Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907

Saadkhan12345 is vandalizing articles and abusing accounts

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.

---

Based on his profiles User:Saadkhan12345 is a Pakistani living in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He was blocked indefinitely as User:UsmanullahPK and subsequently created multiple accounts for edit-war and other disruption. [1] He has no idea about US laws, he thinks a Pakistani must become a U.S. citizen in order to be considered a Pakistani American. He's unnecessarily following me around and reverting my edits under different names and his Riyadh IP. [2], [3], [4], [5] I don't think SPI is needed, the evidence is crystal clear.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalized my User page. Thinks a Pakistani criminal caught in Southasia and now in prison in US is Paksitani-American. For e.g. this guy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who isn't even in the US (Cuba-Guantanomo Bay] qualifies to be a Pakistani-American according to Krzyhorse22 Here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

KSM is a separate issue, it is being discussed at Talk:Pakistani Americans. You are following me and reverting my edits, and you're abusing multiple accounts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Saadkhan12345: that's not vandalism, that's tagging you as a suspected sockpuppet. @Krzyhorse22: yeah it passes the duck test for me, but if an admin doesn't jump on it soon, I would recommend an SPI -- samtar ^whisper 11:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

When the outcome is clear SPI is unnecessary, plus those SPI admins are too busy. This guy has no respect for Wiki or other editors.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could've done that on the talk page. Not on my Userpage. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 Please refrain from making personal attacks. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked as a clear DUCK. GiantSnowman 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Excuse me, but that is how you become a Pakistani American, unless you are born in the U.S. of Pakistani descent and have dual citizenship, or identify as Pakistani American through your parents. Many people live in the United States but without citizenship do not qualify as "Americans." KSM is NOT an American. What evidence is there that Saadkhan12345 is this other user? Simply because he pointed out the obvious? There are 1.5 million Pakistanis in KSA. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with Samtar that DUCK is met here. Similar personal backgrounds, similar editing area and pattern, similar name, similar disruption. GiantSnowman 13:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How are their names similar? I think Khan is the one of the most common family names in the world after Li. Half the people I know from Pakistan/Muslim India are named Khan: [6] Additionally 1) this account has been around more than a year without any blocks 2) according to complaints in the original SPI, this user has a noticeably poor command of English. Looking at Saadkhan's edits, his English is excellent. See comment above, and edit summaries like, "They are not Americans citizens. A convicted felon cannot be given U.S nationality." So what evidence is there that this is the same user? OP's edits are completely wrong and the only disruptive thing I see here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: This report has nothing to do with KSM or Pakistani Americans, it's to do with a user abusing multiple accounts. You may have an opinion on Pakistani Americans, but that discussion is not for here, please see Talk:Pakistani Americans. As for evidence, I believe all the behavioral evidence in the original report above would, if brought to SPI, be closed with the same outcome - a block. Cheers -- samtar ^whisper 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again I ask, what is the evidence? None of the diffs above prove anything except OP is putting in wrong information. You have a sock with notoriously terrible English. You have another user with perfect English. Do you not see the issue here? This user is not being disruptive so there is no urgent need for a block. Open an SPI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm disengaging from this now, but I will say that the behavioral evidence suggests a possibility of the account being a sock, enough for an administrator to make a block. I trust the judgement of GiantSnowman, as does a lot of other editors -- samtar ^whisper 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You've presented no evidence. I've presented evidence it is unlikely they are the same user. That's nice you trust GiantSnowman, but that is why we have SPI, so admins don't block people based on their hunches. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia, his present location; his Pakistani background; his general behavior; his editing of the article Lower Dir District in Pakistan; and the languages he claimed to speak, among other things, made it 100% match.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There are more than 1.5 million Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia. It's not like he's a Pakistani in Belize. Of course a Pakistani would edit Lower Dir District. Of course a Pashtun would have the last name Khan - it's a nearly universal surname for the Pashtun. I don't see what languages he claims to speak. On the other hand, I have a serious problem with this edit you made vandalizing his page three days ago and saying "socking is unIslamic"[7] You don't get to label people socks, especially before it's ever been brought to ANI/SPI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you have a problem with me telling Muslim editors that socking is un-Islamic? It's based on Islam's teachings. Any disruptive act is un-Islamic but doing this in Wikipedia where the whole world relies on is a more serious misconduct than doing this in social sites like Facebook for example. I know about the whole world, no need to remind of petty stuff like how many Pakistanis live in what country. I didn't vandalize his page, it was just to warn him or wake him up. Any editor can put suspected sock tag on someone, if there is reasonable or probative evidence.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with you vandalizing someone's page and throwing in a condescending comment about how, even though you've presented no compelling evidence that this is a sock, that "socking is wrong" according to their religion. It's completely repulsive. Yes you did vandalize his page - you replaced his entire userpage with a template saying he's a sock! Because he's reverting you when you're putting in absurd information in articles! It's not your place to "wake him up" by screwing with his page. If you truly believed he's a sock then report him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You're defending a disruptive sock maker. There are countless IDs with Saadkhanxxx and they either made few edits or none. I don't care what is repulsive to you, this is an international project so please get used to people from everywhere and every religion. As you can see nobody other than the disruptive sock maker and you are having a problem with me. I did not remove anything from his or anyone's page, please stop accusing me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 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.

Meat puppetry

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (2nd nomination).

This article was nominated for AFD by Katyaan. After Katyaan's delete vote was stroked off by Dharmadhyaksha another editor Expertseo, who didn't edit for full one year came out of nowwhere and voted delete. His previous edit was on 17 December 2014 on Katyaan's talk page.

Expertsio had a total of 77 edits in wikipedia when he voted "delete". With 77 edits, he connects with Katyaan in 12 articles with variety subjects as BatchMaster Software, Raebareli, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Jitu Patwari, Vyapam scam. --The Avengers 11:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, the edit from Expertseo to Katyaan's page is a barnstar being awarded. Why do they almost always award each other barnstars.. Passes the duck test for me, any reason why you think this isn't just normal socking? I'd be inclined to SPI okay, maybe not - good couple of years between them -- samtar ^whisper 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Close this, I have started SPI.--Human3015^TALK  14:24, 3 December 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 Rckhupmang

• Rckhupmang (talk · contribs)

I just reported this at AIV, where it was deleted with the advice to take it here. Longterm creation and re-creation of articles on non notable subjects, ignoring numerous warnings, especially in relation to removal of speedy templates. Apparent COI and promotional intent, with an eponymous article created several times. No effort to communicate with other editors, and I'm wondering if it's also a WP:COMPETENCE issue, perhaps foreign language. The disruptions far outweigh constructive intent here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Rck has been edit warring to remove your speedy deletion tag at United Zo Organization Kentucky FC. I count four removals, but some of them are bizarre, such as blanking the entire page and then restoring almost the entirety of the page except the speedy deletion tag. I don't really know what to say about that except that you may be right about competence. And on Pau Sian Khual, he's removed the speedy tag twice already: first time, second time. He also removed a BLPPROD after adding a YouTube video in this edit on Kham En Thang. Now, I'm the first to say that YouTube can be a reliable source, but I'm not so sure this counts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Larry Stroman and Tony Harris (artist) articles

As a precautionary measure, I wanted to advise about two articles (Larry Stroman and Tony Harris (artist)) which contained possible violations of Wikipedia:Libel. I removed the statements from Stroman here and Harris here.

As I posted at Talk:Larry Stroman#Lack of verification by citation and Wikipedia:Libel, the citation given for the allegation against Stroman made no specific mention of him, therefore it does not support the statement.

The Harris article used a loaded legal term but supplied no citation at all.

I don't believe Administrator action is needed at this time but I wanted to be proactive in case the material is re-added to either article.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

History merge needed

Can someone perform a history merge on Royalty (Chris Brown album) and Draft:Royalty (Chris Brown album) (2nd version) please? I wasn't sure where to request such a merge, thanks. Azealia911 _talk 09:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RFHM aka Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Sometimes it's actually as simple as that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with editor over religious edits

Hi all - I'm having problems with an editor over categories. I'm engaged in a substantial task of putting articles on American religious leaders into state-specific categories. All has gone well up until a few days ago, when Elizium23 (talk · contribs) contacted me to complain that I was putting Roman Catholic bishops into categories for bishops, rather than making individual categories for Roman Catholic bishops by diocese, then making parent categories for Roman Catholic bishops, and then putting those categories in the (grandparent) Bishops categories.

While I see this as useful, it would slow down the work I'm doing, and I feel that categorisation simply as bishops is better for Wikipedia than having them totally uncategorised. After all, if Elizium23 feels that they should be in these subcategories, (as) it is now easier for him to find and add those categories himself, and (b) perhaps he should have already added those categories. Elizium23's messages on my user talk page have been confrontational and threatening - he accused me of laziness (despite the fact that I have been categorising several hundred articles during this task, and he could easily have added any extra categories he wanted himself), and threatened to revert the work I have been doing. This is something which he has begun to do, despite being warned of the disruptiveness of this silliness.

As an admin, I can't get personally involved in fixing this mess, so I'd like to ask some neutral admins to have a look at it if possible. Thanks, Grutness...wha? 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything, having bishops in state-specific categories should make it easier for Elizium23 to further subdivide them. Reverting instead of improving, that is lazy. Not justified IMO.-- Elmidae 07:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of two people making separate passes through thousands of articles, one editor makes one pass and does it right the first time? Or while making his pass and met with objections, that editor stops to discuss what is best. Or even, the editor with mass changes in mind proposes it publicly first, and hammers out WP:CONSENSUS on the best course of action. Is that too much to ask? Elizium23 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Many hands make light work. Keri (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Elizium23, you yourself admitted that there are unresolved issues with some bishop categorisation. I don't know enough about RC church structure to know when those issues apply. You do. Rather than have me incorrectly categorise while trying to deal with a larger and more overarching task, why don't you do that part of the task? As far as WP:CON is concerned, all I am doing is extending work already started by other editors - state categories for religious leaders already existed for about half a dozen states and no-one had been complaining about them. As such, similar categories for the remaining states seemed logical and uncontroversial. Given that bishops are religious leaders, putting them in such categories makes perfect sense, and if they are uncategorised as bishops then leaving them uncategorised as bishops is not doing anything that WP:CON is needed for, since no change vis a vis their bishop categorisation was being made at all. As regards "separate passes through thousands of articles", I'm the only one making a pass through thousands of articles - you would simply be categorising the several dozen uncategorised bishop articles to add diocese labels where necessary - a much smaller task, and one which can almost certainly be automated. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Elizium23, but not most of what he is saying. We need a consenus on this important topic before the categorization continues. Let us consult the religious portal. W oWiTmOvEs 11:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I had raised this issue at WT:CATHOLIC, but Grutness decided to shop here too. I am curious, Grutness, what remedies and sanctions against me did you expect to be levied from this board when you took a very small content dispute here? Elizium23 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You are making incorrect accusations. Grutness is not forum shopping. Grutness opened the entry here in response to your behavior on his talkpage and your behavior in reverting his edits adding categories where none previously existed. Grutness only asked for a second opinion from an uninvolved administrator, not any sanctions. You created the talkpage entry at WT:Catholic, and primarily talked about Grutness's behavior, not the disputed content. Grutness only replied briefly to what you had written regarding his behavior, and referred the behavior discussion here. The tiny bit of discussion at at project Catholicism did focus on the content dispute, and did not conflict with the discussion regarding user behavior reported here. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 21:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose closing this discussion of user behavior as fruitless. No behavior was truly serious, although perhaps caustic. I would propose resuming the content/categorization discussion at the WT:CATHOLIC instead. --Zfish118 ^⋉talk 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

IP-jumping editor with an anti-Kurdish bias

This is a rewritten version of something I wrote last night at the talk page of @JzG:. He suggested that I take it to ANI. I wasn't sure if the regulars here need to be spoon-fed diffs or if, on the contrary, I would be met with TLDR comments if I wrote any longer. Please take a look and point out if there is anything you feel is insufficiently clear.

There is a succession of Swiss-based IPs (most starting with 81.62) that have been on a reference removal and prodding spree and has made other edits with what appears to be an anti-Kurdish and anti-Yazidi bias.

• 81.62.0.20 (talk · contribs) (17 Nov.)
• 81.62.114.4 (talk · contribs) (20 Nov.)
• 81.62.94.51 (talk · contribs) (21-22 Nov.)
• 62.202.122.82 (talk · contribs) (22 Nov.)
• 81.62.232.113 (talk · contribs) (24-25 Nov.)
• 81.62.178.125 (talk · contribs) (25 Nov.)
• 81.62.29.36 (talk · contribs) (27 Nov.)
• 81.62.24.156 (talk · contribs) (28 Nov.)
• 81.62.90.64 (talk · contribs) (26-27 Nov.)
• 81.62.160.49 (talk · contribs) (28-29 Nov.)

The IP user is somebody familiar with Wikipedia terminology and notability policy (although quite willing to overlook the blatant notability of a topic if it would get in the way of getting it deleted, as with Khana Qubadi, an 18th-century Kurdish poet, or Taufiq Wahby, a philologist who was also a member of cabinet and senator in Iraq). The user is also familiar with templates.[8][9].

Some of the references and links removed have indeed been dead, as claimed in the edit comments, but some of these appear actually to be online versions of printed sources, such as this one (the journal article can probably still be located even if the link happens to be dead). This removed links to articles in the online edition of the Encyclopaedia Iranica. While the EI appears to have changed the article URLs, they can be found through a search of the website (e.g. [10]). In general, substitutes for these links are less likely to be found once they are hidden away in the article history and their removal is likely to prejudice the admin dealing with the page at the end of the prod period.

I suspect that Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs) (28 Nov.-) may be the same user. This user has started an article on Kurdish terrorism (recently at AfD) and nominated Kurdish mythology for deletion. He also edited Khana Qubadi, previously prodded by 81.62.90.64 (talk · contribs), just after I deprodded the page.

All in all, I find it difficult to "AGF" in this case. I have deprodded a few articles. @PanchoS:, who has noticed the same pattern (as he pointed out at User talk:JzG#Kurdish terrorism), has deprodded a large number as claiming notability and at least needing a proper discussion.

I will notify Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs) but will ignore the talk pages of the IPs, as they don't appear to have been re-used once the user has rotated to a new one. --Hegvald (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The user Hegvald starts this with a personal attack even in the section title, generally a sign of somebody that has no facts and that the discussion is emotional.

Hegvald complains that I attempted to do some much needed quality control and cleanup after I spotted a walled garden of non-notable articles, all created by the same user. The user has created a walled garden of hundreds of articles on non-notable subjects. These include bloggers, translators, "writers" whose output consist of a few nationalist pamphlets, whose only reference is a token article written by the subject himself about himself! If these articles would have been in a less obscure area, they would have been deleted within 5 minutes! And all the links I removed with the edit summary "dead links" were dead links, not just "some" (the rest were not in accordance with the WP:EL policy). To be able to also edit at 'Articles for Deletion', I had to create an user account. I was not only doing some work in much needed quality control, as Hegvald noticed, but also expanding articles (Kurdish women, kurds in germany,...) and creating articles (on the Kurd Banaz Mahmod).

The real issue, I suspect, is that he didn't like that I wrote articles on Banaz Mahmod and about Du'a Khalil Aswad. The same user who spammed wikipedia with this walled garden of non notable articles is the same user who repeatedly deleted every mention of the Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad and other victims in the kurdish women article. That is the real issue, these same users who spam wikipedia would like to bury every memory of these victims in wikipedia, exactly like they buried the poor Yazidi woman Du'a Khalil Aswad, together with a dead dog after she was stoned and after she was dragged trough the streets! Because I created the article about the Kurd Banaz Mahmod and wrote about the Yazidi Du'a Khalil Aswad, I must be anti-Kurdish and anti-Yazidi, out of a perverse logic that certain aspects of certain communities should not be written about, and this user who spammed wikipedia, and censors every mention of these Kurdish and Yazidi victims, is of course just a bona fide Kurdish nationalist. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is the user you are talking about? Are you talking about @Vekoler: who appears to have started several of the articles you are trying to have deleted? You should have informed him of the fact that you were nominating them for deletion, but you never did. In either case, I don't see anything wrong in starting many articles in a particular topic area of one's interest, in this case Kurdish writers. Other Wikipedia users create huge numbers of articles on professional wrestlers or footballers. Regrettably, far fewer people around here are able and willing to write about Kurdish literature and scholarship.

As for the dead links, they were indeed dead, but many referred to sources that may have been located in other ways. That was the case with both Encyclopaedia Iranica articles mentioned by me above. The articles are still live; they just changed the URLs. Some other may have been found at archive.org, but only when one knows what to look for. And as I said, some were printed publications, such as articles in the International Journal of Kurdish Studies. In those cases, having a link is nice, but it is perfectly fine if they can be located in print in a library. --Hegvald (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the issue of honour killings. No, there is nothing wrong with mentioning this (although it should probably be mentioned here and in passing that it is common among many other populations in the Near East and elsewhere).

What struck me was that in all your expanding of articles such as Kurds in Germany, Kurds in Sweden, Kurdish women, this was the only thing you were interested in writing about.[11][12][13] Surely there must be other aspects of these topics worthy of interest and expansion? --Hegvald (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is Vekoler. You may believe that everything merits a wikipedia article, but it is not the consensus on wikipedia, otherwise we wouldn't have the notability policy and the AFD and PROD processes. Clearly, many of these articles do not meet the notability policy and wouldn't have survived that long in less obscure areas of wikipedia.

