked from editing during that time. Also, if you wish not to edit-war, then I urge you to stop what you are doing and discuss it with everyone else first on the talk page, so we can reach a consensus and THEN the edit can be accepted. Versus001 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra ott, I alone declined to take part in the DRN, not 'some editors', and gave clear reasons, which I and others have explained. Briefly, they were that DRN should not be used till extensive 'talk' had failed to reach a solution. DRN is simply mediated discussion and it is slow. I have not brought this here, but even here you seem indifferent to the fact that 5 or 6 editors have exhausted their patience at times, because many of your edits seem simply capricious, though you are happy to re-insert them even when you know that they go against the broad consensus. You closed this ANI, because YOU decided it was 'forum shopping' (which it isn't). Even while here, you re-inserted 'born in Uganda' in the article (at last you understand the difference with 'Ugandan') giving a spurious reason (Daily Mail is NOT a better source thsn Gdn), the reason other editors don't want it is not because of the quality of the source, but because they think it is irrelevant (I don't care either way, but object to the behaviour). Your 'reason' for including this? Because 'African lives matter', that would be silly if he WERE African, but he isn't. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• The DRN case in question is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 122#2015 Thalys attack. Although I am a DRN volunteer mediator, I was not involved in this case and am expressing no opinion here. I am just providing the above link for convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to close this discussion

1. Forum shopping by the original posters of the ANI complaint. It was in DRN and can be reactivated simply by Pincrete giving the OK.

2. It is a content dispute. Luckily it is not acid yet. There is multiple disagreements by multiple authors. GreenCardamom just sided with me as well as several other editors on at least some points. One issue is very basic. When writing a bio of a few sentences, their country of birth is important. One passenger who fought off the terrorists on the train was born in Uganda (Africa). Try deleting President Barack Obama's birth country and you WILL have a huge fight, from good Wikipedia writers, to Kenyan birthers, to occasional Wikipedia students, etc.

3. We can agree in time. The content disputes are minor compared to the issues that other Wikipedia articles face. These include the use of flags, listing the country of birth, short bios, national reactions, etc.

Let's have fun and write for Wikipedia and not create an acid environment. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, good advice is when you are in a hole - the first thing to do is stop digging. Good advice when you at ANI, is to show the slightest understanding of WHY, criticisms are being made.

The DRN cannot be reactivated by me, not simply for procedural reasons, but because the issue has been (fairly) amicably resolved on talk, what would we be disputing? Besides I'm not Versus who started this, if he and I and others agree about some things, that doesn't mean we are 'acting as one'.

You don't seem able to understand what 'forum shopping' is, if Versus didn't get the result he wanted here, and went to another noticeboard arguing much the same thing, THAT would be forum shopping, but Versus didn't initiate the DRN, nor is he using this ANI to solve a content dispute. If you REALLY want to start a new DRN about whether 'born in Uganda' should be included, no one can stop you, but why not wait to see what the arguments on talk are?

As far as I know, Obama was born in the US (unless his detractors have been right all along!), his Kenyan father/ siblings/ aunts/ visits, would NOT be mentioned where they were not relevant … … just as spending part of his childhood in Indonesia wouldn't suddenly make Obama Asian. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Try removing President Obama's birth city from his article and there will be a huge fight against you. In the content dispute, some editors (not just me) have put back that one passenger patriot was born in Uganda. The article mentions where others were born, too, like USA or France. You are picking on me because you have already chased away others who made contributions to the article. Please don't keep doing this. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, Obama's personal article is about Obama. An article about something else Obama was involved with wouldn't mention his place of birth unless relevant to that subject. No one has defended the inclusion on 'talk', not even you except for reasons that make absolutely no sense. I don't care much either way but do/did object to it being represented falsely (Ugandan) and do object to edit-warring based on spurious analogies and foolish arguments. I don't know what the word 'patriot' refers to here. The article mentions where ONE person was born, for good reasons explained many times, which you don't seem able or willing to understand. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what in the world does OBAMA have to do with the attack article? His scope of relevance doesn't extend beyond him calling those three Americans for a pat on the back. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra I also believe you have been a unintentionally disruptive editor. I think you mean well, but are continually making changes that are questionable. For example right after we had a article rename closure, you started a new discussion about renaming the article to something totally different (not previously discussed). I personally reverted every edit you made in a 60 minute period (it was like around 4 or 5) as they were so unnecessary. Many editors have expressed frustration with your editing. I would suggest limit the number of edits you make each day and take time to think about them beforehand. -- GreenC 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to ask again but is it possible for someone to actually provide diffs and summarize the issues here? We'll all volunteers here but if you won't spend the time to organize a simple summary it will likely be ignored. Disputes about general competence require a lot of evidence generally. It looks like the dispute is about 2015 Thalys train attack so would protection be a better solution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, to summarise, Sandra opposed to terrorism, is editing against consensus over about 3 weeks. At least 4 editors here, User:Green Cardamom, User:Versus001, User:Mezigue, (and to a lesser extent User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi & User:Mathglot), and myself have repeatedly had to revert edits which just seem capricious or foolish. The only pattern/PoV to them is an apparent determination to place an actor-witness at centre stage of the article. I have put a sub-heading above "Smear" where the most recent diffs are listed (from 'ONCE AGAIN'), some of these edits happened after User:Drmies expressed agreement with the majority view on talk and later Drmies cautioned Sandra. We all came here prepared to have an admin advise Sandra, however, since being at the ANI, her apparent determination to act against consensus and to not meaningfully engage on talk has increased. There are also PA issues above in 'Smear' above and elsewhere, and minor BLP issues, but they are more 'silly' than anything. I'm afraid this has become an WP:IDHT, and WP:CIR situation because of Sandra's inability or unwillingness to meaningfully engage. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Pincrete: I'm as frustrated (1, 2(fr), et al.) with Sandra's edits as anyone, but you have to understand what Ricky81682 and others are saying about respecting process and providing diffs. Now I'm not an administrator, and I don't speak for them, but as frustrating as the situation is over at Thalys, you can't expect admins or other third parties to follow vague comments about an article they're not familiar with, without following process to the letter, and a large part of that is specific claims, backed up with diffs as evidence--lots of them. Most of the words expended here have been a lot of venting on both sides, and almost nothing the administrators can really help with. As this has become rather lengthy with almost nothing actionable here, I think you really need to step back and either close it and reopen another one, or ask the admins to hold this one open for a bit, while you take a breather to marshal your forces, read up on ANI process, and gather your evidence.

In the meantime, I'm not so familiar with ANI myself, though I've looked at a few of them, and I remember seeing some very well organized ones as far as process is concerned (though no less contentious, and sometimes a lot more so) so I'd like to ask @Ricky81682: if you would be so kind as to link a couple of "sample" ANIs (either open or closed) that you think are fairly good examples of process, wrt clearly stated arguments, proper use of bulleting, claims, evidence, and diffs, and so on, and link them here. Not looking for perfection--the nature of this beast is that they are messy, but something that might provide editors here a guide to process so they can better present something the admins can address, which is what we don't have, now. This might help all concerned. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, my prev. message was written in a hurry, and quite a few diffs are given above, though the ones that concern me the most are those SINCE the ANI opened, since these show not simply inexperience, but a perverse dis-regard for consensus. The problem is that no single edit constitutes vandalism, rather a pattern of 'WP:IDHT, and so I'll just do what I want', regardless of what others think. I'd still be happy with some sort of admin oversight rather than 'punishment'.