Many of the articles in question were written back in 2006, so it is natural that some of the web links may be broken or dead. As for notability, I agree with you in general, but unfortunately some editors have taken upon themselves to decide the notability of someone like Abdulla Pashew who is one of the most well known contemporary Kurdish poets. Just because someone is not familiar with English/Turkish/Spanish literature, he/she can not claim that T.S. Eliot, Orhan Pamuk or Pablo Neruda are not notable. I will add the necessary references and links, but please before jumping to conclusions, try to ask the poor editor who has spent so much time on these articles. Just a short message on the talk page would be enough. Thanks.Vekoler (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

About the dead links, where is the policy how to deal with them? If I tag the dead links, or if they are already tagged, how long does one need to wait until they can be removed? What about dead links in the External links section? Should they not be cleaned up? Many of these articles are BLP articles, and everything unsourced or sourced to dead links in BLP articles should be removed immediately and without discussion. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In the future, I will rather tag the dead links when they are used for reference. Except when it goes against WP:BLP or WP:USI, the BLP policy says all contentious information should be removed immediately if it is unsourced. --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your familiarity with WP:TLAs makes it plain that you are not actually a new user. What was your previous account, please? Guy (Help!) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc might be entirely innocent here, but someone should investigate whether there is any relationship (perhaps an attempt at imitation by Lrednuas Senoroc)? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not Sredunas and there is already a discussion on his talkpage. To figure out TLAs one does not need to have a registered account on the english wikipedia. In any case, to protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames (see also clean start). --Lrednuas Senoroc (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone that would like to associate my contribution to WP somehow the work of "Lrednuas Senoroc" has "idiot on the mind". I am not, have never been and have no intention of getting involved in this matter. I have had a pleasant enough experience on WP so far and would wish for it to continue so if you are the person that has orchestrated this diversion then do at least me the favor and bugger off. I would like to bring up that I have no talk page. According to well expressed comments in WP, no one "owns" a talk page yet when there are changes to that talk page the person having that user name is notified of such changes. So please never mention comments made on "that" page as "my talkpage". The use of the word "my" is misleading and wrong. The use of the word "that" would be proper use and grammar.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that Lrednuas Senoroc is an attempt at an impersonation account of Srednuas Lenoroc, since Srednuas Lenoroc is Coronel (Colonel?) Saunders spelled backwards, while Lrednuas Senoroc is nonsense. Blackmane (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, I was not trying to associate your contributions with those of Lrednuas Senoroc. I was suggesting that Lrednuas Senoroc's username was an attempt to impersonate you. It seems that an admin agrees and has blocked the account. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and it is perfectly acceptable for editors to refer to "your" user talk page. See Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations on this. "Your" in this sense does not imply ownership, as that page makes clear, but means associated with you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I hope that this discussion can be limited to this or another more appropriate page as notifying me about someone having a similar username is not a concern of mine and as maliciousness goes, I am not aware enough about WP as to where it is appropriate or that I wish to become involved in that discussion. I do not need to be notified of user being investigated even on an informal level merely because of their username. My record of contributions is readily available for review. My IP address can also be traced. I see absolutely no reason why I needed to be contacted in this matter. As my grandmother says in the most concise translation, why with two when one will do. I am not into investigating people; that is not the role have I taken at WP--I leave that to others.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I linked to your account to demonstrate the similarity. You can always ignore this page if the issue being discussed does not concern you and you have not been summoned here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another Swiss IP User:81.62.246.169 has been editing disruptively, repeatedly reapplying PROD tags and applying BLP PRODS to articles that are referenced. I've reported him for disruptive editing. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well "User:Cordless Larry". your suggested strategy about avoiding these interaction seems to be for naught as in an other action to which I have been issued a notification has someone claiming that someone has said that they are me and that the person claiming that this statement has been made is saying my account should be blocked. What am I suppose to do, just sit by and let people speak supposedly on my behalf? And then be subject to what actions they decide to follow although the fundamentally some things are not correct?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No one's issued you any "notification" on your user talk page, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD Backlog

Maybe this is just me, but the backlog at WP:AFD is as long as I have ever seen it; there are plenty of discussions with clear consensus that have not been closed yet, and a number that could bear closure in any case because they have been relisted far too many times. More eyes are needed, admins and non-admins both. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 how can a non admin help? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat; non-admins can help by a) expressing considered opinions in AFD discussions where consensus is still unclear, so that consensus may be reached sooner, and b) if they are experienced enough, by performing non-admin closures in situations where there is clear consensus for an outcome that does not require admin action (ie clear keep, merge, or redirect outcomes). Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This should do the trick.

I'll take some time to run through some of these— I'm awake. For everyone else, a loud wake-up call might be in order. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone will come round and set them all to relist for another seven days, instead of getting off the fence. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For admins who want to help out, WP:OAFD is a good place to start. A word of warning, there seem to be a larger than usual number of contested and messy ones in there at the moment, which might explain the backlog. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

I am coming my friend. Do not despair. A modicum of effort should make it appear like there is no backlog. W oWiTmOvEs 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The wp:AfD industry is taking over Wikipedia. We all put way too much effort into it and content building has become secondary. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

User:In ictu oculi continually spreading lies/harassing - please make him stop

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 has been going on for years and years now, and it seems to always get ignored or brushed aside. This is not another oops slip-up by In Ictu oculi. I've asked him so many times over those years to stop the lies my fingers are getting tired from typing it. A difference of opinion is one thing, we don't agree on diacritics. Now there are several conversations going on about whether wikipedia should ignore a person's own wishes and sources on how to spell their name in English. And in those conversations, once again, In ictu oculi is making personal attacks and spreading the same lies once again. I did not create WP:TENNISNAMES, I did not even !vote on creating that essay and told the editor I could not support something that didn't take into account all sourcing. In ictu oculi is closer to owning that essay as he edited it. Yet over and over again he attacks me on it with these continual fabrications: HERE and HERE. There are dozens of these off-topic attacks on me. I don't care that he disagrees with me on following a biographical person's own wishes, that's wikipedia. I do care about his continually, year after year, attacking me with fabricated nonsense. Please make him stop this ridiculous baloney and stick to the topics at hand, because I've had it with his own warped version of non-truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the type of thing I had to deal with even 3 years ago when this guy tried to round up everyone he knew to attack me. It will never end with this guy and I want it stopped this time. I will keep reporting it until I get satisfaction because I don't want his attacks and lies to get swept under another rug. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see you are frustrated, Fyunck(click), but I don't believe those diffs warrant a block. I have posted a warning on his talk page (User talk:In ictu oculi#November 2015). If this disagreement between the two of you has been going on for years over a specific set of articles, I encourage you to utilize dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm beyond pissed. But I don't want a block. That's always the last thing I want. I want it retracted and I want it to not happen again. After years and years of this same baloney from him... always leaving the topic at hand to attack me, to slide in innuendos, to link me to the page he worked on, to bring up things from years ago every chance he gets... I'm fed up. I try to turn the other check with this fabricator, but he won't let me. He's been banned from my talk page for years, Administrators have told me to try and steer clear of his antics and they'll blow over. Well they never seem to blow over. Don't block...make him STOP! I want nothing to do with him, ever, as he is 100% untrustworthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about an interaction ban? clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In looking at it, that could work. If an RM or RfC happens, it looks like we can both comment as long as we don't comment with each other or bring the other one up in any way. I assume if one of us starts the RM/RfC the other could !vote? I could go for that. Anything to stop this dude. And effectively, I do that already unless it's to defend myself when he gets way out of line. And it's better than a dispute resolution mentioned above because I will never ever assume good faith or trust this editor in any way. That boat has long since sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know it affects me also, but how do we get the ball rolling on that so I don't have to deal with this anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's a holiday in the US so I expect a slow down in implementing, but I want to make sure this stays fresh. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, you can simply propose it yourself and editors watching this page/section will chime in supporting or opposing the proposal. Then an admin will decide whether to implement the proposal based on community consensus. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:In ictu oculi, it really behooves you to comment here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies, hi. I would but experience shows that old users, ones who are familiar with the Tennis/diacritics tension of 2011-2012 are not going to take this seriously, and new users, ones who are not familiar with practice in our en.wp BLP article corpus (pick at random Category:Latvian scientists, Category:Czech writers etc.) take time to get up to speed. You see the wall of text above. Any attempt to answer it will generate an even longer wall of text. But since you request, I will do.

1. Firstly I was quite happy with admin User:Liz already having dealt with it, and I thanked Liz already. I shouldn't have said "bullshit" as linked, my bad. I said sorry, I'd already edited it down myself anyway.

2. Re the headline charge of "spreading lies/harassing" the "lie" bit appears to be that I said this:

Marin Čilić -> Marin Cilic) Oppose per WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 both of which were indirectly initiated by this editor, and had an overwhelming rejection of the idea that blogs and Twitter are reliable sources for "tennis names", or for Croatian, etc. orthography.

But there's a reason I said "indirectly". Yes look at WP:TENNISNAMES and you'll see Fyunck post 11 times on that RFC (similar WP:TENNISNAMES2) but Fyunck did not draft the tennisnames rule; that was done by another anti-diacritics editor MakeSense64 who last edited in August 2012. However the move to remove diacritics from tennis players (not just East European, but French and Spanish and even American tennisnames) was kicked off 3 July 2011 by Fyunck etc. and edits following. I'm not a tennis editor, I just spotted one of the early RMs to remove diacritics and was not impressed with some of the sentiments expressed. I looked through categories (those Category:Latvian scientists, Category:Czech writers etc.) and found that en.wp was 99% consistently using full Unicode fonts, as was tennis.

3. Re the second headline charge "continually ..harassing". It has been two years since the last attempt at an RM to restore Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović (for those not up to speed this is the one straightforward en.wp BLP title out of line with normal en.wp BLP titling practice) so "continually" is not accurate, and putting in a RM to revert a move is not usually judged "harassing". As regards the removal of -ć from article text rather than titles, that is here ANI August 2012 but also as illustrated by e.g. Basel article history Fyunck removal of -ć from Ivanović, 9 March 2012, 21 May 2013, 12 August 2013, do you see my edits on the Basel article? The 3 other editors reverting this are just rank and file editors.

4. DrMies I would now say that this is a minor trivial issue, and that this one current BLP will probably be left as a monument to tennisnames, and maybe that's how it should be. I have tried my best to be courteous, I hope that overall this is visible, and have not been accusing editors of "lies". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This may be a trivial matter to In ictu oculi, but that because he's not the one that being attacked, or has been attacked for 4 years. All someone has to do is search our names and see all the times I pleaded with him to stop fabricating things about me. To stay on topic and not drag my name through the mud every time I comment on a foreign spelling. He says I commented on the tennisnames essay 11x... so did IIO 11x... I guess that makes it his article also. I had told the original essay writer I could not support it... that I always felt we had to look at all sources when determining the spelling of a name. The RfC was "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?" The answer was "no" from those voting. You can't make it that narrow in determining anything here on wikipedia. To limit sources to one kind of source didn't fly. Why IIO keeps lying over and over in linking me to that essay I have no idea. I have told him to stop a lot...it's not an error that he's making... it a bold attack that he has gotten away with for years! I want it to stop, and stop NOW! Even now he's so sure of himself that he's done nothing wrong and will likely continue to attack me that he told the admin who asked him to comment that I'm just going to stand back and watch. He's done that a lot... get's a few people to invest time in attacking me and then sits back. He did it in the past with fellow editor... that fellow editor and I got blocked. IIO sat back unharmed. On Nov 25 IIO tried again to drag that same editor into the fray with this diff. This time that editor didn't bite. It's these types of things and his continual tennisnames crapola that led me here. I've had it with him. I will never trust him. It looks like at Talk:Ana Ivanovic another administrator is fed up with him too. Maybe it's IIO that should be topic banned from anything diacritic related such as moving pages and RM's. But all I was demanding was that he be stopped from attacking me. The others can defend themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as frivolous complaint, but advise both editors to avoid further personalization of title/style disputes. Both of these editors have a hard-core position (opposite ones) on MOS:DIACRITICS, and have been testy with each other for years, but this isn't an actionable level of animosity. If anything, the complaint here is so finger-pointy is appears itself to cross the WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded line. Repeated but unproven accusations of making "personal attacks" and engaging in "harassment", plus WP:AGF failures like "I will never trust him", are the kind of aspersion-casting covered by discretionary sanctions there (whether I think ArbCom should be interfering with internal policy discussions or not, which I don't). So, both editors should probably mutually agree to lay off each other. For starters, In ictu oculi should stop trying to "blame" Fyunck(click) for wording at the old tennis wikiproject WP:PROJPAGE, even if F(c) has tried to rely on it in past discussions, or for RfCs like WP:TENNISNAMES. If it goads F(c) that much to link him to the essay/RfCs, the obvious solution is "don't do that". Secondly, F(c) needs to stop accusing IIO of harassment, attacks, and untrustworthiness. Neither of these sound difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [Revised to correct my confusion between RFC and project page shortcuts.]

User:SMcCandlish I can completely live with that suggestion, that neither I nor anyone else ever again suggest that Fyunck was indirectly responsible for the trouble about "tennis names". But evidently we cannot ask editors to not link to two valid RFCs with landslide results. Dozens of editors contributed to WP:TENNISNAMES (an RFC which you posted) and WP:TENNISNAMES2 and these RFCs are binding until someone comes along with WP:TENNISNAMES3 to undo them. But sure, the first suggestion, if it helps, no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I was confusing TENNISNAMES with the old version of the WikiProject Tennis "guideline" (essay). I've corrected that above, and yes, it's of course reasonable to cite prior relevant RMs/RfCs. Anyway, not assigning responsibility for either is what I was getting at; it would be in keeping with the "focus on edits not editors" idea, and would help F(c) do likewise, since obviously "continually spreading lies/harassing" isn't exactly civil or focused on the content, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If IIO stops lying about and harassing me on tennis names (as he has done for years and years) then of course I will stop accusing him of lying and harassment. That goes without saying. But I've finally had it with him doing it. All I want is for him to stop. I could care less, if in discussions, people link to that dead tennisnames essay. That's normal course of action. But sorry, after 4 years all trust is used up. I'm not the one who keeps bringing up his name in discussions, that's all on IIO. If he stops, great! If it takes an IBAN great, since I pretty much do that anyway. And I keep focus on the edits, he does not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[NB: That's what we call a WP:NOTGETTINGIT response. But I'm willing to take your "let this go for now" message below at face value.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)]

If both of you could stop the "lies and harassment" talk, that would be great. In ictu oculi, it would also be helpful if you stopped dragging up the past. Reminding other editors of stuff that happened in 2011 is less than helpful. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you what. I'll take Liz, SMcCandlish and Drmies on faith. "In ictu oculi" has been warned in this episode for a personal attack and I have also shown that he tried goading others into attacking me. I will bookmark this archive. All I asked was for him to permanently stop. I was to the point after all these years of attacks that I didn't care whether I went down in flames trying to make the attacks stop. It is not trivial when it occurs over and over and over and over...for years. If it happens again I will bring this back and will be asking for a lot more. But I will drop it as of now. Let's close up shop here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 1 December 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 removal of my fact-based comments

SNUGGUMS, will you please stop your repeated premature archiving of threads? Why do you think we have a bot doing this?

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:Smallbones has twice now removed factual commentary of mine and accuses me of being a banned editor. If he wants to proceed with a background investigation of me, that's his prerogative, but until then, his editorial sweep is out of line. - Checking the checkers (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking the checkers has been identified by Jimbo Wales on his talk page as the banned editor who has harassed him for 10 years. I think this is obvious, e.g. from CtheC's editing history and his talk page. Jimbo has made clear that other editors (this is in general, though I have been named in particular) can remove edits on that page from editors who are not welcome there. This has been tested twice at ArbCom and they agree that Jimbo's "personal talk page policy" is within the rules and that he doesn't need to personally bless each removal of troll comments. BTW WP:BANREVERT applies here as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As Checking the checkers is not currently a banned editor. No it doesnt. "Jimbo says so" is not sufficient. If you feel they are a banned editor, open an SPI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:BANREVERT, so after this I will not give any further reason. Take it to ArbCom if you'd like. But see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy#Amendment_request:_Banning_Policy_.28November_2015.29, especially the comment from jimbo Wales and the Arbitrators comments and mass decline. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't we also give editos the ability to dictate what remains on their talk pages? I get that Jimbo's talk page is a different sort of talk page, but wouldn't Jimbo specifically asking that this editor's comments be removed trump pretty much everything else? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. BMK (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that Wales replied [14] to a comment it's not clear he doesn't want the guy posting. Anyone have a diff of Wale's saying so? NE Ent 01:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like him kept off my talk page, regardless of the outcome of this discussion or any other. He does nothing but troll, and I don't see any reason to put up with it. Legitimate questions are always welcome - questions asked dishonestly or with a tone of "gotcha" nonsense are just a waste of everyone's time. It is my belief that it is well past time that we introduce a quiet "block this user from my talk page" feature to help eliminate this kind of long term abuse across all of Wikipedia. Many people face this kind of thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo replied "Nail on the head" (diff) to my post describing how there is nothing helpful he can say. As Smallbones indicates above there has been lots of disruption and Arbcom involvement. Glancing at contribs confirms the diagnosis for those who have followed the pathetic gotcha trolling at Jimbo's talk for years. The banned user spends serious time and money in his campaign to show the evils of Jimbo and the WMF, and he can easily evade checkusers. It's fine if no one wants to block this account, but let's not feed him. The OP has had his fun, but he'll have to make another account in order to resume project Tell the World!. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Lemme tell you a story, Smallbones. A week or so ago there was some back-and-forth on Jimbotalk during which a person who I believed to be my friend Greg Kohs was chirping back and forth with you and Jimmy Wales. I made a comment about it in a Wikipedia thread and Greg posted a smirky little "who, meeeee???" type of post, with a mischievous glimmer in his eye. And about 30 minutes later I received a (non-viewable) personal message from somebody else entirely, another friend, who claimed total responsibility. It wasn't the dreaded Greg Kohs at all... So, Smallbones, long story short — you're not a checkuser, you're not a sock puppet investigator, and you're not an expert in behavioral psychology, nor are you the Chief Censor and Guardian of Wikipedia... You could very easily be getting trolled by a Joe Job — it wouldn't be hard to pull your chain on this topic, that's for certain. If you have a problem, start a proper Sock Puppet Investigation. Maybe it is him, maybe it isn't him. You have no way of knowing... Your pretending that you do is disruptive of the project. Let it go. Carrite (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Who cares whether the now-indeffed editor is the actual banned user or was merely emulating them? I wouldn't boast about friends like yours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 2 December 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.

Unneeded commentary. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I think we can now put Arbcom's resolution claiming to have jurisdiction over Jimbo's talk page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Proposed decision#Scope of restrictions into the garbage can where it belongs. 141.105.200.162 (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Omar-toons

[Pulled this out of the archive given the new comment by M.Bitton. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)]

Omar-toons (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor on topics related to northern Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria. Unfortunately he has a strong pro-Moroccan and anti-Algerian POV that makes it impossible for him to work constructively and collaboratively on those topics. The example that brought me here was the Sand War where Omar-toons is giving prominence to less reliable sources and for spurious reasons either removes or de-emphasizes better source. Examples include [15], [16], [17], [18]. By now there's a rather wide, policy-based consensus established on the talk page; that didn't keep him from labeling those opposing his preferred order of sources "disruptive".

That pattern of edits is not limited to a single article: [19][20], [21], [22], [23]. The standard modus operandi is to revert, possibly quoting some irrelevant policy, and to keep reverting until the other side is exhausted. In my experience talk page comments generally are short, if they're given at all, and do not address the points raised by others; they're more of a diversionary tactic than an attempt to establish a consensus.

For these reasons I'm proposing a topic ban for Omar-toons from edits related to North Africa and the Maghreb. Huon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In my defense I could say that I always try to keep it NPOV, and that disagreeing with me about the edition on one sole article isn't enough to accuse me of being a POV-pusher (I even keep it NPOV about Western Sahara, for example by considering it a separate territory from Morocco, which can be considered illegal here... just to say).

Also, I called M.Bitton "disruptive" because... actually he is. Did you take a look on his TP (in its pre-cleaning version)? He did a mess last time he intervened... [24]. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reduce Sanction to 1PR I don't think that we should TB any editor who is adding material to an article. YES his additions are POV(I have just come here from Sand war, an article I went to browse and witnessed it brim over with drama), but still he adds sources and does work. So we should just make sure that we take out the disruptive side of his contributions , and a One revert Per Day sanction should be just that. Toons can continue editing Wiki, but if he is reverted he will have to discuss it without being disruptive. Win Win for all. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And, FreeatlastChitchat : you are nor an admin nor involved, except the fact that we had some diagreements on previous articles (where you POV-pushed a lot)... so, what's your point? --Omar-toons (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm, don't know what to say here when faced with this kind of imbecility. But here goes. DUDE! I am on your frigging side here. Did you not even read my comment? It says "REDUCE SANCTION" right there at the start. Being involved with you in debates and still taking your side on this is evidence in itself that I am not INVOLVED, so whats your point? had I been involved I would have commented something like "Toons is a complete troll who routinely edit wars on Algeria related pages diff, diff, diff, diff. Ban him asap omg why isnt he banned yet. /hairpull #BanToons". So please do not look a gift horse in the mouth. @admins who judge this, my stance still remians that toon should not be topic banned. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Omar-Toons was blocked for edit-warring this time; my suggestion was going to be that we try and let regular processes play out. I can't see if an ANEW report was filed, but that, perhaps, should be done every time OT gets to edit warring--and kindly point out, in such reports, that typically OT isn't always guilty of 3R, but rather of slower edit warring. I am well aware of OT's zeal and occasional disruption, which includes ownership-style editing and very loose interpretations of policy ("You are a little bit late : all sources are kept per WP:BOLD"); for a topic ban, however, we would need more evidence from different pages. I'll have a look at Huon's second paragraph; in the meantime, I'll also ping Dougweller, who has some experience dealing with this type of problem. In the other meantime, Omar-Toons, I wish that on occasion (like, on this occasion), you could break out your most mellow and collaborative side. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Omar-toons did the exact same thing on Algerian War just signaled by User:Huon, and I have blocked him again for edit warring, now for 72 hours. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for a topic ban for a slow-moving edit war, though that's tedious enough on its own. What did it for me was a mistranslation and a misrepresentation of a source. Omar-toons adding sources is no benefit if the sources don't say what he claims they say. Huon (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that Omar-toons has used multiple accounts in a very deceitful manner and somehow, managed to cover his tracks. He created Omar-Toons (with capital "T") on April 2010. A few months later (October 2010), he created another account with very similar spelling, Omar-toons (with lower-case "t", the one he still uses). He used both accounts at the same time such as here and here (as usual, either removing sources and claiming that the statement is unsourced or adding WP:OR). After numerous blocks, including one for socking using IP [25], his account Omar-Toons (with capital "T") was finally globally locked for massive crosswiki edit-warring on July the 29th, 2012 [26]. To hide his tracks, on the 30th of July 2012 (less than 24 hours after his global block), he created a third account TooNs-NC, claimed a forgotten password (obviously, he could not log in since he was blocked), redirected Omar-Toons (with capital "T") page [27] and talk page [28] to it (even though, he had no right to mess with a blocked account). Three hours later, after a couple of contributions, he archived the pages and redirected them to Omar-toons (he shelved the temporary account, claiming it was a bad idea to create it). He also added "formerly Omar-Toons (with capital T)" to his page[29] knowing full well that When you click on it, you get redirected to the new page and won't notice anything unusual. @Huon, Drmies, and FreeatlastChitchat: How do you deal with such devious practice? Is a topic ban enough in this case? M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Doesn't evading a global lock warrant an indef block? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Omar-Toons Fences&Windows 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's block evasion and sockpuppetry, which automatically should see the socks indeffed. Huon (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite, you indeffed capital T in 2012. Any comments? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction: you blocked them for socking. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of articles from establishment by place categories.

User:Spacini has repeatedly removed articles such as 119th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment from categories such as Category:1862 establishments in Illinois claiming these are "Unneccesary categories". The articles clearly state that these units were organized at a certain place in a certain year. Of there last 50 edits, 49 have been such unjustified removals of place/year categories. It seems to me if they disagree with such categories this is a matter that should be brought up as a category discussion, not by unilaterally removing categories. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=119th_Illinois_Volunteer_Infantry_Regiment&diff=prev&oldid=693294807 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=116th_Indiana_Infantry_Regiment&diff=prev&oldid=693294776 This is very disruptive and an unjustified undermining of the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WikiBulova

WikiBulova (talk · contribs · count) appears upset that me and other editors did not appreciate his/her copy&paste creation of new list-type articles (List of newspapers in Karachi, List of magazines in Karachi, List of radio stations in Karachi, List of television stations in Karachi), all being a selective copy-paste of existing artciles (List of newspapers in Pakistan, List of magazines in Pakistan, List of radio stations in Pakistan, List of television stations in Pakistan), and in apparent revenge went on to revert anything I edited on Wikipedia in the last 24 hours.[30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. I politely pointed out to the editor the reasons behind my edits to the lists,[35] and requested undoing his/her edits, but he/she does not appear to have understood this. Thank you to intervene. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this user has engaged in (and been warned for) retaliatory editing—see [36] [37] [38] [39]. (TLDR version: I fixed one of their cut-and-paste moves and left a polite note informing them about this and about the correct procedure for moving pages. They responded by accusing me of threats, and then filed a spurious edit warring report on me at WP:AN3.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think copying within Wikipedia says to give attribution to the parent article in edit summary or on talk page of article even while copying something from other Wikipedia articles. This editor seems to be not giving any attribution to his/her copy paste articles. Also he/she should read WP:SIZESPLIT before making any sub-articles related to same issue. Specially his this behaviour seems to be very disruptive, though he self-reverted himself. --Human3015^TALK  20:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the editor saw in my edit history that I edited Kashmir Railway and decided to inflict some damage.[40]. Childish, to say the least. kashmiri ^TALK 09:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

2.86.255.196

2.86.255.196 continues to silently removed condensed box office values at 2015 in film, most recently here, despite having received two warnings about edit warring, along with my clear explanation that consensus already exists for the condensed values. Further, I've pointed out to them twice that a discussion is already in place at Talk:2015 in film, which they have not participated in. The article had recently been protected to foster dialogue, but the IP editor failed to participate. Other edits of the same kind from the IP: [41][42][43][44] Looks to me like the user is determined to get his way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that six minutes after I notified him that an ANI case was open on him, he again submitted his preferred version after another editor had reverted him. Clearly disruptive behavior, and he has crossed 3RR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I placed a 3RR warning on the IPs talk page. Regardless of the content involved (which I'm not taking a position on at this time as I'm about to logoff and haven't had time to review positions on each side about the content), edit warring is not acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Spammer

PicoRobin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems like a single-purpose account for spamming one url, and trying to disguise it as a valid source. Eik Corell (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't appear as though s/he has edited since you left him/her a warning. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editor removing Star Citizen from List of most expensive games to develop

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.

---

Someone (IP: 75.156.66.139) is continuously removing this game from the list of most expensive games to develop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop), based on these false arguments:

- Game is unfinished (Irrelevant fact to be removed from that list as the list itself doesn't have in mind the current status of a game, the game is currently work-in-progress, and there are also other unfinished/cancelled games on that list that he doesn't care about in the slightest, proof that he's only a SC hater).

- Numbers doesn't represent the amount destined to the development of the game (False: the SC devs have stated many times that the funds in the linked Stretch Goals page goes exclusively to the development of the game (1) (2). Other marketing and event stuff is handled by donations from subscribers (3) ).

(1) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals , quote: "As a crowd funded project, Star Citizen's scope is based directly on the support provided by our backers. Money pledged goes directly to the game's development."

(2) "10 for the Chairman, Episode 69" YouTube video , (minute 4:45), quote from SC's creator and chairman as of 9, Nov 2015: "We're not doing the typical commercials. We're taking all the money we've raised, and put it into the development of the game".

(3) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/subscriptions

Even knowing the truth, he keeps removing the game from that list. Thus I ask if that guy can be banned from editing this page any further. Thank you.

P.D: I'm afraid I have no idea about how to use the ANI-notice. Any help about that would be appreciated :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the IP user. But this looks like a content dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked 75.156.66.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to discuss this on the talk page. Kurt, before going to AN/I you should have opened a discussion on their talk page and on the article talk about the edit, not immediately about blocking them. It is irritating when this happens, but if you don't explain on the talk pages why the content should be kept and why repeatedly removing it is not OK then an admin can hardly take action this early into a disagreement. I have now warned them that they may be blocked if they continue to remove Star Citizen. Fences&Windows 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Am, sorry. I'm a complete noob in this :) Thanks for notifying him for me thou. I also wrote the reason why it shouldn't be removed on the Talk page, but I'm gonna update it with this version (which is more complete). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you not call the IP editor a "Star Citizen hater" or any other pejorative. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and could result in your own temporary block if it continues. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed as well, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Brief note: I believe I've corrected the mass of unsigned comments and refactoring at Talk:List of most expensive video games to develop and posted a warning to KurtMaverick concerning refactoring/deleting the talk page comments of other editors, which he has done twice on this topic in the last two days. -- ferret (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is under discussion on article talk page, so I suppose request here can be closed. Sir Lothar (talk) 14:29, 3 December 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 uncivil conduct; requesting mediation

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.

---

• HuntClubJoe (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Contributor has possibly engaged in uncivil behaviour on their talk page. [45] It is requested that a party not involved in discussion mediate or weigh-in on the matter so as to help deescalate situation.

Background: This is an out-crop from (extremely minor and trivial) dispute involving addition of advert tag to Rogers Communications article. This resulted in comments left on talk page of Raysonho, found here; to which myself [46] and that contributor [47] responded. After this, I also left a reply on talk page of HuntClubJoe, stating that uncivil behaviour is unwelcome within the project and encourage them to behave civilly. [48] (I replied to the first-linked possible incivility about 30 minutes ago and that diff may be found here)

-- dsprc ^[talk] 14:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've warned the editor about personal attacks and asked them to redact it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary and can be requested at the dispute resolution noticeboard or requests for formal mediation. Civility is not optional and one editor has been warned. If the editors want to resolve a content dispute, they can request mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2015‎

@Robert McClenon: WP:DRN says in header with bold text it is to only be used for disputes on content. AN/I seems to be the only venue as ingress point for conduct-related matters. Formal mediation (and most other routes) require preceding options to have already been explored and/or exhausted before raising issues within, and escalating to, those particular venues. Gotta love (loathe?) all that red-tape! Berean Hunter handled the matter perfectly (a simple "Hey, cut it out" was sufficient action at this juncture). -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dsprc - You said that there was uncivil conduct and you were requesting mediation. Maybe you made the good-faith mistake of labeling a request for an admin warning, which was given, as a request for mediation. You are correct that DRN is for content disputes. Mediation is for content disputes. Maybe this has been taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad move
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If not one of you idiots have the wherewithal to say something about the actual CONTENT, you can block the shit out of me. WP has become a cesspool of corporate trolls, and people like myself who can't afford to invest 100 hours a month fighting it are helpless to do anything but watch it swirl the fucking bowl. WP:3RR is what, only for people like me who can't pull out all the procedural stops to fuck others over? OK. Peace the fuck out. PS: You can look at my record of edits. Though not as voluminous as some here, they are stellar and, with two notable exceptions (by troll jerkoffs User:Dsprc and User:Earl Andrew), unchallenged. I tried to contribute to this project, but all I get is shit on. Fuck you all, you lot of keyboard warriors. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Apparently, that offends you more than the whoring out of WP. Jesus Christ. Be sure to hold your collective breath for a redaction! LMAO!HuntClubJoe (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:39, 4 December 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.

Editor excluding widely reported undisputed religion of San Bernardino Shooter

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 being threatened by User:Cwobeel with [49] with discretionary sanctions for reinserting a neutral statement noting the shooter's religion in with other biographical information. [50] [51] The statement was previously last removed by an editor now blocked for edit warring over this exact point. [52]. Could an uninvolved Admin look into this please. See these discussions [53] [54], [55] maybe other sections too. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to avoid mentioning the shooter's religion, which has been widely reported, and which is starting to figure heavily in the investigation. It is not irrelevant information, and Cwobeel should know better. And this view is coming from a person (me) who has been known to remove listings of religion from infoboxes when there is nothing in the article to support it; i.e. I have no prejudice for or against including religion, it all depends on the circumstance and the relevance. We do our readers no service by excluding pertinent information because of political correctness. BMK (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this is not a normal content dispute which would simply require time and consensus building to solve? --Jayron32 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jayron. I agree this forum is being hijacked by users who are using it for petty arguments (I'm the brunt of 2 such accusations here myself). What I personally would like to see is some consensus (not here) on whether or not citing a figure's religion can or cannot be mentioned irrespective of whether or not they specifically stated it as the motives for their actions. I'm finding this topic to be very selective and think there should be a wikipedia standard in one direction or another...but agree this is not the forum for it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