I didn't open this ANI, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. Though I have no objection to someone else closing it, perhaps with a reminder to those concerned, that when an edit is challenged, consensus needs to be established on talk BEFORE re-inserting virtually the same text, not simply by leaving a message on talk 'justifying' one's latest re-insertion to oneself. Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not true. People other than the opener of the thread can close it. However, I agree that this thread should be closed. Unfortunately, I believe a few editors here are opposed to my edits because they want to attack me. Many of my ideas are very sound. One idea is to include things chronologically (some editors seem to dislike the French actor, Anglade, and want to exclude his account of the train crew running away). That's just one of many examples. Closing this ANI is the right choice. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the reason editors want to move Anglade's account of the crew running away down the page, (not exclude it), is because he himself has withdrawn the accusation and partly apologised for making it. Knowing this, your representing his account as FACT, is grossly irresponsible and borderline libellous. Not even the (out-of-date) sources you cite, state it as fact. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, we are not trying to attack you. This is not personal or anything (if it was, all of your edits across the board would probably be reverted, not just the ones you're providing to the Thalys article). Your edits on that article are usually not helpful and seem to be made out of your own personal interest, you have been disregarded simultaneous discussions on the talk page when consensuses are not yet made, and your attitude has just made things worse.

As for the discussion about the diffs, at the time I made this section, there were just too much to count and I didn't want to scroll through an entire history archive to search for all the diffs. However, judging by what I've seen from the first couple of pages of the history as well as the talk page, it seems that the problems started since the beginning of the article (when I wasn't present), with Sandra's first attempts at implementing an irrelevant reference to The Wounded Man. Here is the discussion. Versus001 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, what I'm saying is something like: Sandra is ignoring consensus because Sandra is conducting the same edits here[diff1][diff2][diff3] or is just being argumentative without thought as seen at discussion [here]. Provide the edits showing reversions. Are you saying it's one particular issue or just a series of Sandra wants the article to look a certain way and the other editors disagree? Are the edits vandalism? Blatantly against policy? Are they bad English, incoherent? There's a discussion about the fact that the article was allegedly "split" and Sandra attempted to merge them. There's consensus against that so the next step would be something at WP:DRR if Sandra wants to try that. Otherwise, there's issue regarding the insertion of a particular paragraph I see. Same thing: again, is this being discussed at RSN (I don't see it). Again, try to help me out here more than "here's a list of people, go review all their edits and somewhere in there you'll see an issue" and simply because Sandra is a lone individual in disagreement doesn't necessarily mean there's a conduct dispute here. It's not normally this difficult to discern where the problem lies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring during this ANI

Ricky81682, copying from above, and ignoring all behaviour PRIOR to the last few days we have 1) ONCE AGAIN has Sandra disregarded the current discussion on the talk (left by Versus001) In all the cases, 'next', will show one of four editors reverting the edits, as they are against consensus and at times borderline libellous.

2) AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, on a topic already covered later in the article, … … 3)AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, … … 5) meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article and yet another article. Talk page shows there is widespread opposition to these edits, and no rationale for including these edits, nor in 'Ugandan' nor in an edit war over the spelling of 'spelt/spelled', (which I was not part of). Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) … … 6) the same edit … reinserted again since my post (note source says 'claim' the edit states 'fact'). Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ... 7) and AGAIN, a shorter version of the same text, (based on withdrawn claims in out-of-date sources, yet presented as fact).Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC) … 8)AND AGAIN, shortened (scroll down), version of same withdrawn accusation, presented as fact. Accompanied by another 'pet issue', the number of wounded, which is at best Synth, since this number is not supported by any source and is the subject of a seperate slow edit war. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … 9)AGAIN, substantially the same material, later modified so as to be no longer libellous, which all other editors believe is UNDUE, and for which no arguments have been made on talk for retaining. Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 10)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk, despite the edit reason, there are no arguments on talk apart from 'I want'. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 11)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk and removal of material agreed on talk. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 12)Back to the issue of number of wounded here & here & here, although it has been established beyond doubt that of the 'first day reports', one was mistranslated as 'grazed', 1 has never been corroborated, all of which has been established on 'talk'. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The obvious problem is a content dispute and many the participants are behaving substandardly. Best to protect the article for a time; and advise no changes additions/deletions unless consensus for them. This has devolved to absurdity, with edits like this [181], where one editor reversed the addition of the year in the lede, with an edit summary that it is in dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, the editor was not reverting the year, if you scroll down, he was reverting the disputed section, which is highly contested as to whether it is fact, and which is already covered, in context, further down the article. Removing the year was the accidental by-product of his revert, and his edit reason was correct. The accusation presented as fact IS disputed, has mainly been withdrawn by the accuser, besides being already covered in a neutral fashion later.

Also, I cannot see how 6-7 experienced editors broadly agreeing on content, with one repeatedly ignoring that consensus, can be described as a 'content dispute', rather than behaviour. To the extent that it is, it is up to that editor to establish (RfC or wherever) that they HAVE a legitimate case. Do you see any sign on talk or here at this ANI of them doing so? Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The year was ALSO reverted under the same explanation: a clear error. Indicating to me that edits are being made without due care and reflection because the editors involved are too quick to "undo" first and examine what they've done later. Page protection will solve that and enable the discussions about consensus to take place on the talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes the year was ALSO removed, and I try myself to be careful in such matters, however, the removal of the year (not essential in the same year as the event), is 'small fry' compared to removing the substantial, discredited, text. When one has had to revert the same edit/or umpteen times, explained why fully umpteen times, received no (intelligable) response umpteen times, I think making the small mistake of not noticing the year going is forgivable. Other editors are also human and eventually exasperated. Most editors here are, and have been very cautious, careful and responsible. Pincrete (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Carlossuarez46, Pincrete, the removal of the year was intentional on my part. I thought it was unnecessary at the time, so I removed it along with the discredited text. My apologies, I probably should've been clear in the edit summary. Versus001 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, apologies for misrepresenting the 'year' removal. I don't know myself whether its presence was necessary/normal. My main point remains, that your 'error' - if such it was - is trivial compared to repeated, disruptive, edit warring with no comprehensible logic to it and no defence offered either on talk or at this ANI, and that therefore making all editors responsible for the problem is unjustified. Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't weighing whose editing and edit summaries were worse than who else's; I was merely pointing out that there is more emotion here than necessary. I am also not inclined to accept the invitation to move any discussion to my talk page, as has been offered. This is the right forum. As for why I haven't page protected the article myself, as asked on my talk page, the suggestion doesn't seem to have any traction. IMHO, perhaps the community is more inclined to allow you guys to waste your time edit warring than to read all this mess to figure out how or whether to stop you all, but who knows. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, with Sandra's attitude towards all of her edits being removed and her "reasoning" for her edits, I wouldn't be surprised if it's rubbing off on the rest of us. I for one have gotten pretty frustrated with Sandra when I have been trying my best to be neutral about this. But this seriously can't just be resolved like this. If left without a proper response, I can see this whole situation escalating into a bigger cavalcade of edit-wars than what is going on right now. Versus001 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I added that Stone was awarded the Purple Heart medal and it was removed. This is an important fact and not a content dispute (anymore that it would not be a content dispute if editors were debating whether the George Washington article should mention that he was President of the United States). A content dispute is whether to include flags or not by the list of countries. It is lunacy when a debate on whether to remove the fact that the Purple Heart medal is being awarded. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed on the basis that it was not cited. It is always important to cite information once you put it in, otherwise it will be assumed to be useless information (probably even original research) and removed. Fortunately, you did cite the information again on the second try (albeit in a bare URL that I had to fill in), so it should stay up this time around. (I, for one, do think the Purple Heart's pretty important to note.) Versus001 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of information, all the awards have been/still are in the article, the only information removed is a present of a 'Chevy' by a talk show host.Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The conversations on that talk page are just excruciating, and a good argument for a ban on articles on topics that happened in the last five years. Anyway, Sandra opposed to terrorism combines general disruption, editing against consensus, IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, forum activism, and just about everything else that we dislike. A block per NOTHERE is actually overdue, I think, and I would have done that already had I not edited the article a little bit. We don't need admins wiling to make a difficult block--we just need an admin to make an obvious block. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. At this point, this is getting really frustrating and the only way this can stop is if Sandra is blocked. Versus001 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with everything said by Drmies and Versus001, behaviour has gotten worse, not better, since this ANI and 'newbie' has now become NOTHERE. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've had enough of this. The ANI thread isn't attracting helpful attention; I've warned the editor on their talk page. ANI sometimes offers good suggestions, but not this time, and if this continues a block will be the necessary result. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This has not been helpful AT ALL, and it only served to open up another forum where Sandra and the rest of us can hash it out. Drmies, I wholeheartedly stand by the option of blocking Sandra, so do bring up the topic where it's needed. Versus001 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised that you agree, Versus001. You have been blocked twice for bad behavior in that article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just once. And I don't see what THAT has to do with anything. I've learned my lesson from that block. YOU on the other hand are deserving a block as well, since you've been maintaining a disruptive attitude in regards to the article. Versus001 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the citation for you....Twice. Sandra opposed to terrorism Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