While only tangentially related, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality provides some useful guiding principles. While it does deal only specifically with assigning categories to articles, some of the principles therin could perhaps be generalized to article text where there is an impasse in trying to find general guidance. However, written policy, whether direct or indirectly related, rarely overrides broad consensus. The most important principle is that, while reliable sources are a necessary condition for a fact to be added, they are not sufficient to prevent it from being excluded. This sort of "necessary but not sufficient" thinking is very important in consensus building discussions: We do need to prove a concept is reliably sourced; but after that there ALSO needs to be consensus (sometimes as simple as "consensus by lack of objection", but in this case we're looking for a more overt consensus by affirmation), in the sense that people need to agree that the referenced fact is relevent on top of being referenced. If consensus is that it isn't relevant to the article, the fact that it is reliably sourced doesn't mean much at all. Now, that is not being specific on this case. Consensus may find it is very relevant. But these are things that need to be discussed and negotiated every time, and are NOT something which can be solved by having some policy statement in place ahead of time. It does need to be discussed, and given time to work out, every time, so long as there is a good-faith difference of opinion. If there is, you just need to let consensus develop, and that does not happen instantly. I hope this general guidance helps frame the ongoing discussion better. I have no pony in this race, I'm just trying to provide all parties with some guidance on how civil discourse among differing opinions is supposed to work. --Jayron32 04:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to discuss here - just looking for an uninvolved Admin to look into the content dispute and resolve it (there is no RfC but similar idea). This article is one of the highest traffic on the site currently, and the issue of the topic is dominating the news (see CNN.com for example) Better not let this drag on for weeks. I see clear consensus one way... but an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Start an RFC. Don't edit war. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I was also threatened by this user in the same manner, for making one single edit to that page to restore the removal of facts that were properly cited regarding the shooter's religion. [56] This is the first time in over a decade of contributions to Wikipedia that I have been threatened insulted in this manner. --Dan East (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What makes this not just a content dispute is the possibility -- not yet shown to be true -- that an editor is using Discretionary Sanction notices as a tool to enforce a specific POV about what should and should not be in the article. If that is true, it is a misuse of the DS notice. I would suggest that (1) Cwobeel stop putting DS notices on the talk pages of editors who think that the shooter's religion should be noted, or put DS notices on the talk pages of all editors involved with this dispute; and (2) Cwobeel should participate in this discussion and disclose the thinking behind their actions. It's perfectly possible that Cwobeel's actions have been misinterpreted or misunderstood, so it would serve them and the community well to hear form them. BMK (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (Comment edited for correction: Cwobeel is not an admin.) BMK (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I do see disruptiveness on Cwobeel's part there. There's enough discussion on the talk page favoring including the person's religion in the article that one can observe a consensus without a formal rfc or wikilawyering. Unless I missed something, there's no actual content- or source- based opposition on the talk page to including it. There's just some BURO saying it should be discussed first, which it has been. And Cwobeel has reverted the info at least 3 times.[57][58][59] The earlier reverts might be more defendable than the later ones, since the sourcing has become more extensive in the past day or so. However, I agree that the DS notices in this situation are obnoxious and come across as threatening. Cwobeel, please give it a rest. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have placed notices to alert several editors of discretionary sanctions related to the BLP topic. That was not done to enforce a POV, but to alert those users that may not be aware of these sanctions. The OP may be attempting to use this board to resolve a content dispute, instead of continuing the discussion (about which there is yet no emerging consensus) per WP:DR. AN/I is not the venue for content disputes. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#Devout Muslim edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that section shows no consensus at all; in fact, the stronger arguments lie with the removers right now. Verified, possibly; relevant in an encyclopedia, not necessarily. Since motive is still not clear, the role of his faith is equally unclear, and while the tabloids and Twitter seem to know exactly why he did what he did, we can't speculate. I note that Robert Lewis Dear is supposedly Christian, evangelical--but neither his article (now up at AfD) nor 2015 Colorado Springs shooting mention this. This is one problem with a million editors who don't care about NOTNEWS: we have to jump to conclusions and follow whatever is tweeted and blogged and reported. Jehochman, you suggested an RfC, but we seem to have no time for such niceties. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, are you looking at the same talk page as I am? I don't see anyone supporting removal. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't know what you're looking at, but let me just namecheck General_Ization, 24.130.189.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Cwobeel, ParkH.Davis, ATinySliver, Epicgenius, all of whom have at the least expressed reservations. BTW, this does not mean I agree with any strongarming, if that's indeed what Cwobeel did. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I see, you're looking at the earlier sections [60] and maybe [61]. I was only looking at the more recent [62] and [63]. I'd tend to put more weight on the later contributions due to new reporting of the FBI claiming the guy may have been radicalized by talking to people on a terror watchlist, and extensive secondary sourcing from the last day or so interpreting the religion angle (there were fewer such sources available earlier), plus the info that one of the shooting victims was an islamophobe who the guy had a beef with.[64] But ok, fine, if there's still uncertainty then yeah, talk it out. I'd suggest putting a note at the bottom of the talk page linking to the discussion that is happening way further up the page. Alternatively, move the discussion to the bottom. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I see more than a 2:1 consensus for including their religion.
• I made one single edit to the page. So are you saying that you are posting discretionary sanctions notices to every single editor to that page? Or only the ones that do not share your point of view? Either way it is clearly misuse and bullying on your part. --Dan East (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the OP has reverted to his preferred version [65] two hours after he posted this thread, instead of allowing consensus to emerge. While I understand the reasons for wanting that information included, there are other opinions expressed in talk page discussions that are relevant and significant enough to allow for consensus to emerge. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that this edit can speak in favor of inclusion. But what I see on that talk page is too much "it's verified so it's in", and a few things that are just totally speculative--"he went to Saudi-Arabia so he must be a Muslim and a terrorist", to paraphrase. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Even the usually left leaning CNN is reporting that Farook was a Muslim and that officials indicate that he was "radicalized" and had contact with someone on the FBI terrorist watch list. [66]--MONGO 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Left-leaning CNN? Aw Mongo, you so sweet... Drmies (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Clinton News Network? Lol. I loved yesterday how they kept trying as long as they could to spin it as a case of "workplace violence"...completely jumping to conclusions about the motivations with nary a thought about neutrality. Compared to the oft claimed Fox News as right leaning, of course CNN is left leaning in comparison.--MONGO 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for after starting [67] and there is another discussion too [68], responses to which confirmed the need for basic religion info in the midst of other bio info. Please don't name check an editor on 24 hr block over this issue. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• How about the Wall Street Journal.[69]...why wouldn't it be okay to indicate that the shooters were Muslim? Major news sources have no issue with it.--MONGO 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Or Canada's CTVNews which covers his faith from a variety of points [70]. I'm not anti-muslim, I'm just trying to get the article to reflect the sources in a CREDIBLE way. I'm also not seeing anyone posting anything like "he went to Saudi-Arabia so he must be a Muslim and a terrorist", - perhaps I missed that. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of DS notices to enforce POV - since the question was raised by User:Drmies and BMK these are the pairs I could find - which seems to me to contradict his stated purpose above:

• Reverts User:Tdl1060 [71] and hits them with DS template[72] right after
• User:Dan East restores [73] his deletion of Muslim reference and he gets a DS template [74]
• Reverts my addition [75] and 6 edits later puts DS on my talk page [76]
• According to him "We don't template experienced editors." [77]. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I was name-checked above, I'll leave this here: IMO, the article is about the event, not its perpetrators, and the argument that Farook's religion is merely biographical fails on that basis alone. More importantly, until and/or unless it is determined that his religion is a factor in the event, it fails SYNTH and UNDUE. My opinion would be the same were he Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Jedi. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If we split the bio info into Bio articles over the current redirects for the perps you would be ok with including religion then? Cause at Boston Marathon Bombing that is what happened and the dispute over including faith was short lived. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue of this thread though should return to how Cwobeel, who has been blocked five times for edit warring over similar issues, is going around slapping discretionary sanctions warnings on any user that disagrees with his edits, even though the article talkoage already has that boilerplate atop it.--MONGO 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ATinySliver, there is now plenty of secondary sourcing discussing the religious angle and its (possible) significance. It may turn out to be wrong, but by now it's sufficiently notable that it can be documented anyway per NPOV. That can be done without a trace of SYNTH: are you saying it still shouldn't be?. Similarly, media and LE reporting during the attack said there were 3 shooters, but there were later determined to be just two. As I see it, that too is also notable and should be in the article. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible significance is not significance per NOTNEWS, and can be added at any time its significance is established per NODEADLINE. Even then, an RS would need to establish that Islamist extremism was appealing because he's Muslim (extremists appeal to people of all stripes, religious or non) or we violate SYNTH. On that note specifically, the "plenty of secondary sourcing" I've seen comprises family and co-workers saying he was (or used to be) devout, as if contrary to, not explanatory of, his actions; Muslim leaders engaging in what appears to me to be preemptive damage control; and investigators saying there may—as in, may not—be ties to Islamist extremists. This again points to synthesizing from his religion that he was somehow more susceptible to the message than a non-Muslim. All of this may turn out to be fully accurate, or it may not—and, hell, that invokes CRYSTAL to boot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

All this said, in context within the paragraph, I would not have an objection to the likes of "His father and co-workers described Farook as devoutly religious." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No there should be no synthesis. Just report what the secondary sources say, including summarizing whatever interpretations they give, and they have given some. The article has an NPOV failure if stuff like this is missing. The media response to that report is notable in its own right.[78] 173.228.123.101 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO that the DS notices are combative. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, I don't think there should be a separate bio article for now, per BLP1E. The biographical info (unless a lot more emerges) should stay in the article about the shooting. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That much is absolutely correct. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Cwobeel for 24 hours for misuse of DS notices. Max Semenik (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:Lecen in my 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.

---

Hello.

I come here to denounce the conduct of the user User:Lecen. As of the December 4, 2015, I uploaded on commons a historical map with sufficient references to corroborate its verifiability. The file in question is File:Brazil (1822).svg.

He and I discussed if the map is wrong or not, and towards the end of the discussion, that user started referring to me with extreme rudeness and childish insults, as you can see here in my talk page, breaking the policy of civility.

This user had a history of hostility towards me, and not wanting to measure our positions, as you can see here. As you notice, that user only considers one point of view, his own poin of view, and he does not allow a decent and consistent debate on differences of ideas.--Shadowxfox (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as personal attacks go, that is... as mild as they come. I think you need some thicker skin. --Tarage (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing to this. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 4 December 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.

a 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.

---

There appears to be a virus in a link at the bottom of the article on Sally Grossman, Albert Grossman's wife. It looks like an "official site" link to the recording label Bear (something) -- don't click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.8.220 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see any External, or clickable, links on the page other than the ISBN - are you sure you are looking at this on en.wikipedia.org, and not a mirror site? - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The link on her page to the wp article on Bearsville Records -- then on that article (not on hers -- my error) -- way at the bottom it says "official site". That's it. Don't click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.8.220 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So it's actually not the Sally Grossman article, it's the Bearsville Records article where the bad link is to be found. It looks like it's been there since May, but I do get a "malicious content" warning if I click it (my Mac is properly protected). I've replaced it with the real Bearsville Records link, and I'll check all the edits done by the editor who added it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

All checked and no more occurrences. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 4 December 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.

---

• There's 4 more links to that site.[79] I may try to fix but it would be great if someone else beat me to it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Got them all. Given the "TR-i ("Todd Rundgren interactive")" thing mentioned at Todd Rundgren it seems like it might once have been genuine, but it's anyone's guess what's happened to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just looking around, Todd Rundgren's Facebook shows it as his URL, so it may well have been hacked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 4 December 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:දයාන් ද අල්විස්

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 intervention needs for a user දයාන් ද අල්විස් (talk · contribs). He/she is keen to remove and alternate information against fact and references. Also, user claims some of us who do patrol as racist. See Tamil Racism on Wikipedia. The user removes user warning templates too. No point of placing templates on user's page due to users react. If so, it would have passed final warning. Please do check the users contribution. --AntanO 16:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they are already blocked. Pretty name though. HighInBC 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. This and this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 6 December 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.

More Flickrwashing

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.

---

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

After File:Samantha Katz biography photo 2015.jpg was deleted as missing evidence of permission, user apparently created an impostor Flickr account, uploaded the file there with a public domain mark (not a valid license anyway) and re-uploaded file here as File:Samantha Katz Bio Photo.jpg, sourcing it to bogus Flickr account. Kelly ^hi! 15:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the photo and warned the user. I will watch. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 5 December 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.

Just a quick block 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.

---

Could someone quickly block this new single-purpose disruptive account? Its destroying numerous articles, using fake edit summaries, adding unsourced material, in the typical fashion thats always done on the targeted articles (changing "Persian" in "Turkish" and/or "Azerbaijani" as well as "Azerbaijanifying" everything). Most likely another sock that one can see bunny-hopping by every few weeks on the same targeted articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No admin awake at this time? :) - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking now, but you'll have to excuse me as I'm not familiar with this editor. Can you point out explicitly some of the problematic edits and why they're a problem? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC).

No problem. He's changing names, distorting history, making unsourced changes, all with fake edit summaries, in a similar fashion as the already 100 blocked socks and reverted edits by single-purpose accounts just like him on the same article, and articles directly related to it.[80]-[81]-[82]-[83]. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC) He just violated 3RR numerous times as well, but I'm not gonna report him there as well. He should be summarily blocked by whichever admin is available, as he's a disruptive single-purpose account clearly not meant to be here.

Yes, he needs to go. Apart from the blatent nationalism, and removal of all mentions of Persia, he seems to think Safavid is a place not a Persian dynasty. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It really looks like a total circus show now, but still not a block... - LouisAragon (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Whoever they are, they're not new. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 4 December 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.

Censorship of religious phrases and words in usernames and abuse by administrators

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.

---

• Pinging: @The Anome, Ohnoitsjamie, and Rklawton:. Swarm ♠ 06:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A group of us are starting the Wikiproject Satanism. A number of us are related to current in the news Satanic organizations such as The Satanic Temple we recently created (last 24 hours). It was long overdue and we were suprised it wasn't online.

Members started adding recent events and protests to applicable arties (with reasonable or better sources) including:

Mass (liturgy)

Fred Phelps

St. Junípero Serra

The Satanic Temple

Lucien Greaves (admins rushed it into deletion even though it had valid references and person notability; he's on CCN tonight (was supposed to be interviewed at 9:00 EST).

The first admin Rklawton decided to remove ALL of Barfbag666's content posted (with valid citations) arbitrarily. Having not known the process and it was quite apparent he appeared singling Barfbag666 out, Barfbag666 complained on his (Rklawton) user talk. These were some of Barfbag666's first edits in quite a while, and spent a lot of time on them and figuring out syntax. Barfbag666 should have posted on the talk on pages impacted and not his; wrong place. Barfbag666 didn't know the process however the complaints were valid. The articles Barfbag666 posted had extensive notability Lucien Greaves for example, and Barfbag666 wanted to build the "leaf" pages while others built The Satanic Temple page.

If you haven't checked the news the TST is all over the place and so is Lucien Greaves

Barfbag666 didn't put a lot of effort in Lucien's article, but knew his notability, provided valid links. Barfbag666 needed peers to help edit and was in the process of getting help elsewhere. It was obvious based on conversation Rklawton was near clueless about how in the news the TST and Lucien; practically ignorant on the topic. He thought Barfbag666's articles were "vandalism" whereas they were directly supported by rather large news reports and sites; they were very notable and supported.

When Rklawton's attack failed due to Barfbag666 providing rather extensive sources; magically the username Barfbag666 was blocked claiming it violated TOS and in particular "disruptive" (rather subjective). Barfbag666 stated a "barfbag" (otherwise synonymous with Sick bag) is nothing offensive, disruptive, or the numbers 666; it's a significant number to Satanism. Another admin The Anome decided to team up and come to Rklawton's failed ignorant efforts. The Anome may have performed the original block, we hunch in kahoots due to timing. Satanism isn't always pleasant however a barf (space) bag is just a bag similar to that of a brown paper lunchbag. In fact, it can be kind of humerous which last i checked wasn't against TOS. The Anome stepped in and basically didn't listen to reason, He also made an irrelevant sexual reference to emetophile suggesting Barfbag666 may get off sexually on the concept of vomit. Was i offended? Maybe, maybe not but it shows a double standard. Barfbag666 just kind of stepped away in disgust for the two (kind of three) admins and obvious bias and Witch-hunting.

So a related friend HAILXSATANX666 creates a new account to continue Barfbag666's work starting with the actual The Satanic Temple then adding content to Junípero Serra per relatively recent events however including valid references. Not too much after The Anome was apparently stalking a few of the pages Barfbag666 was working on and places a similar name ban on HAILXSATANX666 and removing valid content.

A huge justification was given primarily out of HAILXSATANX666's name is just a religious greeting/goodbye phrase one would say to another Satanist or well, anyone really. It's like a Christian saying "God Bless" greeting or saying goodbye. Again, the number 666 was added this time more or less because HAIL SATAN was already taken. However, the HAIL SATAN text in a pen name is desired. Obviously the concern with Barfbag666 based on the logged talk was "Barfbag" and didn't appear to be the "666". Therefore the admin The Anome has a personal problem with "HAILXSATANX"; again a outright cherished religious phrase used when saying hello, goodbye, "right on", "kick ass", "yeah buddy", type celebratory moments. Ref Hail_Satan It's documented as part of our religion!

1. The Anome violated unblocking guidelines Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Block_reviews by performing the unblock review expeditiously him/herself demonstrating bias.
2. The Anome took one sentence in the whole argument out of context saying my omission of "might" be distruptive to a few was grounds enough for his self block (and unblock review reject) when HAILXSATANX666 was obviously saying "not all usernames people will approve/like"; since mine is 100% religous not everyone may be disturbed by it just as any other differing religious word such as "GOD" "JESUS", "ALLAH", "LOKI", "BLESS" whatever... Anything religious in a username is likely to make someone cringe that doesn't like that religion. HAILXSATANX666 is not sorry for expressing a religious citation of Hail_Satan just as a Christian wouldn't God Bless. Therefore there's a double standard if people aren't getting booted for similar actions based on their faith which is probably not in line with Wikipedia cultural whatever... Mind you over all of this both users above were adding VALID CITED content and not vandalizing articles. What HAILXSATANX666 was trying to do is give a NPOV admitting "yeah, the name isn't something say a Christian would like, but that's just out of ignorance which nobody has to pander for" but in kind of a civil way. However interpreted it as an agreement with the disruptive claim; it wasn't.

What kind of happened is HAILXSATANX666 and Barfbag666 walked into a room with Pentagrams on their shirts, and likely pages that were going up, and needed to repaired noted above everyone wears Cross's. So logically everyone in the room is going to rate a pentagram and symobols of Satanism offensive out of ignorance that Atheistic Satanists deal with everyday and kind of the overall backing of the Satanic movement currently in the U.S.

1. (3 - I couldn't get the numbering to contine, i'm still learning wiki syntax) Finally another admin steps in and gives a rude "get out" edit note. OhNoitsJamie The she also compared the username Barfbag666 to HAILXSATANX666. 666 is "common" leaving Barfbag = HAILXSATANX in this arbitrary "disruption". This is obviously a religious discrimination viewpoint that has no place on wikipedia nor should naive administrators get involved in saying either, and in particular HAILXSATANX666's name is disruptive. Anyone could go around saying "Hail Satan" in a library long as i'm not screaming it being intentionally offensive or disruptive. Saying it to a friend at a table is acceptable; if a few tables they're offended that's just their ignorance. Those people should probably read a few Satanic Wiki's we're making. A satanist might name their own kid "Satan" so that leaves "Hail" the "disruptive" term. It's just foolish by said admin's above to discriminate like this.