[Block templates from Versus's talk page removed--Drmies.]

Where's the citation? Never mind, I thought those were for you. But the question still stands: What does this have to do with why you should be blocked? Versus001 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, if you have a complaint about Versus001's, or anyone else's behaviour, state your case, otherwise this looks like a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from your own behaviour, which is the subject of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are egging me on to a fight. I decline to fight because I an a good Wikipedian. However, this ANI thread is forum shopping as it was discussed elsewhere. Therefore, it should be closed unless people like Pincrete are trying to be punished. Let us do the best for Wikipedia and edit nicely, not edit badly or try to pick up fights. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

For the love of God, exactly in what context is Pincrete's post "egging [you] on to a fight"? And I believe that the forum shopping discussion was that this thread was NOT forum shopping because people declined to participate in your DRN in the first place. (I personally couldn't participate because I was blocked at the time.) Versus001 (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, this ANI is about user behaviour (yours). That you fail to offer any justification for re-inserting approximately the same text 11 times during this ANI, text which clearly does not have support of other editors, which in some of its manifestations is clearly (and libellously) factually inaccurate, will be a matter of record. Far from 'egging you on to a fight', I was reminding you of the purpose of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You and your pals have acted not in the best possible light. Twice your friends were blocked for edit warring. You have advocated some bad editorial decisions. You yourself refused to participate in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard showing you are up to no good. In contrast, I step back and let things go but you take advantage of that. Then you go forum shopping here. Let's everyone just act nicely. I follow that. Many of you don't. Instead, you harrass me by following me around and purposedly changing edits just for the sake of harassment, not article improvement. You are the reason why Wikipedia is so in-hospitable and why Wikipedia is fighting a war against women. Why can't you act normally and nicely? I do not follow you around and I don't forum shop. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra 1) I have no idea who 'my pals' are, are they the same people you accused me of being a 'sock' of on practically our first interaction? … 2) There are now many accusations you have made on various pages, none of which you provide ANY proof for … 3) Countless people have explained what a DRN is, yet you still don't have the most basic understanding, if you cannot come up with valid edit reasons on talk, how do you imagine you are going to do so on DRN? (The matter was resolved quite amicably on talk, partly in your favour, by me inviting opinions, all in half the time that a DRN would have taken) … 4) ditto forum shopping, which you completely fail to understand … 5) Wikipedia is not meant to be hospitable to people who have no interest in listening to other editors (and at the last count about 4-5 Admins who have initially advised, then given up) … 6) So, I take it from your silence on the matter that you have NO JUSTIFICATION for the 10 or 11 edits listed above, since this ANI started, all of which you KNEW to be against the discussions on talk, and are still hoping that deflection of criticism will work? Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey everybody, have you heard of WP:HORSEMEAT? I can write plenty to defend myself but I am a nice person and point to horsemeat. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is crossing the line here, if you haven't already! I am NOT pals with Pincrete; me and him/her could easily have an edit conflict just like you are having with him/her right now. This applies to EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED. This is not some black-ops/CIA/FBI/whatever operation to keep certain information suppressed or your voice from being heard! Also, I was the only one blocked twice for edit-warring (on the same day and occasion, actually, so it honestly should be counted as once), yet the generalization of your statements suggests that everyone else suffered the same block, which is not true as far as I know. If you're going to mention an incident I was involved in, mention ME AND ME ONLY, but don't word your statements so they suggest otherwise!

Regarding what you claim to be us following you around for harassment's sake: in my case, true, sort of? Either way, after your behavior and work ethic, I came to never trust the factual quality of any of your other edits, so I've been taking a look at your history and edits. But aside from your edit on the September 11 attacks article (which may I remind you was repetitive, because it was already there in the first place (see here and the 9/11 article itself)), your edits in the other articles have been constructive so far and I had them kept (not sure if they were undone by someone else in the end while I wasn't looking, though). All I've been doing was making some tweaks to minor things such as grammar, templates, punctuation, etc. Not sure what Pincrete was doing, but I for one wasn't motivated by harassment (believe me, if this WAS harassment, I would've undone EVERY SINGLE EDIT you've ever made in your history). But if this does qualify as harassment under Wikipedia's guidelines (I guess that's up for an administrator to decide, then), then I'll gladly accept whatever punishment comes my way. Because really, all of this is upsetting, and anything would do at this point to get myself unraveled from the situation, even a block.

And finally... "You are the reason why Wikipedia is so in-hospitable and why Wikipedia is fighting a war against women." Really? We're the reason Wikipedia is so in-hospitable? Really? And Wikipedia is fighting against women? Really? So this has now become an anti-feminist operation? I'll admit, I'm guilty of some hostility, but the fact that you have been making false and accusatory statements hasn't been helping the situation. In fact, it's been fueling it. Taking breaks from editing articles does not equate to demonstrating good behavior. You need to treat others with respect and listen to what they have to say. Believe me, that's what me and the others have been trying to do for the first days or so of this conflict. But your increasing aggressiveness just rubbed off on me personally, and it's tiring trying to reason with the likes of you.

At this point, I'll have to agree with a suggestion that was brought up sometime ago: more people need to start pitching in on the 2015 Thalys train attack article. It's always the same voices, over and over again, in an endless cycle of mostly one-sided fighting and insults. The presence of more voices should help determine which way the article should go, because the primary editors (including me) are now all embroiled in a personal, emotional feud and are prime to make edits out of pure bias. Any idea how to make that happen?

Versus001 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm relatively new at this but I agree that Sandra's edits to the article in question are disruptive, unprofessional, and some even factually inaccurate. How can I help? I've seen various revisions to the article and Sandra's iterations are just awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitch82 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 1 October 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.

Huldra

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.

---

Huldra (talk · contribs) is at it again with his pro-Arab/anti-Israel POV. This time his is so far only threatening to make the edit, and when I warned him that such course of action will lead to me reporting him here, he asked I do so forthwith. Well, here I am. Huldra wants to remove a whole part of the Balad al-Sheikh article, even though it is sourced. The discussion is here. User notified.[182] Debresser (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that this is anything but a content dispute. What admin action are you requesting? Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I would greatly appreciate to be referred to as "her"and "she" (and not "his" and "he"). (I do identify as female on my user-page.) Secondly, my actions are (or rather: will be) pr Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a content dispute and nothing else. Debresser should follow the processes for resolving content disputes. Zero^talk 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem: what if another editor (Debresser) does not want to follow what other editors say about the matter? Do I have to go to WP:DRN with that? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely my problem as well: Huldra has stated in the linked discussion, that he will make the edit, despite the fact that it includes removing sourced information, and the fact that I object. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my notification on his talkpage, I don't know how admins will see this: as a behavioral issue, a content dispute or a WP:ARBPIA violation. In my opinion Huldra is a extreme POV editor and very aggressive as well, and it could go both the behavioral side as well as the WP:ARBPIA side, in addition to the obvious content dispute. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please also notice that Huldra has a novel way of interpreting discussions in his favor, when the fact is that that discussion did not go to his favor at all (which is probably why he waited a few months before trying it again).[183] Debresser (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra has stated clearly above that she wishes to be referred to as "she" and "her". Why do you persist in using male pronouns? This is evidence of either failure to read and comprehend what is before your eyes, or rude indifference to an editor's self-identification and preferences. In either case, it is unacceptable; please stop this. RolandR (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Roland, I think this gives a good example of what it is like to be editing with Debresser. Just remember, the fact that Debresser calls me an "extreme POV editor and very aggressive" ...does not make me that.....no more than addressing me as "he" makes me a male......... I strongly urge "outside editors" to look at "which way the discussion went", and make up their own mind. I also object to the WP:ASPERSIONS about me, that I "waited a few months before trying it again" because "discussion did not go to [my] favor": 1) The discussion *did* go in my favour, 2) I have been editing these -48-villages for 10 years, I´m taking one district at a time and updating them; now it is Haifa District. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, besides objecting to WP:ASPERSIONS, I also object to WP:NPA [184] and note WP:STALKING [185], Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to User:Debresser - Some editors use gender-ambiguous terms when not certain of the gender of another editor. Some editors use gender-correct pronouns when dealing with an editor whose gender is known. For Debresser to persist in using an incorrect pronoun shows a serious case of I didn't hear that. If the filing party won't treat another editor with respect, I recommend closing this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are already two editors who have more problem with me making the mistake (it was indeed an honest mistake) of using the word "his" than with the stated intention of Huldra to make a contested edit. It is sad that editors at WP:ANI focus on trifles, and even try to build conclusions on it ("If the filing party won't treat another editor with respect"), instead of on serious problems. Robert McClenon, consider yourself trouted. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Debresser; I guess two other reacted, as you did *not* react; not after I protested, and not after Roland objected. Anyway, I´m glad it was just a mistake, I accept that, Ms. Huldra (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post. Interesting. What I think are the "outsiders" agree to a great extent, and that agreement goes Huldra's way. The outsider (I think) who deviates a bit from that is DGG, but he also argues that great care should be taken when using newspaper sources which, he argues, should properly be considered primary sources. (We've had this argument before, in the context of gun law articles, and I ran into it a long time ago when I wrote up John M. Bacon.) While both editors think that discussion went their way, and while both present a reading that conforms to their views, the discussion is much more in agreement with Huldra's view than with Debresser's. In short, I find that the case made by Debresser does not argue convincingly that Huldra's edits here are POV; au contraire. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree with your analysis, if based only on the reliable source issue. The undue issue was not really the question there, and was mentioned by 2 editors. Believe me that I do have what to say about the undue issue, but that was not the question, so I didn't address it then, because that was the reliable sources noticeboard. Ergo, it is not really possible to base yourself on what those two editors said, since the issue of undue was not really discussed there.

Let me ask you another question. I find it very strange that you say that the discussion goes more Huldra's way because you simply choose to ignore the opinions of another 2 editors based on the claim by Huldra that they are "insiders". Since when do we ignore the point of view of editors because they are "insiders", and what is an "insider", and where is that policy or guideline located? Debresser (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Debresser, if so many editors note an interesting problem with the use of a particular source in a particular context, I think it's probably worth noting. I'm sure you would have liked for them not to have noted it, but they did. So I don't accept your "ergo". My choosing to focus on the comments of some editors, in bold print or not, is because there's at least three of them, not even counting StevenJ81, who sounds a similar note of caution. On the other side, there's an editor who starts talking censorship right off the bat, and that's kind of like invoking Godwin's law, as far as I'm concerned, and Brad Dyer, ready to pick a fight and addressing only one half of Huldra's original post. So, yeah, that's how I read that consensus. Don't start this nonsensical wikilawyering about where "insider" is to be found in the guidelines--you can't strawman your way out of this. There are serious problems with using newspaper from that time period as sources, that's well-known, and especially if it's in a topic area where there are clearly opposed positions with newspapers on either side. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: I greatly appreciate that you took the time to do that; most people will rather have a root-canal filling without local anesthesia, than look at Israel/Palestine issues.

...and as I said: that Debresser calls me "he", does´t make me one!

Debresser: as I said; I looked for a WP:UNDUE noticeboard, but did´t see any...

The way I understood DGG, was that we could cite PP (=Palestine Post) on the history of the 1930s-40s *if* it had been used as reference in a (presumably academic) book; something I absolutely agree with.

The article on Balad al-Sheikh has had a {{Unbalanced}} for years; I´m trying to "clean it up", alas, there are 2-3 editors who apparently like it, just as it is. In the 1930s -40s; there were about 10 times more Arab civilian conflict victims than Jewish civilian conflict victims in that place. Still, for the last 4-5 years the Jewish victims have been given about 10 times more coverage than the Arab victims. I don´t think this is right. (Yes, Debresser: here I am: at it with my "pro-Arab/anti-Israel POV" again....) I have also suggested WP:DRN, but I have received no positive response from the other editors. So what am I to do? Huldra (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are giving a lopsided picture of the events. There were more Arab victims, but mostly from only one action, while there were many attacks on Jews in those years, each with a few victims. It is precisely that which the statement sourced to the PP come to show! Debresser (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply not correct. Yes, many were killed in the Balad al-Shaykh massacre, around New Year 1947/48. But there were many other attacks on Arabs, too. Eg, 6 were killed on 12 December 1947, (see Morris, 2004, p. 100) …that is not even mentioned in the Balad al-Shaykh article, at the present. While each and every Jewish victim is presented and named. Typically: “On May 26, 1939, Mordechai Shechtman, a train driver, was shot in the head by two Arabs who ambushed him at the railroad switch stop near Balad-el Sheikh. He died soon thereafter”. Why is this important enough to keep in the article, while 6 Arabs murdered is not even worth to mention?

As I said two years ago, on that talk-page “Somebody has gone through Palestine Post for the 1930s, and have added every attack on Jews they have found to the article. Of course, PP was not a neutral source in the first place, and secondly, no-one has gone through Arab/Palestinian sources the same way. This gives a very unbalanced article”

Nobody in the passing two years have argued against that. Has the time not finally come to clean up this ugly nationalistic mess? Huldra (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

After saying it was an "honest mistake" calling me male above, Debresser then continues to refer to me as a male today....... first on my user-page; link, and then responding on a 1 RR report; link. Can Debresser continue to call me "he" forever, without any consequences? Frankly, to me, his behaviour seems like very deliberate provocative and rude. Ms. Huldra (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember to AGF! It's probably because Debresser forgets anything unrelated to their agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If Debresser continues to do this, a block should be levied irrespective of the merits of the other dispute. Continually referring to Huldra as male when they've been corrected by multiple editors is sliding into baiting, if not downright trolling, territory. Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, a block for a minor WP:CIVIL violation?