What are we Satanists asking?

• Restore both accounts, both writers are eager to contribute to Satanism.
• Provide appropiate coaching to these particular wikipedia administrators and others this behavior and religious censorship is not acceptable.

Or.

• Give guidance on the use of religious words as not allowed or words / letters used.
• the letter "t" should no longer be allowed as if that person walked into a room of Satanists, we'd be "distrupted". No "t"'s.
• Be careful not to use fonts that make other letters look like crosses. \
• Maybe even biblical names are not appropriate either like Joseph or Mary?

For additional info just see the two user talk pages in question. Either or Satanism is being given an unfair shake here and wikipedia articles. WP:GREATWRONGS as OhNoitsJamie doesn't apply here. There's a lot of people that are looking to put Satanism in articles where they belong. Just because other religious organizations got there first doesn't mean this is some kind of impenetrable first come first serve game.

Pardon the poor grammar, it's late and i need to get to bed. These admin's have wasted enough of our time.

I'd add OhNoitsJamie on the notice but she's goofed around with her edit/talk functions and i don't have time to jump through (assuming) her hoops. Someone be so kind to do it as it's wasting a lot of mine messing with her abnormal registering process. Have her fix it and i'll submit it. I'm not sure any other avenue to fight this nonsense.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be high, but not THAT HIGH, so I'd just like to ask the simple question. @ILOVESATAN666 is this for real? or are you just trolling around? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IMHO HAILXSATANX666 and ILOVESATAN666 should be allowed as user names as ILOVEJESUS or LOVETHELORD would be allowed. Additionally please see this discussion on religious messages in signatures[84]. I never got an answer to my question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Honestly, in the context of Satanism those usernames are not inherently inappropriate or unreasonable and should not be blocked simply for being related to Satanism. The notion that "barfbag" is a blockworthy username seems like a stretch. I will also point out something that most people don't understand: Satanism is 100% a real thing, and it is not about actually worshipping Satan but more so about free expression, religious equality and rationalism. Satanism is certainly notable and widely covered by reliable sources. As such, the topic should absolutely be tolerated for expansion on Wikipedia, and self-proclaimed Satanists should not be blocked nor their contributions suppressed as "trolling". If they're actually editing constructively and in good faith, they should be allowed to do so freely and mistakes/disputed edits should be coached with ample warnings given, just like dealing with any other newcomer. These editors do appear to be in good faith and while they haven't been entirely unproblematic, I don't think they've warranted an indefinite block. I will be inclined to unblock unless anyone can present evidence of clear abuse intolerable from any newcomers. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. I think that the UAA reports (if any), as well as the blocking of those usernames, were legitimate. Everyone involved were legitimately acting within the capacity of their roles, believed that the usernames were in violation of UPOL, and that blocking them was the right thing to do. Before I read this AIV thread, shoot I probably would have done the same thing. Per UPOL, do these usernames show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia? No. Do they contain or imply personal attacks? Again, the answer is no. Now this is where the grey area begins... Do the usernames seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling")? If I saw these usernames, I would have originally thought so. But when I paused for a second to think it over, as well as read this ANI, I quickly realized that the answer is no; it's not an unambiguous attempt to troll or anger others. Could usernames be created containing the word "Satan" or other words reverencing satanism that are intended to troll? Yes, but the usernames centered in this ANI thread do not. The last username policy is where the center of the debate lies: Are these usernames likely to offend other contributors? Absolutely. However, I 100% agree and acknowledge those that have mentioned usernames containing other religious figures such as 'Jesus', 'God', 'Allah', and the like. All of these usernames fall into the same category; they reference religious figures, and can offend other editors and viewers - not just due to the context of the username, but simply due to the mention of these figures at all. Think of the words "Holocaust" or "Hitler" - the words themselves are enough to emotionally "light some fires". Either all usernames that reference religious figures should be allowed, or none of them at all - provided that they do not violate any other UPOL policies. On a side note, I feel that it is important to mention that editors with these kinds of usernames will probably experience more difficulty than others with community trust, reception, AGF, etc. If it were me, I wouldn't choose a username that could/would draw negative attention to myself, and I really don't recommend it. However, if these editors choose to make these kinds of usernames, and they acknowledge the potential hardship that may result from that choice, I say it's fine with me. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

I agree that both sets of names -- i.e. ILOVESATAN etc. and ILOVEJESUS etc. -- should be treated exactly the same, which is that they should be disallowed. The relevant section of the username policy is "Disruptive usernames":

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are disruptive or offensive:

• Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities or referencing controversies.
• Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks.
• Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").
• Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Both sets of usernames in question violate three of the four criteria for determining a disruptive username, and on that basis should be disallowed.

However, as long as any articles on Satanism are properly sourced and strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about them. As long as the editors in question have acceptable usernames, they should be able to edit freely, with the understanding that their edits are most likely going to be highly scrutinized for bias. BMK (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How are they disruptive? Nobody has banned the users CrucifiedChrist, Jesus Saves!, A guy saved by Jesus, Jesus Lover, JesusFreak89, Jesus loves me very much, BengaliHindu, Trust on ALLAH, Allah is great, Aquib American Muslim, AtheistIranian or the any number of usernames based on Bible verses ie Psalm84. Until there is a specific rule saying usernames with religious or anti-religious connotations are disruptive, I don't see why they should be banned because someone somewhere could possibly be offended by that particular religion. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not a "safe space." —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, and those accounts, if they have edited, should all also be forced to change usernames, as they are WP:POLEMICal, likely to offend many people, intended to produce an emotional effect, and intended to make a political or religious statement, which is disruptive of editing on Wikipedia. What you believe is not offensive is not the criteria here, it is, as quoted above "likely to offend other contributors." I, for one, am offended by people proclaiming their religious beliefs on a non-sectarian project to create a NPOV encyclopedia, just as I would be -- and am -- offended by Nazi-based usernames, Communist-based usernames, usernames which proclaim the superiority of one country or one type of people over another, or usernames which defame groups of people. None of these are acceptable, and all are totally unnecessary given the near infinite number of possible names available. The disruptiveness of these names is manifest in the reactions to them detailed above. BMK (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't bring up WP:Wikipedia is not censored, that applies only to articles and other encyclopedia content, not to usernames. BMK (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to weigh in here a little, given that I'm involved with this. I admit that I'm a little uncomfortable with the blocks. While sure, as a Christian, admin, and a general Wikipedia editor, I can see where their usernames might make other people uncomfortable - especially given that we've had vandals in the past with similar-ish names. (Names that resemble things you’d see on a fanfiction site also tend to set off “NOTHERE” pings.) However as Wikimandia states, we have plenty of other editors that have indicated their religion in their username and there is apparently no rule against having religiously themed usernames. That's a discussion for another day and honestly, I doubt that there will ever be a policy against religious usernames because that could potentially infringe on the religious rights of the individuals. We could probably add a bit about religiously themed usernames that are clearly oriented at promotion (names of churches), are too broad (like someone trying to name themselves "Christianity"), or contain obvious content that would be seen as threatening or trolling (like "AllFemalesShouldBeCircumcised"), but we already sort of have policies in place for that. I'm aware that what is seen as offensive or trolling is subjective, however at the same time we have to exercise extreme caution. It's entirely possible that someone showing up with a seemingly offensive username could be making a genuine statement about their faith, so we need to weigh the username against their edits. As Swarm put it, the names are not inherently inappropriate. Would I recommend that anyone sign up with a religiously themed username? No, since that tends to make them a bit more of a target because of pre-conceived notions about any given religion, but I wouldn't stop them from signing up with one.

Now a bit of a disclaimer here. I e-mailed the Satanic Temple and told them about the article the day that I moved it to the mainspace, so it’s entirely likely that HAILXSATANX666 is a separate person from. My purpose in e-mailing them was because I wanted to see if they could upload any of the church’s images to WC. They’ve done quite a few things that would be extremely interesting to add to the article, namely the art pieces they’ve done (Baphomet statue, Snaketivity) and their performance art. As someone who studied religion in college, this topic greatly interested me and I was excited at the idea of getting some of these pictures, as they do have encyclopedic value and would be an asset to the article.

I also asked them to point out any incorrect information and holes in the article, as I knew that my content was incomplete. In the e-mail I let them know that while they could make edits about things they’re involved in, it’s generally discouraged because it’s easy to slip in promotional content unintentionally and that it’d be better for them to mostly/solely suggest additions on the article talk pages. I forgot to tell them that they need to identify their COI somewhere in their userpage or on the article talk pages, so if they haven’t done this then that’s actually ‘’my’’ fault that they haven’t done this, as HAILXSATANX666’s edits have heavily suggested that they have listened to my recommendations.

I think that we need to assume some good faith here, at the very least for HAILXSATANX666. I’m undecided on BarfBag666. I think that he’s an extremely green editor that is very passionate about the subject, but also a little confrontative. He did seem to be trying to do what we asked of him and his conduct at the REFUND request with me was civil, but I’m not very happy with how he responded to RLawton. I think that everything just snowballed from there. That’s why I didn’t entirely protest his block, since I did think that he needed a cooling off period since things were getting very heated.

The bottom line here is that we have two editors that are currently blocked for username violations. I don’t think that either is inherently offensive or promotional and both appear to be trying to edit within good faith, although BarfBag666 does need to be warned to approach things in a more cool manner. Getting angry won’t solve anything on here and it makes it harder to assume good faith. I think that unblocking them with some warning over how to respond to others (more for BarfBag666 than HAILXSATANX666) and a request that they seek a mentor wouldn't be a bad idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The TL;DNR of all of that is that there's reason to believe that the two accounts are separate and while inadvisable for anyone to sign up with a religious username, there's no current policy in place against them. Creating one would likely be a fairly large landmine because of the various implications it could hold. That this would possibly become a media debacle if Wikipedia were to ban religiously themed usernames the potential media coverage could be a nightmare. (Not a reason not to do it, but likely one of the reasons it'd be hard to pass.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• BMK: Then would you also have a problem with the user categories that exist for every religion ie "Christian Wikipedians" etc? In which case, do you also feel people shouldn't be allowed to show preference for anything? What about userboxes showing national allegiance to Palestine, Israel or Kosovo? How about people who identify as transgender or in favor of same-sex marriage? Because you know all of these things might offend someone and show they are not here to create a NPOV encyclopedia. Maybe we should all have assigned usernames ie User 24601 so nobody can possibly be offended, until they come up with a reason to be offended by that particular number. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about userboxes in general, but at least they are contained to the user's page. Usernames go wherever the user goes, everywhere on Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with Satanism (particularly not the folks-it's-actually-really-atheism variety in question here), Satanists, or edits about Satanism, or indeed the creation of a Category:Satanist Wikipedians. This is a username issue. -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. It's the same as a user name such as ILOVEHILLARY2016 (except that SATAN666 is more obviously trolling). The user name puts a mini-WP:POLEMIC statement on every talk page where they contribute. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, you're being trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.130.104 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This isn't a content dispute or a free-speech issue, this is trolling, and they're getting exactly the attention they want, as you can see with the tone of pseudo-outrage in their comments. I would not be at all surprised if Barfbag666 and the others were actually all the same person, and the first username, "Barfbag666", should tell you all you need to know. -- The Anome (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Then if they are trolling, since It does not appear they have made any trolling edits or vandalism, their intent seems to be to expose the hypocrisy on Wikipedia regarding religious usernames, to which I say well done. Unblock them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is the trolling, and you are, alas, being trolled. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is not the trolling. It was started after the usernames were wrongfully blocked! —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know... HAILXSATANX666 did seem like they were trying to edit within policy and although I think that BarfBag666 could have handled himself far better, he did look like he was trying. Also, I need to state that they only began editing after I e-mailed the Temple itself asking for them to upload images, so them appearing at the same time as BarfBag666 was blocked doesn't automatically mean that it's a case of sockpuppetry. Especially given that they appeared to be following my fairly specific recommendations that I detailed in my e-mail to them. I just think that this all needs to be approached very carefully and that we shouldn't automatically assume that their usernames are an attempt at trolling or that they're the same person. Do they know one another? Maybe, but it's also entirely possible that HAILXSATANX666 is a separate entity that only came to Wikipedia after I wrote an email inviting them to upload photographs and point out issues with the Temple's article on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hence the use of soft blocks, not hard blocks. I have no issue with their edits, just the usernames. -- The Anome (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm really not comfortable with assuming that the usernames are problematic because they tend to incorporate things that are typically used for shock value. While yes, we see a lot of people coming to Wikipedia looking to shock and troll, this doesn't automatically come across like it's one of those situations. Basically, we have a rare situation where we have someone (specifically HAILXSATANX666) who is claiming that their username reflects their religious beliefs and has so far edited within policy. I wouldn't have recommended the direct edit to the saint's page, but that can be debated on the talk page (which it is/was). I just don't feel exactly right with us blocking someone for a username that isn't meant to be offensive and while it has negative connotations elsewhere, isn't necessarily inherently offensive in and of itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps should they rename their accounts into User:Grammar satanist or User:Grammar666, these names are not yet used. Pldx1 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know - right now there's no policy against religious usernames and both users identify as Satanists. This puts them in a different area than if they were random users or not because we need to take their religion into consideration. If anyone wants there to be a policy against religious usernames then they need to open up a discussion about it in the appropriate forums. This isn't really the appropriate place for that and I don't offhand think that either name is a violation of policy given the users' stated religions and because neither offhand appears to be here to promote anything. If they did come across as promotional it's likely unintentional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Barfbag666 is complaining about because I reverted two of his edits. Since that time, I've been trying to explain to him the problems with his edits. He's been very obnoxious in response.

1. The Phelps reversion was because incident cited had no bearing on Phelps or his life and, as I noted to Mr. Bag, belongs in the article about the group conducting the protest rather than in the biographical article about Phelps.
2. The second reversion was because Mr. Bag wanted to insert a non-Christian mass into an article about Christian masses - and because the mass he wanted to insert was from a group representing an extreme minority - thereby disproportionately representing them by comparison. There are other articles where that particular mass would fit well, and I pointed that out as well.
3. Mr. Bag has represented these two reversions as if I were mass reverting numerous edits. It's only been two.
4. In the meantime, Mr. Bag is editing articles directly with a conflict of interest. He is representing his temple and essentially spamming articles that have nothing to do with it. Wikipedia has had problems with religious organizations in the past - and has banned at least one entire organization as a result. Mr. Bag, if not his temple, may well be heading in that direction.
5. Next, Mr. Bag has threatened to recruit other members of his group to edit Wikipedia in order to force Wikipedia to accommodate them, even though, as I pointed out, he's attempting to spam articles. This, again, goes against Wikipedia's culture and making such threats is highly inappropriate. Such efforts by other groups in the past typically end in bad press and mass bannings.
6. One last note, Mr. Bag left a mal-formed notice on my talk page which I initially thought was an attempt at harassment. I temporarily blocked him from editing until I realized that he may have been attempting to notify me of this particular thread. Rklawton (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Bag's usernames, I have supported the first block but leave other admins to decide. As for his second user name, I've copied the following from WP:USERNAME, and I believe it fits Mr. Bag's case precisely: A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. Rklawton (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm worried less about the username issue and more about a tiresome user trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and venue to right great wrongs as if Wikipedia was a state courthouse. In retrospect, I would've blocked Barfbag for general disruptive editing rather than the username. I agree that the usernames are polemic, but they are a secondary concern to me in this case. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG and future block-on-sight so we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - initially I'd hoped that Mr. Bag would make some effort to edit constructively if only pointed in the right direction. However, it's clear that at best he has a chip on his shoulder and at worst we've been trolled. An indef block and block on site mandate would allow us to resume building Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The Satanic Temple is all about highlighting the ways people are inconsistent in their treatment of religion and the various aspects of church and state. In doing so on Wikipedia, there are a couple things going on worth noting. First, you're making their point with the username issue. Nobody should have a problem with names that reference "satan" unless you're also willing to block the hundreds of users with "god" (either religious or blasphemous), "jesus christ", many of the names with "jesus" or "christ", "allah", "yahweh", etc. Just do a search in the user space for "intitle:christ" for example. It's like how they challenged nativity scenes at state capitol buildings by introducing ridiculous monuments to satan -- it's trolling because it takes to an extreme a bias that otherwise gets ignored. Not unlike Anonymous in e.g. Project Chanology, I wouldn't necessarily endorse their actions but to reduce it to "just trolling" misses the point. The problem I think they're going to run into on Wikipedia, however, is that NPOV doesn't work like laws about religion. Articles don't have to reflect all perspectives -- just all significant perspectives as determined by the body of work on a subject. Within the vast majority of discussions of religion, religious practice, and Christianity, satanism in general and the satanic temple in particular are marginal subjects. Doesn't mean there's no place for them on Wikipedia, but POV-pushing just isn't as effective because on Wikipedia all religions are not equal -- it's all determined by sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • As I said above, I've no problem with self-professed Satanists (who of course in this case, if they're aligned with The Satanic Temple, are most likely not actual believers in Satan at all) editing here, or identifying themselves as such. If they want to call themselves User:Satanic topic editor or User:Happy Satanist, that's entirely fine with me. Regarding religious relativism: if a self-professed Christian, or member of another similarly popular mainstream religion, created an account called User:SINNERSXWILLXALLBURNXINXHELL777, they should also be blocked, for the same reason, regardless of whether or not it is their sincerely-held religious belief (which indeed it might well be), exactly because usernames are not intended to be a free-speech platform for making points like this. Or for having a bit of anarcho-Situationist fun, or for the sheer joy of pissing other people off, on or both of which I believe may well also be a factor here-- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I see User:HAILXSATANX666 has been blocked for running afoul of WP:USERNAME. Is it worth discussing his disruptive editing now, or do we wait for him to create a new account first? At this point, he is welcome to create a new account with an appropriate user name. My preference would be to see if anyone is willing to mentor him. Barring that, then I believe we should just send him packing and be done with it. I see nothing even in his newest edits that shows me he understands and accepts what we've been trying to tell him. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's another of his accounts: User:ILOVESATAN666‎. This isn't sock puppetry as it's only his account names (so far) that have been blocked. This name shares the same problem as his last name - it's both promotional AND he's using it to inappropriately promote his agenda in our articles. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So, basically, it would be a similar problem if User:ILoveJesus was editing on Jesus-related pages? Or User:ProudAgnostic on skeptic pages? I think we're sinking into the worrywart world here; if the users make offensive or bothersome edits, deal with that, but proclaiming your religious faith seems an acceptable use of user names, even if some people don't like that particular religious profession. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So basically we should change WP:USERNAME? It currently reads: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." - and that's what's going on now. His edits are promotional in nature and not appropriate for their articles. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind (from a cross-wiki prospective). Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I need to re-state something: I purposely reached out to the Satanic Temple and invited them to come to Wikipedia. That means that it's very likely that the new accounts are someone that isn't BarfBag666. In that e-mail I detailed several different guidelines, which they seem to have followed. They predominantly edited the talk pages and made suggestions and they've at least tried to edit in a neutral manner. This is their only mainspace edit and if we were to completely divorce it from their username then it likely wouldn't have been seen as self-promotion by anyone. I also need to state that this was done after they posted on the talk page, so they did try to suggest this first. Granted they only waited a short amount of time before posting the content to the mainspace, but there was an article for the Temple in the mainspace at their point so they could have assumed that it wouldn't be contested because of this. Basically, that edit was not done out of any deliberate mischief. And again, I forgot to tell them that they needed to disclose their COI - I can't believe that I forgot it, but I did. That they didn't disclose their COI is MY fault, not theirs, since they look to have tried to follow my instructions very carefully.

From my viewpoint, HAILXSATANX666, has shown that s/he is willing to try to work with us rather than against us. I would say that BarfBag666 has done the same, although his reception towards another editor trying to help him was poor. However I will state that he was polite towards me and did start editing in the draftspace after I requested that he do this. At the very least here I think that HAILXSATANX666 should be unblocked. While the name does make the Sunday School girl in me squirm a little, I see nothing wrong with it and I'm not going to stand in the way of someone else expressing their religion in their username. It's just a religious statement done in their religion as part of their worship, no different than if someone were to have the word "Amen" in their username.

Now someone else has said that this group might be coming on here to get attention. I can't really see proof of that because if the group was coming on here to raise a stink and purposely cause a fuss, then they're not advertising this anywhere on their Twitter or Facebook pages that I can see. If they wanted to gain attention then I think that they'd have posted this all over their social media accounts.

I think that we need to assume better faith here because by all accounts they seem to at least be trying and I can't help but think that if their usernames had been something like "HappyPuppy123" or "ILikeCheese", they wouldn't have been blocked. I just really don't like that we're automatically saying that their usernames are promotional because they happen to be relevant to the religion they say that they practice. I mean, it's not like HAILXSATANX666 named themselves "SatanicTempleDetroit" or anything like that and by all accounts they were trying very, very hard to edit within the bounds of COI because again, they've pretty much done everything that I asked of them. If I didn't think that it might pose a potential issue since I'm involved in all of this, I'd unblock them myself because so far they're getting a pretty poor reception given that they seem to genuinely be trying to make us happy and follow our rules. BarfBag666 is a bit more difficult because they did react poorly, but I do think that they should be given a legitimate second chance to act properly. Automatically assuming that they're the same person as HAILXSATANX666 and the other editor isn't really a good idea here, given that there are legitimate reasons (IE, that I invited the Temple to come to Wikipedia) for the other accounts to be here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, I do think that there's uneven treatment here. I'm not arguing that BarfBag666 reacted poorly, but he did seem to respond well when I tried to help him so perhaps that might have been a case where he was just wasn't going to respond well to the other two editors. I've seen it happen with me in the past where I've had editors that reacted poorly to my help but responded better to another editor coming in to say the same things - and vice versa. I really, really think that it'd be a good idea to unblock both users. Give BarfBag666 a warning that if he responds that poorly again, he could be blocked for incivility. Make sure that HAILXSATANX666 knows that they need to be transparent and that both need to stick to talk pages whenever it comes to edits directly relating to the Temple (ie, general edits on Satanism are fine, but Temple specific edits should be discussed on the talk page), at least until both have shown that they are knowledgeable enough to make direct edits. I don't see anything automatically or inherently promotional in their usernames - and I'm someone who will block someone if I think their username is promotional. Their edits seem to have been done in good faith and anything that they've done wrong, they've done so because they were unaware of policy. That HAILXSATANX666 has tried very hard to follow what I asked of them shows that they likely would have been willing to accept the revert on the saint's page and discussed it on the talk page. I really think that this could have been handled better as a whole. And again, there are legitimate reasons to suspect that these accounts aren't the same person and I actually endorse opening an SPI to check for this just so we can make sure that they aren't. Could they be the same person under new accounts? Possibly. I can't rule it out entirely, but there is some argument to say that they aren't and because of that, I'd like to ask that not automatically assume that they're the same person or that HAILXSATANX666 only came here because BarfBag666 invited them - they could have come here only because I invited them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment -- but I should point out that I just blocked a bunch of these accounts for WP:SOCK. It's quite unambiguous, and should someone bother to write an SPI, any other checkuser will immediately be able to verify. I think the username blocks are marginal at best, but that's a policy argument, not relevant here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If that's the case then that does change things greatly. Technically they wouldn't be violating guidelines if they opened new accounts, although I would imagine that the expectation would be that they would be transparent about who they are. I know that the third account I'm aware of gives off the impression that they're separate people, which is a definite no-no and would (in my definition) be considered sockpuppetry since it would be a definite account opened to give off the impression of support from others. Now if they opened multiple accounts at the same time as the third account, that'd also be sockpuppetry and it'd be pretty difficult to defend that and that'd be a definite show of bad faith on their part. I could maybe give a very weak justification that they made the third account out of fear of reprisal for being the same person, but it'd be very weak. Most of my argument stemmed from a belief that at least the second account could potentially be a separate person and that they appeared to be editing out of good faith. I've summed up my viewpoints at the ANI that's been opened. I think that Barfbag reacted poorly all around, but they did respond well to myself. There does need to be a discussion over usernames since I'm really not comfortable with the original blocks for promotional usernames and this could be used as precedent. If they're to be blocked, I'd much rather it be for incivility or over the top self-promotion, given that at least the second editor's edits weren't over the top in my opinion. If there is a thread opened over religious usernames - and at this point I do think that there needs to be a discussion given that there are so many differing opinions over this - then I'd certainly like to participate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Whelp, game over. lol ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So were there problems with the articles or just the usernames? If the names, fine, I'd say don't create names that make people sigh when they see them. If it's the articles, then we can discuss that but it seems like it was just "these terms shouldn't be deemed offensive" and ANI is overblowing arguing that issue. Suggest taking anything further about names to Wikipedia talk:Username policy (rather than a WPT:UP reference to here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both, to a degree. BB had some edits that were, at best, too casually written for Wikipedia. I can see where the vandalism concerns came into play with phrasing like "like a regular mass, but gayer" (I'm paraphrasing), but they did seem to listen to me when I tried working with them. The second account seemed to genuinely want to work according to the rules, at least from my point of view. Their edits weren't inherently problematic in my point of view, although I can see where it'd have been better to wait on adding the demonization stuff to the saint's article until there was more consensus. The biggest argument with the last two people is mostly their usernames. However like you said, that's something for a different forum. I do think that this needs to be hashed out somewhere, to be very honest. This isn't exactly the right place for it, but it's a good jumping off point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Wikimandia: I know that neither of us are really happy with the idea of making a username thread about this, but this should probably be brought up at some point because of how difficult something like this could be and what it could mean for a lot of users. Do you think we should go for it or should we wait and see if someone else starts one up, or if anyone signs up with a similar username? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I sense you have some remorse about inviting representatives from this organization to come and edit Wikipedia. But what began with questions about account usernames spiraled into generally antagonistic behavior, claims of discrimination and censorship and an eagerness to take offense. Much of this disruption could have been avoided through reasonable conversation without claiming religious discrimination and martyr status.

You might have invited them to participate on WP but their reaction was all of their own. When admins raise questions about an editor, whether about their usernames or their conduct, it's not wise to adopt a posture of outrage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, they were banned on their usernames, NOT their conduct. Their usernames do not violate any policy as far as I can see. What is going on here 666 times more offensive than any username: hypocrisy. Either change the rule so it applies equally to all religious messages and saying, or unblock these people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"(abusing multiple accounts)". Quoted directly from the block reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:18, 6 December 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.

Unresponsive editor making unexplained changes

Chickensire (talk · contribs) continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles without providing a source. I left this message asking for an explanation and source, and was provided with a dead link as a source. I asked a second time here, and again no response, yet the user continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles. Also, the user has been creating redirects, but would not respond asked why they are doing this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the changes improvements? BMK (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've spot checked their changes. The good news: the new coords are within the cities that are the subject; the bad news: I can see no rationale behind the change - the old coords seems just as valid as the new coords, and the new coords don't do anywhere logical, like City Hall. Given that, I think we do need to here from Chickenshire as to why they are doing what they're doing.

When they do that for coords, they might also explain why they made a handful of article moves, shifting "Town, New York" to "Town, County, New York" without discussion. These I have reverted. There's also the question of why they created a redirect from "Harlem, New York County, New York" to a subsection of "History of Harlem" - I have changed the target to "Harlem, New York City", which is where our article is. BMK (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor says on the talk page that those are the coordinates for the city's original settlement. Since these may or may not have anything to do with the city's current geographical center, I've asked them to stop, and to explain the moves as well. BMK (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused at your report, Magnolia677. You called them an "unresponsive editor", but in fact they've responded to your inquiries 3 times. How is that "unresponsive"? This is clearly a newbie who doesn't know how to indent or add a sig, we should probably give them a break or two. BMK (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, not so much a newbie, since they've been here since March 2012 and have almost 1500 edits. BMK (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor continues to randomly change coordinates here, continues to move articles without discussion here, and still has not responded to either User:Beyond My Ken or myself on their talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::Maybe the editor is just a little busy changing random stuff to read his/ her messages? I am sure he/she will catch up when the time is right. I don't believe there is any need for action on our part. Just let them do what they need to do. W oWiTmOvEs 13:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC) striking comment by blocked troll account. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have moved on to other types of edits which do not seem problematic. BMK (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Box Office India has gained a lot from Wikipedia

Few days ago I filed an ANI about a user who removes reliable sources to add boxofficeindia.

Today another old editor comes to prove that boxofficeindia is the only source for boxoffice collections, removed references from Bollywood Hungama and The Financial Express with edit summary "Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes" and removed content sourced from International Business Times

Me, myself regularly visit boxofficeindia.com to check latest box office colections of Bollywood movies. Now: How I came to know about this website? Today i remembered.

Few years ago I used to read Bollywood movie articles in Wikipedia. I read the critical reception and the box office section. I read the plot of movies, that i didn't want to watch. In the box office section, boxofficeindia website would be used as reference. Due to that i visited the website. There was no other such Bollywood box office related website dedicated only to box office. At that time the website was very ordinary than what it is today. I don't get it why this website is given preference over others.

I read the warnings of Administrator given to spammers "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for driving traffic to your website". But me and many people visited boxofficeindia through Wikipedia. Some third party news websites also mention about boxofficeindia. Even they might have read wikipedia articles. Even good faith editors have begun to trust boxofficeindia. I never objected against boxofficeindia, but if editors with high edit count starts preferring boxofficeindia over other much much reliable websites then there is something fishy going on here, as much more reliable websites as International Business Times India edition, India Today - 1 2. Business Standard - 1. The Economic Times- 1 also publishes Box office reports along with Koimoi and Bollywood Hungama.

Novice spammers, open an account, and directly start spamming their website in multiple pages and get blocked. Experienced ones read the Template:Uw-sblock which are posted on user talk page blocked for spamming. And this blocking template has link to this Forbes page page named "Spin Me Softly"--(reasons unknown to me, why that link was given in the template).

And in this page Andy Greenberg wrote in the year 2007: -- "But with the right tactics, articles can be successfully tweaked to improve brand visibility and drive traffic to other Web sites, contends marketing guru Spencer. He suggests that marketers add valuable text to an article, along with a link to their own Web site. Since Wikipedia’s editors will hesitate to delete useful content, the link often stays on the page.

Even better, Spencer says, is to develop a user profile on the site that builds personal trust within the Wikipedia community. That means spending time deleting typos in articles, cleaning up spam and otherwise cultivating a good Wiki-citizen image. “You have to make real edits that add value, not just ones that boost your company or your client,” Spencer says. “Developing that street cred is really important. If you try to add links or content without it, chances are it’ll be reverted.”

As if, we want to teach the spammers how to spam successfully, otherwise I don't see any other reason that article with such spamming/advertizing tricks being included in a blocking template meant for blocking spammers. --The Avengers 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's not immediately clear to admins, in addition to musing generally about problems in Indian cinema articles, The Avengers appears to be complaining directly about user Arjann, for instance about this edit summary linked above where Arjann bossily instructs users Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes. This sort of gruff assertion is not helpful as it's not based on any Indian cinema community precedent. Indian film grosses are all estimates. There is no reliable way to track this information, and there is corruption throughout the industry. Some of that corruption takes place at Wikipedia as well, with paid editors and socks going to extreme lengths to inflate numbers, deflate numbers, report the newest, highest pet estimate, etc. as if the made-up box office estimate from Times of India that comes in at 2pm is more reliable than the made-up estimate that came in at 1pm from the Mumbai Mirror. Facepalm

The Indian cinema community has made no such determination that BoxOfficeIndia.com is the only reliable source. In fact, it generally feels the opposite, and this assertion that BOI is the only go-to source is very similar to what indeffed user WikiBriefed tried to pull.[85][86][87]. Arjann has done this a few times, for instance, here he removes would normally be a suitable reference, IBTimes, with the insufficient explanation unofficial source. I can only surmise that he means that he prefers BoxOfficeIndia.com, but when do we discard reliable sources like this? Here he makes an unsupported proclamation Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. Who said? There's nothing in the Indian cinema task force's WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that asserts this. I don't see any discussion at RSN. I don't know what Arjann's specific motives are, but by all appearances, it looks like an attempt to take ownership and to craft articles to fit a POV. I also notice bizarre edits like this where Arjann ignores an obvious embedded note that asks for film budget data to be attributed to a reliable source. He doesn't add a source, just the comment, Budget is confirmed. Arjann may need a refresher in proper Wikipedia editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers does ask some, on the face of it, reasonable questions about the rationale behind inclusion, and content of the external link, which was added in 2008. Perhaps they might be best addressed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace if it's not deemed appropriate here? Begoon ^talk 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing I found about BOI is that they do no independent checking of the factuality (if that's even a word) or accuracy of the information that is posted to the site. I wonder whether there is a circular action going on here. BOI is used as a source in WP, driving more traffic to BOI, consequently encouraging more editors to use it despite the fact that the material on BOI has not been confirmed to be accurate. Blackmane (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should remove sourcing from legitimate newspapers in favor of a website with zero information about them. If the paper sources the website, fine, I can accept that but we shouldn't remove it in favor of the website. Before there was spamming to get Koimoi as the official source and I think it's been rounds of other websites in the same fashion over the years. Take note that, for example, Box Office India has more details on its server and its domain registrar than any person behind the company. But we've had two prior discussions at RSN over the years and once again at the Indian films talk page. I think the prudent thing is warn Arjann and others not to remove other sources in favor of Box Office India at the moment and then to have another discussion at RSN about it. If they want to spam it, block them. We may have really reliable sources we use for American films for example, that doesn't mean we would eliminate newspaper and other sources in favor of one source. Again, we're down to the same issue of several newspapers use it as a source and therefore should we consider it a reliable source (or I guess the reliable source) based on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Box-office means film business, and that's why Indian business/finance newspapers publish box-office related news. If we have sources from Indian Business newspapers, then these websites shouldn't be used as reference. If we don't have a source from any newspaper, then only these websites as BOI, Koimoi can be used. There must be some consensus about this, as we can't repeated ANI discussion about old editors preferring Boxofficeindia to remove references from well established business/finance based newspapers. Boxofficeindia's popularity is due to Wikipedia. And if some newspaper mentions boxofficeindia, it's more likely the journalist read wikipedia Bollywood articles (which use BOI as reference).The Avengers 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this discussion titled Box Office India Discussion and BO of all BW films. However, one may use also use Rentrak for the accurate figures. I have been a lot through this BOI discussion and I'm really tired.