Huldra may ask to be addressed as "she", but it so happens to be that my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Not only because most Wikipedia editors are male, but also simply as a convention. Most editors are perfectly fine with that. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that says I have to call a person by the gender they prefer, if I have a personal preference in this regards as well which is at odds with their preference? Secondly, without wanting to accuse Huldra that she insists on this in order to discredit me with unrelated arguments, at least her insistence on this is clouding the issue, and I can't escape the impression that she is playing on this point to gain the upper hand in the main issue. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a perverse joke? I hope that in real life you would not address women as "he" – it would be grossly offensive if you did – and if you cannot extend such courtesy to Wikipedia you are either extremely lazy or deliberately provocative. Has it occurred to you that most editors are fine with being called "he" because most editors are male? How can you think that, because women are a minority on Wikipedia, it is OK to further marginalise them by refusing to acknowledge their identity? Your personal preferences are no excuse whatsoever for such clear disrespect and if you persist in your demeaning behaviour I would fully support a block. BethNaught (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And while you're at it, you can avoid snarkiness like here. BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at the low hanging fruit. Yes, you'll be blocked for this "minor WP:CIVIL violation" if it continues. I'm thinking a week for starters, just because it is so obviously calculated to be insulting. Your new "custom" (described by you just yesterday as an honest mistake) is insulting to others - not just Huldra, but any woman. It is your continued insistence on this which is sidetracking discussion of any other issue, not Huldra's insistence on not being labeled a male. I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but your behavior regarding this pronoun gives me a gut instinct that you're wrong on the underlying issue. If you don't want to continue giving this impression, then stop being a jerk about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, there is a basic requirement of all editors here which even you, despite your apparent opinions otherwise, are obliged to follow - WP:CIVILITY. Should behavior similar to that displayed here continue, I think that there is a very real chance that you might be subjected to not only the reasonable sanctions Floq proposes above, but also the possibility of some sort of i-ban from those individuals whose reasonable requests to be addressed civilly you, apparently, choose to ignore. For all I know, this conduct may even potentially qualify under the existing I-P sanctions, if anyone saw fit to raise such concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish Debresser would stick with one story: yesterday it was "an honest mistake" that he called me male, today he says: "it so happens to be that my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Both these statements cannot be true. Unless we are talking about a one-day old "custom"? Huldra (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that Debresser is on a campaign and the details of what opponents say are totally unimportant, as far as Debresser is concerned. The comments about mistake/custom are just a debating exercise to counter opponents. Being unable/unwilling to follow a simple request shows that it is likely Debresser similarly ignores simple statements about article content on the basis that it is their custom to ignore stuff they don't like. Unfortunately, no uninvolved editors have the patience to dip a toe into the P–I world. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 29 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 accept the closing as fair. I do not accept the bad faith attitude regarding the side issue raised by Huldra. It is my custom to simply assume all editors on Wikipedia are fine with being addressed as "he", and if there is one editor who feels otherwise, then I am likely to make the mistake of calling her "he" many times. There are many editors I interact with, and I do not see reason to assume bad faith if I address one of them as "he" even after she repeatedly asked to be called "she" That is aside from the question if that was a diversion tactic or the issue sincerely bothers her. Conclusion: no need to assume bad faith, even in case of repeated mistake in gender. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The above comment also pertains to the unfounded accusation of "snarkiness", which was far from my intention. I, rather to the contrary, tried to show that I made an effort to accommodate Huldra's sensitivity. BethNaught, that just shows how far bad faith assumptions can get you from the truth. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit late with my response but anyway. I refer to all editors with the genderless singular "they" unless I am directly told that an editor is of a particular gender. At which point, out of respect I will refer to that editor accordingly. Your "custom" is basically a deliberate barb and quite frankly I find it to be a calculated one designed to incite anger. I'll re-iterate, to me it's trolling. It's a good thing I'm not an admin (nor would I make a good one) else I'd already have slapped you with the week's block that Floq didn't. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop being so obstinate. Huldra's attitude towards your misgendering of others is not bad faith. Repeating your "custom" does not make it any less insulting; if you are an intelligent person then you should be able to remember after many requests to correctly call a person "she", and to do otherwise and maintain that you are justified only makes you look worse. And when you do remember, you should just do so and be done: to mention that you are showing common courtesy, yet presenting it as you doing a "sensitive" person a favour is greatly supercilious and insulting. Moreover, it is ridiculous to suggest that a polite request to be referred to with the correct gender is a "diversion tactic“. TLDR: check your privilege. BethNaught (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Still, today, an hour after this discussion was officially closed, Debresser continues to refer to me as a male; link. If Debresser does not stop this, I will be back at ANI, asking for a longer block of him (He is presently blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring). If a block is the only thing that can get him to refer to female editors as female, then so be it. (Btw, I am also fine with being referred to with the genderless singular "they"), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Need Talk:Sakha language to be moved to Talk:Yakut language per consensus on RM

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.

---

While moving Sakha language to Yakut language was easily accomplished per the consensus on Talk:Sakha language, moving the Talk page is impossible without the help of an administrator due to an ANCIENT edit. Please help. --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Are you familiar with {{db-move}}? In the future, you can put this tag on the page that needs to be deleted; just please specify the page that needs to be moved to the existing page's title. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite welcome. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 29 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.p. editor 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.

---

I.P. editor is adding nonsense / vandalizing in Connecticut town articles, as here. I reverted some, but cannot stop the editor and need to run, can't revert the rest. --doncram 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted what I've seen and blocked the IP. Thanks for the report. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 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.

Similar articles created by different users

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thakur_Abha_Singh_Makwana#Thakur_Abha_Singh_Makwana

I have listed some articles which have similar content but created by different users today. And the list is increasing after every hour. The name of the users are different, but I am sure they have some connection.--NewMutants (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong venue, please consult WP:COIN for that. --TL22 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI might be better - I've just checked and blocked the creators of those articles; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KingMandhata74. No SPI filed as yet, but I don't think there are any more socks out there so there's probably no need for one at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Although it's true that something strange is going on there (all of those short-even-for-stub-standards articles are probably hoaxes), the OP has since been indeffed as a sock. Should this thread be closed then? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:03, 30 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.

Repeated legal threats by 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.

---

The IP address 63.138.96.6 has made repeated legal threats [186] [187] [188]. The IP claims that they are the owner of the WSVI and has removed information they claim to be false. While that is fine, the legal threats are not. They have been given the opportunity to retract the threats and they have not. Instead, they are demanding the real names of individuals who had undid a blanking the IP did to another page [189]. This has gone on far enough. The IP has removed the information they claim was false and now they refuse to drop it or retract the legal threats. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

They just posted another legal threat here. --I dream of horses (C) @ 05:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This guy seems to be very very confused. I'm going to try to talk to him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: You might also want to try at the talk page of 107.107.56.151 since they have seem to have jumped IPs. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:40, 30 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.

Abuse of administrator tools

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.