• 1. I know putting the premise again despite knowing that it has copyright problem was in good faith. I assumed that some user who may have seen the film observes this and writes a full fledge plot of the film in his own words, later.Here Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. On this I want to say that it was Oye Times that published first and filmibeat just took that from it. Filmibeat is not reliable in any case.
• 2. I'm not pushing any fan POV. Go through the article and the history of edits I have made on the page. I kept and always keeping it as neutral as possible. If any disagreement clear it on talk pages or invite users for the same.
• 3. The Avengers you are simply getting mad at me for all this. I didn't expect this from you side. Arjann (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arjann:, Read the full comment made by me. The heading is about boxofficeIndia. I didn't make the section heading as Arjann. The bitter truth is that we all, including me are taking part in this game of promoting boxofficeindia above others, when it comes to boxoffice figures. I have clearly mentioned that, for last few years i am visiting boxofficeindia to check the details of latest Bollywood movies. And it is from Wikipedia movie articles, I became aware of this website. You try to think hard, Honestly----When was the first time you were aware of this website. Was it through Wikipedia or some other sources. I am not against boxofficeindia. I don't like when people remove sources from websites of Indian newspapers which are more than 40 years old and include boxofficeindia. I checked some old movie pages and the BOI refences become deadlinks. The Avengers 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) 166 troll. BMK (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BOI is the NUMBER ONE source for indian box office numbers. No other source compares. We should be banning all other sources right now. Don't be attacking editors like User:Semanti Paul who are doing good work and spreading BOI everywhere. 166.170.46.213 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#BO_of_all_BW_films. I think the general view there is that BOI is a reliable source but no one believes that it is the most reliable source. I suggest that further discussions continue there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

www.boxofficeindia.com geolocates to United Kingdom

Two domain Ip results showed that the websites'IP is 31.172.248.224 which is located in United Kingdom. 1, 2. The Avengers 05:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Box Office India needs some actual reliable sources though (it's largely useless), it states that the server is in Houston which of course means nothing about who is actually running it. Again, we should take this back to the Indian cinema talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Ho-hum. 166 range troller again. BMK (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support BOI BOI is a first class website and is the best source for Indian films. 166.170.48.222 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Why have you not been range blocked, Mr WOP troll? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated unfounded accusations by User:Dalamani

User:Dalamani has continued with their behaviour despite adequate warning and despite stating that they would cease. They made a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry here, for which I gave them what I thought was quite a mild warning ([88]). They responded by accusing me of harassment ([89], [90]). User:Drmies also pointed out the error of their ways ([91]) and they stated they would cease but went on to make a pretty clear insinuation of meatpuppetry (also baseless, of course) in the same AfD ([92]). Dalamani has previous for this sort of thing, in their interactions with another editor ([93], [94]). Their behaviour is unacceptable and I don't see any useful editing coming from that account. There's no point in me warning them again, as it will just result in further accusations of 'harassment', and frankly I don't see that further warnings would be an adequate or worthwhile response. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as I am a new editor you are expected to assume good faith, which you have not. From the first attempt to edit the page (which I admitted that I made errors on being new to the process) I have felt as though these editors are being exclusionary and acting like Wikipedia is their own private club. I never explicitly accused anyone of sockpuppetry, despite previously being accused of having an agenda or ulterior motive to nominating the article for deletion. As for accusations of "meatpuppetry", is user Michig denying that the next user to support their position on the AFD page, Wwwhatsup does not have Michigs username on their talk page, indicating a relationship of some sort? I find it curious that an editor that obviously has a Wikipedia connection with another editor suddenly appears on an AFD page enthusiastically supporting their position. Coincidence? Possibly, but curious nonetheless and its obviously something that Michig has taken personal exception to. I find the behaviour of Michig to be confrontational and arrogant and frankly bullying. If you need to drag out a very old and irrelevant incident with another Wikipedia bully to bolster your case it doesnt bode well. Ban me if thats what will make Wikipedia a better place for bullies but it wont do anything to encourage new editors to "be bold". Im considering doing an open letter to Wikpedia on my userpage in the style of Paolo.dL. Dalamani (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictably, another accusation, now of bullying, for notifying them of this discussion ([95]). --Michig (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Look Michig, Im not interested in you so please just stop with the harassment. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies that Im reading up on and it is very illuminating. Id suggest you do the same. No need for further discussion, lets leave this to arbitration. Dalamani (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Leaving repeated and unwanted messages on a users Talk page, as you have done, is just one of the many Wikipedia policies that I believe has been breached here. I REPEAT, as a new user you should have assumed good faith, not criticised a new users motivation for deciding to nominate a particular article for deletion. You did not and this is where it has led. I believe some introspection is required here on your part regardless of the outcomes of your pre-emptive actions (yes, I told Michig I would report them for harassment if it continued just prior to this being actioned) Dalamani (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Assuming good faith does not imply simply ignoring missteps like baseless accusations. As DrMies stated, you are not being harrassed, you are being addressed as a Wikipedia user who is expected to play by the rules. Just like anybody else. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yet another accusation with no basis in fact. I have only made two edits at Dalamani's talk page. One perfectly justified warning for making false and bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry and one courtesy notification of this discussion, of which I was required to inform them. In contrast, Dalamani has made 5 edits to my talk page even continuing after I made it clear I wasn't interested. It's quite clear who the harrasment is coming from. --Michig (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So it is OK for administrators to imply ulterior motives on a new users attempts to edit wikipedia, but not for a new user to defend themselves and point out that there appear to be conflicts of interest in their own agenda? I see Kleuske and Drmies are known to each other as can be discerned from Klueske's Talk page. This is getting more interesting by the minute! Dalamani (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dalamani, these days I am first and foremost Dr.K.'s sock. I see you've been doing some research into my editing behavior--you may have noticed that I have made some 45,000 edits to user talk pages not including mine, only three of which on Kleuske's page. Kleuske, this is not to say you're not special to me--you are, of course, and I will do my best to make it up to you. Besides, I am honored to be suspected as being in cahoots with you. Also, Dalamani, you are not being harassed. Au contraire--which I find reflected in older comments like this and this, besides in this treatment of Michig. If we're going to have a bullying task force, as some users seem to want, don't be surprised if all this boomerangs back on you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So a new 43 edit account says silly stuff about an 11 year / 56K edit / administrator ... and the response is to open an ANI thread?? (complete with canvassing). The far better choice would be to ignore it per User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility. NE Ent 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. That very essay mentions that when incivility consistently comes from a new editor, then that account may amount to little more than a troll, and it should be taken more seriously. And while we don't bite newcomers and assume good faith, IIRC, WP:BITE itself (or some related page) mentions that when a "newcomer" is the one invoking it, then it probably doesn't apply as they simply aren't enough of a "clueless" newcomer if they can cite that policy. In this case, they cited WP:AGF with a similar argument, "I'm a newcomer so here's the exact policy I know precisely about that says you should put up with my nonsense". No. LjL (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the response was to warn them about their behaviour. When they wouldn't let it lie I did try ignoring it, and for a short while it looked like they were going to stop, but it carried on and spread to accusations against another editor. I only informed Drmies as he had already intervened on my talk page to reason with Dalamani. I don't think accusing me of canvassing is either helpful or justified. --Michig (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SO what Im reading here is that if you read up on Wikipedia policies you must not be a 'real' newcomer but a troll, and that long term editors have more rights than new Wikipedia editors. Im sure I read policies about both last night when I read up on it. Now if Michig continues to make assertions about me I will continue to defend against those assertions. Civility is a two way street. Im happy enough to let this go, it hardly rates as an important issue in my life, but if everytime I come onto Wikipedia I have to deal with this crap I will go well above petty editors here and make a significant noise about this treatment. Dalamani (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could interpret in that way. But if you let folks who think that any editor who clicks three times per three steps is a troll rather than simply a literate individual capable of RTFM get ya down you're experience on Wikipedia isn't going to be pleasant. Or particularly long, either. We don't really have a civility policy as explained at WP:Civility meme (sorry). You don't actually have to deal with it, just ignore it per WP:Other duck. In any event, you really can't make significant noise; there's already so much wiki-noise it's kind of like screaming in a hurricane. NE Ent 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed NE Ent, it seems like screaming in a hurricane, however I notice that the most recent editor to take exception with my AFD, Duffbeerforme, is also connected to Drmies. Now out of the hundreds of thousands of editors on Wikipedia it is indeed a remarkable thing that these people just coincidentally come together on this one AFD and to personally attack me? Duffbeerforme has made another personal comment on the AFD page - "Disruptive pointy nomination from someone not here for the right reason". What is the right reason? To act like a voting block and try to cajole and intimidate new editors and call their motivations into question while having questionable moivations themselves? I notice that there are still a lot of unsourced claims on the Ezekial Ox page. The hurrican blows on... Dalamani (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dalamani, you should really stop claiming I'm connected to this or that person. Duffbeerforme is not one of my socks (yet). Nor am I a fan of this Ox person, who I had never heard of before. I'm also not Australian. Or a secret lover of oxen. *sigh* I've made a few edits here and met a few people. You could consider there's another option. Obviously, the first is that if a few people say you're wrong about something, they've orchestrated it because they are "connected". Or, maybe, you're just wrong... No, it's much easier to claim you're being bullied. Wait--bullied? by oxen lovers? Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So you deny that you know both Duffbeerforme and Kleuske? OK right. You go through my editing history looking for dirt, dont be surprised if others do the same. Ill admit Ive been wrong about one thing, and that is assuming that all Wikipedia editors and administrators are sincere people who dont act like they own the playground. Mea culpa on that one ok! Continue to question my motivations and I will continue to call yours into question. After all, just how much evidence is required when examining claims of meatpuppetry? Dalamani (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As much as I would like to know Drmies personally, we have never met. Like him, i would be honored to be "in cahoots", but we're not. We merely share similar interests and (apparantly) a mutual respect. Kleuske (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We're truly at a pretty low level here. I'm accused of being in cahoots with someone, I deny that, and then I am made out to claim I didn't "know" these editors. Dalamani, you are not presenting yourself as very competent here, and I can't put it more mildly than that. Kleuske, you are rising fast on the list of likely people to get invited to my Sinterklaas party, as is Duffbeerforme, whom I don't know from Adam but who sounds smart enough to hang out with. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP vandal

While doing new user greet earlier, I came across Grizzly bear and saw that a new user had vandalized it, but ClueBot NG had reverted the issue. The problem is that an IP vandalized it again twice immediately after that. I removed their edits, and when I went to their talk page to warn them, I saw that they have a list of warnings going back to 2010. Is it time for somebody to block them? Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)White Arabian Filly - This belong at Administrator intervention against vandalism. File a report there. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: It's complicated with IPs. However, if there is a lot of recent vandalism, then a report to WP:AIV is in order for a short-term block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In this specific case, neither IP had been used since 2012. You could report to AIV, but it'll get turned down for insufficient recent vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case I won't file a report. I warned them on their talk page, so maybe that will take care of it. Thanks. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dƶoxar and Kyiv/ Kiev

User:Dƶoxar is not ready to accept Wikipedia consensus that the capital of Ukraine is Kiev (not Kyiv), see Talk:Kiev/Naming. Hedoes not edit Wikipedia often these days, but when he does, he comes back to Ahatanhel Krymsky and replaces Kiev with Kyiv on all occasions. Lest year I took it to their talk page, and they said they do not accept the above-linked discussion as consensus. For safety, I took the issue to the WikiProject:Ukraine and got exactly zero comments. Today, they started an edit-war in the article (at three reverts now) and called me a "vandal" [96]. This is usual article ownership problem, which is exaggerated by the fact that only them and me care about the article at all. IAt this point, I am not sure what to do, I would definitely reject myself a similar RFPP request, and I do not see how 3RR would give smth in this situation. I think the general problem is that nobody cares, and the user just insists on keeping it at their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May be to add that other users have been blocked in the past for mass renaming / replace Kiev by Kyiv, but to get blocked, they really had to work hard and to exhaust someone's patience.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular need for consensus about this specific issue, given it falls under the more generic scope of WP:ENGLISH. As far as I'm aware, the English-language name of the city is Kiev, even though Kyiv is a more direct transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one". LjL (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I accept Kiev but I don't accept exclusion of Kyiv. Historically Kiev was used wider but practically both versions are correct. So, I think users have right to choose depending on context. (Although this is not precisely this case but I see it similar.)--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv is the Latin spelling of Ukrainian name and it is the capital of Ukraine, versus the Russian-era Kiev. Kyiv is used nearly universally by a majority of reliable sources, including other governments, the CIA Factbook, National Geographic etc. Insistence on the Russian spelling of Kiev is ridiculous and Dƶoxar is right to question how this is allowed to be "consensus" when it's clearly politically motivated from pro-Russian editors. It goes to show the problem with consensus in that facts are irrelevant; consensus could be that fuchsia is yellow; that doesn't mean it actually is. It's no different than clarifying Peking/Beijing; Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, all of which are respected on Wikipedia. Both can be used but Kiev should redirect to Kyiv, and not other way around. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to discuss Kiev vs Kyiv issue. We have Talk:Kiev/Naming for that. I suggested to take the issue there a year ago, but nothing happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv redirects to Kiev and many articles, such as Kyiv Post and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, use this spelling as it is perfectly correct. Kyiv is not wrong nor is it vandalism. There are many articles with spelling variations of proper names, such as Lwów Ghetto for Lviv, because of transliteration or common name. I fail to see how Dƶoxar is being disruptive and think you are POV-pushing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Wikimandia, who said "Kyiv was vandalism"? The OP said that the other editor accused them of vandalism for insisting on Kiev. LjL (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: IMO, OP is implying Dƶoxar is being disruptive by using Kyiv in articles, and that he went on his page to warn him not to do that. I'm stating that there is no such need as Kyiv is not wrong and as I stated, is frequently used across Wikipedia. It's not vandalism so why the need to go tell them to stop using it? It would be like going on someone's talk page and warning them to stop using the name Myanmar to refer to Burma. Surely there are more important issues to worry about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not there is merit to using the "Kyiv" name (which is not so much for this board to discuss), WP:Vandalism isn't the only behavior that is against Wikipedia policies. LjL (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OP stated that Dzoxar started an edit war when that is not true - OP reverted Dzoxar first.[97] Meanwhile, Dzoxar did not violate any policies by using Kyiv and I can see his frustration over this. I think it's a real problem that OP, who is Russian, is POV-pushing insisting on the Russian version for the Ukrainian capital. LjL what you said above about Kiev being the English name is not correct - Kyiv is recognized as English by multiple English dictionaries and reliable sources. It's not the equivalent of using "Munchen" for Munich or "Moskva" for "Moscow." "Kiev" is an artifact of Soviet Ukraine and no different than the Russian spellings of other Ukrainian cities that have been changed and recognized, such as Lviv, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Luhansk etc. Reverting mentions of Kyiv is pure politics and IMO rather unbecoming of an admin like Ymblanter. If people want to use the spelling Kyiv in random articles about Ukrainians like Ahatanhel Krymsky, who cares? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, do care a bit about consistency. As to "reverting first"... that's not (necessarily) starting an edit war, as per WP:BRD. Usually, the one reinstating the reverted content without discussion is the one considered to be edit warring. LjL (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iron-fisted consistency is not a hard and fast rule, thus we allow variations for British/American spelling, DMY/MDY dates etc. They are all correct. Kiev and Kyiv are both English, and thus we have Kyiv in article names because it is not considered foreign. Consistency in the same article is what I care about. The article on Ahatanhel Krymsky was started from the very beginning with the spelling Kyiv. Ymblanter is the one who changed it to Kiev. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As advised, please take content debates to Talk:Kiev/Naming and off of ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where I've started an RfC here. BMK (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I personally disagree with the idea that this merits yet another RfC about Kiev/Kyiv, when every single one of the perennial RfCs on the matter comes up as a close as Kiev. This is a user disruption issue, and a IDHT issue. If the user will not accept En-Wiki style, they need sanctioning in order to stop their disruption. The sanction could start as small as a topic ban on anything Kiev-related, broadly construed, enforceable by very longterm blocks (since they only edit sporadically) followed by an indef it if recurs. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, I'd be happy to withdraw the RfC if something else could be done - but it's not just Dƶoxar now, it's also Wikimandia edit warring to put in "Kyiv". Any solution involving topic bans, or promises not to continue their policy-violating editing, would have to include both editors. BMK (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right. Wikimandia needs to be included in the topic ban if she is going to be obtuse like this. Wikipedia has been through this revolving door far too many times for it to be open to debate every six months. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear here and in the RfC, and I fail to see why I should be topic banned. I hardly even edit in this area so excuse me for being knowledgeable and unbiased. BMK has done more reverts than I have. People claiming Kiev is the "English" name of Kyiv are the ones being obtuse à la "Bombay is the English word for Mumbai!" Duh. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus on Wikipedia, not by your personal opinion. And the consistent consensus every time this comes up every few months like clockwork for the past 11 years is to use the English-language WP:COMMONNAME spelling/transliteration of "Kiev". Perhaps you have not been privy to all of those discussions – if you have, you're being obtuse; if you hadn't, you can check them out now. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the same brilliant Wikipedia consensus that got Bicholim Conflict labeled a featured article? Consensus does not replace fact. Looking over recent RfCs, most of them "no consensus". About what you'd expect if you'd done an RFC "which is correct, DMY or MDY"? They're both correct. But for Ukrainian articles, Kyiv is correct. Just like Mumbai, Beijing, Kolkata and Almaty are correct. Old names are no longer used. Arguments show that people used in this so far show most people don't understand the difference and think Kiev is how you transliterate Київ, and the pro-Russian bias here is apparent. I'm hardly a Ukrainian nationalist, and frequently correct names based on how people actually refer to themselves,[98] but I'm neutral enough not to inflict Soviet-era spellings on a capital city. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone would argue that consensus gives the "correct" answer everytime, but since we don't have a Content Supremeo to hand down rulings on content disputes, there has to be some mechanism in pace to settle these things so everyone can move on, and consensus is the way we do it. Og course consensus can change over time, but the "Kiev" consensus has been remarkably consistent since at least 2007, and a glance at the page the RfC is on will show at least 8 RMs from 2007-2013 in which a move to "Kyiv" was rejected. Teher may be more in the archives, I haven't checked.