---

Oh, just the usual, you know: an anonymous editor sees an article which is horrifically badly written, and improves it, leaving a clear edit summary describing what they did: [190]. Do they get thanked for their effort? Good heavens no! They get relentlessly attacked of course! And then administrators start blocking and protecting pages to get the upper hand in a truly bizarre content dispute in which they fight to keep articles in an embarrassing state. Then they start stalking and pointlessly reverting other edits.[191][192]

I don't think that administrative tools are handed out so that you can keep horrifically bad writing in article, are they? Anyone prepared to go to such lengths to make sure that an article starts with "as defined by Merriam-Webster..." is plainly not here to build an encyclopaedia. 186.9.132.110 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I did not know about that case, so you had you chances on improving the articles you wanted via discussion. Not anymore, at least not until you assume a civil attitude to editing. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 30 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.

The best way forward on the Battle of Britain page

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.

---

There is a dispute on the Talk:Battle of Britain page in which I want to add a section on 'Consequences', based very closely on what a number of reliable sources say on the subject. I have taken relevant quotes from the sources and put them on the talk page for discussion. Unfortunately, a couple of other editors, who seem to have very strongly held personal opinions on the subject, have deleted the section in the article. Typical of their attitude is this quote, 'As far as "reliable sources for opinion" goes, I don't need any. I'm not the one wanting this junk in. You are'.

This seem to me to strike at the heart of what Wikipedia is. Is it a bulletin board where people can promote their personal opinions or is it an encyclopedia based on what is said in verifiable and reliable sources? What to do next? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing such a quote. Diffs, please? Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here is the diff [193] I note that none of the others who commented here and the editor who 'closed' this discussion are admins. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I see people with strong opinions alright, but they appear to be with your use of sources to support a paragraph that would be considered fringe by any real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain. I hesitate to use the words 'synth', but you need a lot stronger sourcing and references to firstly back up the content you want to add, but secondly to demonstrate that it is a significant viewpoint. The Battle of Britain is an extensively covered subject so you should be able to do better than in the discussion on the talkpage. But ultimately even if it is reliably sourced enough, if consensus is to not include the material, thats consensus on article content and not a matter for administrative action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you call my paragraph one 'that would be considered fringe by any real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain'? Could you give me a reference from such a historian. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks the 'real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain' does not exist. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Martin Hogbin has been flogging this particular dead horse for at least 4 years. How many times does it take to hold the same discussion, only to have different sets of editors tell him the same darn thing? Surely this is entering into WP:TE territory. BMK (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, just looked at the archive, and it seems Hogbin has been doing it since 2010, so about five years, not four. BMK (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Geez, maybe this does belong here after all, but not for the reason Martin contends. Capeo (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it was removed because it's complete synth. And even if it wasn't the inclusion is against consensus. Doesn't matter how many sources you bring, if it's against consensus it doesn't get added. This doesn't belong at ANI. Capeo (talk) 16:37, 30 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.

high school page needs protection

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.

---

Indian Creek High School (Wintersville, Ohio) is repeatedly being vandalized. --doncram 16:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was reported at WP:RFPP and protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 30 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.

Somebody please help! This editor is driving me up the wall!

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.

---

At this point I desperately need some other editors to intervene and actually stop Jamie Tubers from frustrating my efforts in contributing to wikipedia. I edit the page 'okey uzoeshi', it has been further edited by someone else and the errors called out on the template have been rectified. I have therefore gone on to remove the templates

Can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN to me in plain english, what exactly Jamie Tubers wants, as he has refused to READ any of my 'edit summaries', 'talk' comments.

I have specifically asked him to call out where he thinks the issues are, so that they can be rectified

He added the 'COI" template, I have taken the point that as a 'fan' and 'avid admirer' I may be conflicted, and have added the 'connected_contributor' template to the subject's talk page

He mentioned 'weasel' words were used, 220 edited further

Can someone please tell me exactly why removing the templates, given the recent activity on the page, is leading to me being threatened of being banned.

Can a fresh set of eyes actually read the 'article' and edit appropriately, because I do not understand why this editor seems to be taking this article so personally

I initially said I felt bullied on here by Jamie Tubers and that is exactly how I feel now, again! There are other editors on wikipedia and frankly his tone can be extremely discouraging and dismissive. Yes, you see usernames on wikipedia but remember there are real people sitting behind those names. I have asked him time and time again for specifics as I plan to improve the quality of some other pages and frankly his attitude is clearly not taking the 'overall quality of wikipedia' into consideration. It is more destructive than enabling.

This is today's thread and it is really getting frustrating. What else could I possibly do to discuss???? I need this editor to actually read. Its almost easier to delete all my comments and research and let him edit the page or return the page to its initial paltry, awful state, but how does that help improve wikipedia? I thought that was every editors' driver???

"Jamie Tubers, Borg - so having spent some time reading up more on wikipedia, I apologise for being hasty in my conclusion. I take your points about COI on board and have now added the 'connected contributor' template to the 'Okey Uzoeshi' talk page and removed the COI template from the main page, Jamie added. I also see how as a fan or 'avid admirer' it is easy to miss these things and cause a potential conflict of interest.

"I believe, there has been further editing done, where the weasel words such as 'vast' have been removed, so I have also taken out that template. I am not sure who made those changes but they appear to have been corrected

"Where there was an 'unreliable source' template was added, I have added in an additional reference to.

"Finally - when I have a bit more time, I may look to develop the references for the career section, I feel the need to add the disclaimer that I am not taking ownership of this page, as mentioned; I am very detailed in nature and like to see things done properly

However Jamie Tubers I urge you as an experienced editor of wikipedia to be 'ever so gentle' with new editors, sometimes a few 'helpful' lines could make a world of difference and never forget that the underlying aim is to actually 'improve' wikipedia and 'improve' searchability for ALL. There is a lot of information on people like Okey and OC out there, would it not be great for this info to actually be reflected on Wikipedia too, for some of us this is our 'golden source' for info. The fact that I make multiple edits when I do edit, is down to the fact that I naturally save my work as I go along, so bear with me. My being new to editing on wikipedia, simply means that I am careful and would really hate to lose my changes as most times I actually 'edit source'

Hope this helps. Thanks and I look forward to your comments Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Indent x4 added to aid reading. 220 of ^Borg 11:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm only coming back here because of the fact that you're a new contributor. If you remove the templates once more without discussing; I'll have no choice but to take your issue to the administrative board. Whatever happens to your account after that is your own doing. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers Your tone is extremely unappreciated and I suggest you indeed take this issue to the administrative board. YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT READING ANYTHING and JUST ADDING TEMPLATES ON IRRATIONALLY and frankly I AM EXTREMELY irritated. What is you reason - you have refused to give any.

The page has been edited continuously. I am getting a tad bit irritated by all this. At least read it and leave the talk page and my comments and leave reasonable templates that actually reflect what the issue is so that they can be fixed. Are you just being irrational because you can. This is really frustrating

220 I'm learning to use indents, yayy!!! Again thanks for all your help!

Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the article has been pointed out by others. Just continue to improve the article. Simple! You seriously have no business with the templates! If you feel the templates are no longer appropriate, discuss it in the article's talkpage. DO NOT REMOVE it by your own judgement! You already have conflict of interest, the least you should be doing right now is removing maintenance templates. That is a blatant show of bias to the subject. Okey Uzoeshi is not the only article with maintenance templates on Wikipedia. It's not the first, and won't be the last! What you are doing can be considered as disruption, which is a form of vandalism. Just one of these is enough to get you a block, not to talk of doing both, coupled with your already evident COI, which is not appreciated or welcomed on Wikipedia. I'm really getting tired of your disruptions. My tone is getting harsh, because you're really frustrating me here, and the fact that you're new and I don't want to discourage you is why I didn't revert all your contributions, or just take your issue to an administrator already. And trust me, that's why most people in here are being nice, including me. I'm repeating again for effects: DO NOT REMOVE THE TEMPLATES BY YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT, just continue to improve the article, that's what is needed on Wikipedia, not disruptions or vandalism.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[User:Jamie Tubers|Jamie Tubers]] what further improvements can be done? Read the article and tell me? Like I mentioned I do not exactly know Okey Uzoeshi, I'm simply interested in writing a decent article.

Frankly at this stage I'd rather just delete ALL My edits and you can just write the article yourself.

Read it again! I have already called out the COI on the talk page, a ton of pages on wikipedia have connected contributors all they need to do is call that out and seeing as being an 'avid admirer' connotes that, even though I am not professionally or personally linked. I have ALSO called that out.

What exactly are the maintenance templates for, I am calling these out because I do not think they serve any relevance. How do they help to 'improve wikipedia as a whole'. I do not agree that this is down to vandalism and frankly I think your templates are irrelevant and unnecessary.

I agree more references may be needed and I'm happy for you to leave that template on but definitely NOT the COI template as I have already called that out on the talk page.

The weasel words have also been cleaned up so I suggest you remove that too

Feedback has been taken on board and the article amended, so what exactly is your mission here? especially given that you have not reviewed, adjusted the article. I really have an issue with your approach

As an experienced editor, surely you should be professional enough to maintain calm, you are asked about articles every day, however the complaints against you all seem to state how you do not READ revisions and you need to learn to do that. As mentioned I am extremely detailed, pedantic and want to see this fixed. So COI is extremely inflamatory as first of it is not true apart from me being a fan - that is a HUGE issue for me, so that needs to go. Tell me EXACTLY what the template is on there for as I have ALREADY called out the issue in the 'talk' page

I suggest you READ wikipedia's CLEANUP page as everything you are doing clearly contradicts that and is wrong

I have no issue with you adding templates but they must be the 'right ones', so I AM GOING TO REMOVE THE COI Template again because it has ALREADY been called out on the subject's talk page and I am going to remove the reference to weasel words because that has ALSO been fixed.

I have read through Wikipedia and nothing says only [User:Jamie Tubers|Jamie Tubers]] CAN add on and REMOVE MAINTENANCE MESSAGES, so if this is the reason why I may be banned or blocked then I'm sure there are channels outside of wikipedia to escalate and expose the 'nonsense' that goes on in here, (if this is indeed what this community is about). Also after reading the COI page and being directed to pages that carry the connected_contribute template. I have committed NO CRIME here, so I suggest you indeed take it on to the administrators.

Let me very nicely point out that your statement, this statement here is completely wrong and I see it as bullying. If there is indeed an issue with my updates, why don't we simply ask for the initial post and my corrections be placed side by side and see whether my updates have been so bad. I cannot believe anyone educated or professional will even utter these words in a pubic forum;

'My tone is getting harsh, because you're really frustrating me here, and the fact that you're new and I don't want to discourage you is why I didn't revert all your contributions, or just take your issue to an administrator already. And trust me, that's why most people in here are being nice, including me. I'm repeating again for effects: DO NOT REMOVE THE TEMPLATES BY YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT, just continue to improve the article, that's what is needed on Wikipedia, not disruptions or vandalism'

There is clearly something weird going on here and its not that you are interested in the overall good of wikipedia

Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Adeadeyemi21: account is being used only for promotional purposes

Adeadeyemi21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Okey Uzoeshi: This account, since its creation has contributed to just one article: Okey Uzoeshi; it appears the user has WP:COI (which he finally declared at the talkpage of the article, though he still claims that he is just a "dedicated fan"), due to the obvious concentration on just the subject, and the promotional tone in his edits (which has been improved over time by other editors).

However, I've not been much bothered about the COI, cos I felt his contributions were useful and would easily be improved over time; so I just added maintenance templates on the areas that need to be worked on. But, the user is so particular about not letting templates appear at the top of the article at all, and he constantly removes them, despite multiple warnings (examples: 1, 2). I, along with one other editor have tried to explain things to him, and also specifically explaining why he should be less worried about the templates, but focus on improving the article. I even advised that it would be advisable to first discuss before removing the templates, and not remove maintenance templates based on his obviously biased judgement.

This user has refused to listen to any of the advice and recently, the editor said this in a new post: "I'm sure there are channels outside of wikipedia to escalate and expose the 'nonsense' that goes on in here", this I believe to be a sort of a legal threat. I don't know how to handle the editor anymore; hence my eventual resort is to come here, which I didn't want to do initially. Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is all of this mishegas here on AN/I when there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page? BMK (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• most of the discussion are on the user's talkpage.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• But discussions on the article talk page can be joined by other editors of the article, while those on the users' talk pages are, essentially, invisible to everyone except those who are watching those pages. AN/I is for behavioral issues, content disputes belong on the article talk page.BMK (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Right. Disputes of this type can be brought to WP:COIN, the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. At WP:COIN, other uninvolved editors will try to fix, or, if insufficiently notable, delete, the article. Here, at AN/I, editors are blocked and banned, but article content is rarely changed. I'll put up a note at WP:COIN. This is one of the common cases at WP:COIN - pop culture figure with few English-language sources. That comes up about once a month, and is routinely dealt with. John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Okey Uzoeshi. We can probably help you over there. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Did some basic fact checking. The first two film credits are not verifiable; cast lists of major actors for the films exist, but don't include the article subject. (They might have been an extra.) The article also claims an major MTV award, and that's not checking out. See discussion at WP:COIN#Okey Uzoeshi. So everything has to be checked. This article is going to need substantial editor time to clean up. If any uninvolved editor has spare time and an interest in Nollywood cinema, assistance is requested. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:49, 30 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.

Mass uncited additions (possible if not probable vandalism) to article- Probably one person via multiple IPs

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 notice that the article Rainbow (TV series) has apparently had *lots* of dubious if not blatantly false edits made by anonymous editors- or (IMHO far more likely) primarily one anonymous editor posting from several dynamic IPs.

Although the IPs are differently, they're clearly related in most cases (i.e. same block and/or from BT).

You can see this via the article history; the edits in question go back to November 2014 at least.

[194] - The company's franchise was lost at the end of 1992, so if the show ended with that as claimed, 1991 is definitely wrong. The addition of obviously fake episode titles (e.g. repeated use of same name and names of other show, e.g. "Freetime", "The Sooty Show") are obvious misinformation vandalism or someone's sad idea of a joke.

[195]

[196]

[197]

[198] - All uncited, added by that anon IP

[199] - Ditto

[200]

[201]

These might be from other people:-

[202]

[203]

I suspect that the main editors in question above have contributed to/vandalised many other articles as well. Even though I'm fairly certain the majority of the edits have been done by one person, the fact they've used many (related) IPs makes this more complicated. Can anyone suggest what should be done about this?

Should the uncited changes by anonymous editors in this article be reverted as well? Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 30 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:A_costella and IP 198.163.154.239

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 put a block on both of these until they have read WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO at James Sanders, Jr., either competency or blp issues, as the edits from IP and user are identical they seem to quite easily pass the duck test. Amortias (T)(C) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Amortias, just looking over that, it'd be a good idea to bear in mind the 3 Revert Rule. Looks like you and well as the mentioned editors are getting near to that^{(see below)}. samtar ^(msg) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless its changed, blp and copyvio under points 5 and 7 on 3RR exemptions. Point noted though 20:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be! Apologies. samtar ^(msg) 20:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to appoligise was in good faith. Amortias (T)(C) 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Both the IP and named acct have now been warned re: copy vio. Activity has stopped for now. If it resumes, page protection might be a good option. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 30 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.

Woland2k #2

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

---

I blocked Woland2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being here for advertising only. In the discussion recently closed above, there was consensus to unblock on the grounds that the user had understood the issue of promotional editing. I consider this a fine example of Wikipedians at their very best, assuming good faith when cynicism is entirely understandable. Sadly, cynicism seems to have been the right response: immediately after the block, Woland2k inserted the name of his product in one article, removed a competitor from another, and added WP:POINTy tags to a third. Me, I am a nasty suspicious bastard. I have re-blocked based on these subsequent edits. I have taken the ping at the user's talk page as an invitation to do this, but am happy for @Drmies: or anyone else to remove the block if they see fit. I don't think this is a wheel war since I won't mind unblocking and we have all discussed it as grown-ups, nonetheless I post here for review and reversal if appropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see fit. Thanks Guy: good block. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 30 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:90.198.28.158

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 been having trouble with this IP user, who is going through all the edits made by Richard Harvey (talk · contribs), and reverting them. It appears, also, that this IP user was already blocked once for edit warring. If I could please get some assistance. Thank you. New User Person (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone should report you while they're at it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For...? clpo13_(talk) 08:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A WP:CheckUser will one day show why (likely anyway, depending on how things develop). Per this and this, the editor is familiar with who I am. That is all I will be stating on the matter for now. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you're the one who decided it was a good idea to not assume good faith, and spam my talk page. I'm under no obligation to keep spam that is unneeded. New User Person (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that "Bishonen, thanks for that." could be validly classified as a violation of WP:Assume good faith. We both know why you reverted that message. If you want to play clueless, I suppose you should do it for as long as you can. And you know that I don't assume good faith when I have no reason to, as in this case. WP:Assume good faith does not mean playing stupid. I am "in the know" in this case. You might also want to read up on WP:Spam. But enough wasting my time on you for now. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, Flyer22, if you have something to say, perhaps you should actually say it, instead of coyly dancing along the edges of making evidence-free accusations in hopes of not running afoul of the personal attacks policy. So you need to put up or shut up. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, Calton, I've done enough putting up or shutting up on this matter. I'll leave this one to you all who defend the highly problematic editors and obvious WP:Socks. You might consider that WP:AN and WP:ANI are commonly the places to coyly dance along the edges of making evidence-free accusations. You are free to consider that "running afoul of the personal attacks policy" or close to doing so, but various other editors do not. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I was loudly thinking something similar, but I kept it to myself for lack of evidence. HighInBC 15:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC (Chillum), you were thinking what? That I should be more explicit and do the work for you guys like I commonly do on such matters? No thank you this time. He'll just return again anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Something similar to what you were thinking. I am not about to say without evidence, that thing you need before you accuse someone. HighInBC 15:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: 90.198.28.158 (talk · contribs) May be one of many sockpuppets of the same user. See:- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:08, 1 October 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: More on this matter was noted at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

vandalism with bias

found a user named BengaliHindu whose contribs appear as vandalism which is biased towards hinduist propaganda (in the OP POV). found out while nominating "banglastan" and "mughalistan" for csd-or-cleanup (check corresponding page history for details). requesting admin oversight, fluency in bengali will better help understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 03:56, 29 September 2015

• You must notify BengaliHindu about the ANI discussion - I've done this for you, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • using mobile. unable to type-navigate much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusing an editor propaganda-biased vandalism is going to require excellent evidence. I see none of that in BengaliHindu's contributions. If this is some subtle thing related to local controversies, you're going to have to explain it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: check the contrib log, specifically the ones on banglastan, mugholistan and malaun, also check the "citations" which the person added. bengali language fluency required to understand the flavor of the contribs as in whether they are vandalism or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs)

I did! And I see nothing strange, though as I said, that may be because I'm not familiar with this area. Could you point to specific portions of these articles that are problematic, specific passages that you could consider vandalism? Can you point out specific sources that should not be used and explain why? If you'd rather wait for an administrator fluent in Bengali, that's fine, but you may be waiting a long time. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • mugholistan was originally a redirect to mughalistan until this guy turned it into something akin to hinduist propaganda, which, after I tagged and notified on the talk page, was reverted. he did the same kind of propaganda vandalism on the now deleted page "banglastan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible stalking?

I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or its talk page before AldezD called an AFD on it was mine, over a month after the last edit to the article. Either it's a big coincidence or AldezD is stalking my edits, checking what contributions i am making. That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded and the AFD thrown out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: specifically checking up on individual editors' work is not stalking. If I notice a habit of problematic edits from a contributor, it's a useful damage reduction approach to have a look at their previous edits and see if something's amiss there too. This without pronouncing on the merits of the AfD, or on whether such checking-up is necessary in your case; but I'd recommend focusing on the AfD on its own terms.-- Elmidae (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by the premise of this complaint. Is there some context between you and Aldez, Paul? Aldez nominated an article for deletion five days after you edited the talk page...and how is that evidence of stalking? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that Paul review WP:HOUND and make sure that’s the case here. There’s no mention here of harassment or any persistent behavior. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has made multiple posts within the AFD that fall outside of WP:NPA guidelines:

• "I would hesitate to call him a troll but..."
• "What a Mickey Mouse operation he is.
• accusations of stalking... "That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded. "

WP:BOOMERANG for this ANI?

AldezD (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User also undid my edits twice notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed. [204], [205]. One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" Is this editor WP:COMPETENT? AldezD (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained on the page that it wasn't canvassing for the very reasons the canvassing page states. Evidently you failed to read the relevant policy before making your accusation. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User undid my edit a third time notifying closing admin of canvassing: [206]. AldezD (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Go read the bloody canvassing page. It gives plenty of permissible reasons to notify people of an AfD. I'm starting to get very angry with you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'm starting to get very angry with you. WP:BATTLE. AldezD (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there something in WP:BATTLE that attempts to alter human nature and forbid one editor getting angry with another? BMK (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not the villain in this. I'm going to take a wiki-break as it looks like AldezD will not be dealt with. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It’s generally unacceptable to remove another user’s comments from a discussion, even if you think he’s lying. See WP:TPG. Instead, you could post your own comment immediately after it with an explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that AldezD has indeed been checking Paul Benjamin Austin's contributions (how else would AldezD have gathered these diffs for an accusation of canvassing?) and I think AldezD has been somewhat provocative in this discussion. But other than in the context of the [[Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) article and the related AfD, no evidence has been presented to suggest an ongoing substantial wikihounding campaign so I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. That's not to say there is no issue at all - clearly something is not right between these two editors - and should more evidence emerge, this event should be considered along with it. WaggersTALK 12:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest both editors give some consideration to WP:AGF in the meantime. WaggersTALK 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Waggers: I'm under tremendous strain and stress because of my mother's ill health and this may have clouded my judgement and broken me. Like i said, If i was wrong about LMN and she isn't as notable as, say, Sheree Beasley or Karmein Chan, I'm willing to say goodbye to the article. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: This isn't about whether or not the article should be kept, that's a matter for the AfD to decide, and so far it looks like it is going to stay. The matter you raised is an allegation of harassment. If nominating an article for deletion was harassment we wouldn't let it happen! Sorry to hear about your mother, I know how difficult it can be. Wikipedia can wait, if you need to take a break then do so; we'll still be here when you come back. WaggersTALK 07:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)