It's one thing to refuse to accept a local conses which consists of 2 people with an opinion opposed to yours, but it's another thin completely to fly in the face of multkiple consensus decisions involving large numbers of editors. I suggest that you and Dƶoxar simply grit your teeth, accept the fact that you are in the minority, and drop the matter. I also suggest that if either of you change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" again, that an admin should drop a significant block on the editor who did so. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I generally turn to the BBC when I want to know what the common spelling is in the English language. While it does use Kyiv in some places, it overwhelmingly uses Kiev in general usage - up to and including this month. Having checked a few other western news outlets, they also tend to be the same, Occasionally Kyiv, mostly Kiev. Which doesnt appear to have substantially changed since the last 15 discussions on this topic. Also, content dispute yadda yadda.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC on renaming was closed as WP:SNOW. Kiev is the WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As it has been since at least 2007. BMK (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's suggestion. There is a problem. Normal people believe that English is a language in its own right, and therefore the English language can have words for places that are different from other languages. Some people do not accept this point of view, and believe that English should use transliteration from the Ukrainian language instead of using English words. It is such a pity that such people have to edit in the English language Wikipedia at all. Let them edit in the Ukrainian Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with either of these editors contributing here, as long as they follow the long-standing very clear and strong consensus to use "Kiev" as the name of the city. BMK (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

The long-standing consensus having been confirmed, if editors User:Dƶoxar or User:Wikimandia again make a change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" or any other version of the name, or if they make any other change of name for a person or a place for which a standing consensus exists as to what the WP:COMMONNAME is, they will be placed under an indefinite topic ban from changing the spelling or transliteration into English of any name, anywhere on English Wikipedia, It is their responsibility to determine if a consensus exists or not. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as common sense - Kyiv exists in many articles (including titles) and is a perfectly valid spelling and in fact is CORRECT per every single official source. Being that I'm not a sheep, I also would not accept consensus if Wikipedians decided that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. And indefinite topic ban of what? What is the topic? Proper spelling of European capitals? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No one is forcing you to change your own personal opinion, to which you are well entitled. But if you don't accept the community's decision regarding the spelling of the name, your only choices are to attempt to change that consensus, or to refrain from making any edits relating to the name. Seeing as the first option has repeatedly failed, for the time being you need to go with the second option, or else it will be imposed on you. (Other editors can voluntarily abide by this community decision despite their personal objections, so I hope you can as well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I don't accept the community's "decision" regarding the capital city's name, any more than the community can "decide" who the queen of England is or who is on the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts should not be left open to consensus and this is the biggest joke about Wikipedia, especially in cases like this when you have serious ethnic bias and ignorance running amok. I am not an active editor on Ukrainian articles but I will continue to call bullshit like I did in the case of OP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That you still cannot see the difference between "the truth" and an editorial decision does not bode well for your continued freedom to edit in this topic area (or at all). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        • LOL the "truth" essay - are you suggesting it is not verified that the capital city of Ukraine is called Kyiv? Even though the government of Kyiv and Ukraine, in all English-language material it has published, clearly calls it that? It's not verified even though the CIA World Factbook and National Geographic call it that, among many other expert sources? This is not verifiable? Perhaps you should visit WP:CIR if you think this can't be verified. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although BMK and I see eye to eye, in this case such a broad topic ban is excessive. If Wikimadia continues to do what they're doing now, just levy an edit warring block. Blackmane (talk) 23:52, 27 November 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.

Harassment by Trinacrialucente

I previously reported this editor for various unwelcome behaviors, though it was archived with no action.

Now, out of the blue, I was notified that he had just undone a revert I had made on his user page back almost a month ago, where I had removed vandalism by the now-blocked User:Jabberwock2001, who had been doing similar vandalism to other user pages. This is to make clear that

• I was undoing obvious vandalism
• there had not (yet) been any request to stay away from his pages

It was peculiar to see this revert, but of course, he can do what he wants on his page. However, he subsequently sent me this angry talk page message, after I had already asked him to stay away from my talk page (and to avoid Italian when communicating with me on the English Wikipedia).

For added absurdity, he also removed the vandal's stuff again himself. So, exactly, why is he sending me any of this, except to cause petty annoyance? He reverted his user page just so he could immediately revert it back to the previous state, and send me a bogus message on my talk page after I had asked him not to — while making it incorrectly seem like I was the one violating a request to stay away from his pages.

My requested actions are:

• to at least warn this user to respect my wish not to be contacted on my talk page (with the usual exceptions), and generally to stop playing WP:POINTY games like this
• in light of the previous report, to look at further recent edit warring coming from him, which I could hardly not notice when he keeps calling for my attention

LjL (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never told the above user that he was unwelcome on my page...and now I did. As far as I am concerned the case is closed. This is yet another CLEAR example of the user above misusing these Arbitration boards. I would point out that initially this user THANKED me for my edit.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And of course, by making this frivolous ArbCom request the user notified me on MY page (since that is the protocol). This is very passive-aggressive behavior on the part of this user to get the "last word" so to speak.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And only now, after a month has passed since I removed vandalism from your user page, and just a few days after I asked you not to contact me on my talk page, you make that revert and (guess what) contact me on my talk page about it? Which part of not contacting me is hard to understand? LjL (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want him leaving you messages on your talk page, maybe you shouldn't mess with his. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, LjL did the justifiable removal significantly before the disagreement which led to the "stay off my talk page" requests. Right now, LjL and Trinacrialucente need to stay away from each others userspace pages and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, and in fact have been doing so (apart from neutral notices) well before Trinacrialucente even asked (Tarage, look at the timeline of events please). I hope he will now do the same, but given what led to this report and his other shenanigans (for instance, after he's been informed that I don't want to be spoken to in Italian here, he won't miss a chance to speak it and to mock my English), I'm not sure the hope is justified. Don't forget all the bellicose stuff in the older report (he was over 3RR but got lucky on ANEW), plus the edit warring now. Will he stop? LjL (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Flickrwashing

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.

---

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

I recently questioned the copyright on File:Anand Jon Alexander with Tim Gunn and Sanjana Jon.jpg, which was sourced to Anand Jon's website. After I tagged it as "no evidence of permission" for a claimed public domain release, the uploader, Indiahawk, changed the source for the image to this Flickr page. The Flickr account was created today and is almost certainly an impostor account - only two uploads, both from Anand Jon's website, with no followers, etc. The license at Flickr initially was PD Mark 1.0 - when I questioned this at WP:PUF, the license at Flickr was changed to {{cc-by-2.0}} and Indiahawk simultaneously changed the license here from {{PD-author}} to {{attribution}}.

Pretty sure that Indiahawk must be a sock or perhaps a paid editor, as their first edit was to create a one-line userpage, and then launched immediately into a series of minor edits before making this massive edit to make the BLP of Anand Jon sound much more positive. Perhaps this is Jon himself, but if so he could have just released the photo under a free license himself. Plus Jon is apparently incarcerated. Kelly ^hi! 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef, image gone. Max Semenik (talk) 16:38, 4 December 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.

Zacharyw34

This user did two edits on 20 november and anything else: first edit was to remove Strasbourg airport from the List of airports in France, second edit was to remove Strasbourg from the List of communes in France with over 20,000 inhabitants. I reported him here because his edits are too old for WP:AIV and, sleeper or not, users strarting with this purposes could return (IMHO, by experience) only to continue their work. I would also underline a pair of things: 1) I disovered this vandalisms (2 weeks later) casually. 2) the removal of Strasbourg from this lists is not a minor damage for that pages. Ex.: a reader searching for main French city will see that the #7 is vanished.

Reasons for this removal? Unexplained. Maybe a sort of Anti-Strasbourg sentiment, casual vandalisms for fun, a way as another to damage the reliability of Wikipedia. In any case NOTHERE and vandalisms difficult to detect. For this reasons, I request the indef ban tout court, just to avoid another user to wacth if/when will return to vandalize. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say it's possible that it's just testing idiocy. The editor was warned today (weeks later) so I don't see what's gained by compounding a block absent some further action. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) 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.

---

I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty" [99] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [100] [101] and [102]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

—Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [103]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [104]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:

• Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [105], here: [106], here: [107] and here: [108]. He was warned here: [109].

Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [110]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [111], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.

At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [112] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Faustian inappropriate comments questioning editor's ethnicity

Moved up from bottom of page as new report. BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the the third time User:Faustian has questioned an editor's ethnicity on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. This again happened after I submitted an ANI yesterday — 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — to check his behavior before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, my request was ignored. Since, then Faustian has made the same obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Prompting this response:

• I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very frustrated by the apparent selectivity of how admins discipline editors, I myself have been accused of being an instigator, yet no disparaging remarks were made on my part. All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits and making rude comments. Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. Is this going to continue? --E-960 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is your second complaint here about Faustian on the Blue Army article and the other one is not even closed. The reason why you're accused of being an instigator is apparent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that you address the statements made by Faustain, pls. Yes, it's the second request because I'm afraid you ignored the first. --E-960 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC

He was just blocked for edit-warring: [113]; after coming off his block he is continuing his pattern of disruptions and harassment.

My statements that he is complaining about, in the talk section of an article about a Polish military unit that killed Jewish civilians: "In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC. My next and final comment on this topic was: " Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content."

This discussion was finished, but then E-960 (talk decided to use it to continue his pattern of harassment and disruptions.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this was simply false: "All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits".Faustian (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed Faustian's behavior and once again I don't feel Faustian has done anything wrong. IMO he is arguing for a neutral viewpoint here, not just the Polish POV, which I think is necessary for content such as this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, majority of users who commented recently on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page: User:Piotrus, User:Ivanevian, User:Zezen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:SMcCandlish and User:SageRad believe that Faustian is not arguing from a neutral POV, but unfortunately when an admin is selectively looking through the content you can justify just about any kind of behavior. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation, but off-topic here so I won't get drawn into a discussion here.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960, please stop attributing sentiments to me. I do not endorse that attribution above. Please strike it. I haven't looked closely into the matter to make my own judgment. I was only called by Legobot to an RfC on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and my only contribution i believe was to help discern what the Morgenthau Report actually said. I did not weigh in as you suggest. SageRad (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for E-960

It's been suggested here that E-960 is a SPA for Poland who is WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed seriously problematic, non-neutral and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior so far on the talk page for the Blue Army, and elsewhere E-960 does not appear interested in engaging in a civil manner[114], [115]. We have previous ANI complaints[116][117] and I propose this be dealt with via a topic ban for Eastern Europe, which is already under WP:ARBEE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. His efforts are a largely a trail of disruptions. Faustian (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Against. This is a WP:TAGTEAM initiative, by users who's share similar POV on issues related to Eastern Europe. I want to show user Faustian's misconduct which has continually been ignored by admin Мандичка who marginalizes Faustian's out of line comments and instead tries to shift attention to users who oppose him. Simply a hit job. Also, the false charge of "SAP for Poland"… pls see e-960's edits to Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic, Baroque architecture etc. The entire argument if based on loose facts. --E-960 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is really preposterous to accuse me of being part of a tag team scheme aka meat puppetry. Additionally, your edits on architecture are largely related to Poland anyway![118], [119], [120], [121]], [122], [123] Looking through your edits, it doesn't appear you've ever made a single article edit not related to Poland either directly or indirectly (ie Allies of World War II). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:TAGTEAM is very different from WP:MEATPUPPET. And Мандичка isn't an admin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: See WP:TAGTEAM: "Tag teaming is a controversial form of meatpuppetry" —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are extremely bias in your accusations. Yes, my interest focuses on Poland and it's history. I'm not going to get involved in editing subject matter I know nothing about like Quantum mechanics or history of History of Canada. Unfortunately, in an effort to pin me down, you are distorting the definition of "single purpose" account to fit your needs. --E-960 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to add that — several editors including: User:SMcCandlish, User:Zezen, User:Ivanevian and User:SageRad commented and agree that the BA page has issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. So, my arguments and position is by no means unreasonable. --E-960 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I never said that. I just reviewed the article's talk page where i arrived due to a LegoBot call to an RfC, and my only comments were to establish a point of fact about the Morgenthau Report. Please strike my name from the above comment and don't attribute things to me that i didn't say. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Too much drama and disruption coupled with silly accusations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This has been a long-running problem Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything even close meriting a topic ban. I also do think that E-960 brings up valid points on talk. There's a lot of discussion but that is precisely what is suppose to happen in these situations. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and take this to ArbCom. The only evidence presented is two diffs of questionable civility (one is more like excessive stridency, and neither are from the talk page in question), followed by a suggestion for an excessive topic ban from all Eastern Europe articles, which isn't justifiable. I don't think E-960 is the only problematic editor at the article. The page has been subject to months of editorial controversy (I've participated, via WP:FRS, in several RfCs there, which were basically rehashing the same issues). I'm skeptical that singling out one editor for a topic ban will resolve the problems at that article, and may simply amount to supervoting in an ongoing, long-term content dispute. This mostly appears to be a conflict between those who view the subject's notability as primarily or at least deeply tied to antisemitism, versus those who see the anti-Jewish violence material as a PoV/OR coatrack, overplaying the relation of alleged pogroms to the subject's history. There's a second dispute axis, alleging anti- and pro-Poland PoV pushing that doesn't seem tied to the antisemitism-or-not arguments. Finally, some of us with no dog in the fight(s) thought some coatrack and/or NOR and/or PoV concerns were valid, and some of them were not, and thus supported compromise; the multiple RfCs have not reached one. It's not primarily a two-editor or even two-faction dispute, so I'm skeptical that WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM would be useful. This can probably be done at WP:ARCA, as a request related to WP:ARBEE, or maybe the clerks would instruct the filing of a new WP:RFARB (I don't spend much time at ArbCom, so I'm not sure). That won't resolve the content dispute but it will deal with the (non-singular) behavioral problems that are preventing resolution of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960's problems extend beyond mere content dispute. He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to (disruptively) advocate for the Blue Army. Opening these ANIs against me seems to be part of that struggle. He has also made numerous false accusations, such as of tag-teaming, as well as edit-warring, on this very ANI. He made a false claim of what another editor stated on this ANI, as described by that other editor here: [124]. In addition to frequent misrepresentation of other editors' actions and words, there is also a pattern of misrepresenting sources to suit his agenda. For example, here: [125], here: [126] and here: [127]. He advocated for "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative attacked segments of the local Jewish population" when the original source stated "Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." Fixing this took a lot of effort due to multiple reversions by E-960. E-960 has also tried to blame the anti-Jewish assaults on links between Jews and Bolshevism ([it took an RFC to clear this one up: [128]). Here I found a piece of information, reliably sourced, that could result in a brief 6 word addition to the article: [129]. As seen from the diff, he falsely claimed one of the sources was not reliable and will of course fight to keep the information off the article. So apparently an RFC will be necessary for every piece of info that is critical of the Blue Army...or to remove every piece of "information" that (as in the case of the alleged Jewish support for Bolshevism I linked to above) seeks to justify or exonerate the Blue Army's actions by misusing sources. It just goes on and on. I fear that WP:ARCA and WP:ARBEE will simply be more tools for him to use in his efforts to defend the Blue Army. He may have already worn down Darouet (talk, who had been quite active but who has recently disappeared from this article, with his efforts.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, pls do not suggest that I insert bogus claims into the article — a source which you cited in the BA article has this statement: "In the borderlands many Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews accorded an enthusiastic welcome to the invading Red Army." Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920 p. 108. In any case, I don't think this is the place to argue about specific text.--E-960 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who share aspects of E-960's concerns, including Volunteer Marek, Piotrus and SMcCandlish, who are vastly more competent and well able to guarantee that the article maintains appropriate balance while describing violence against minorities in eastern Poland. E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland) because of their commitment to exonerating the unit from actions for which they are notorious, and lack of interest in what either WP:RS or other editors really have to say on the issue. I wish I could say that they can be brought around, but I think that's a lost cause. Whatever we do, I don't think E-960 will ever be a productive editor at Blue Army (Poland). -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Darouet (talk, I take this this is a support?Faustian (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm too involved to offer any meaningful support to this proposal, and I don't think that E-960 has nothing to contribute to Polish articles in general (it might be true but if so, I'm not aware). However, I do maintain they have nothing good to contribute to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland)" - seeing as how the current version reflects almost entirely Faustian's views I don't think your statement is true at all. E-960 has engaged in detailed and perhaps drawn out discussion on talk but a lot of their suggestions or approaches to improving the article have been ignored or... stonewalled. If there's stonewallin' going on here I think it's on the other side of the argument. Volunteer Marek  17:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've opened up neutrally worded RFCs and abided by them, and the current version reflects a compromise that you were involved in also, and not some sort of "Faustian's views" (except that, my view is that the article ought to reflect compromises that follow wiki guidelines with respect to reliable sources, etc.)  Volunteer Marek , E-960 has been caught making obviously misleading "interpretations" of sources (see my comment on this very section: [130]) to support his POV- any comment on that?Faustian (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons already voiced here by other editors who support a topic ban. Disruptive, battleground, and exhaust tactics have been used by E-960 not only on the article in question, but on all articles the user has been involved in since they began editing. As an editor, E-960 is unadulterated WP:SPA: prepared to get his/her own way by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, unfortunately your opinion of me has an inherent bias — from the start you were accusing me of various "alleged" offenses, example: @E-960 and Ivanevian: Two editors now playing at WP:TAGTEAM in order to minimise the BA's reliably sourced violence does not make for consensus: --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) But, then you realized you were wrong: Also, my apologies to Ivanevian. The allusion to tag-teaming was unwarranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC). --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this vote has the character of "score settling". --E-960 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you've taken that comment out of context. I apologised to Ivanevian, not to you. My opinion of your SPA, battleground, tendentious editing (etc.) activities still stands, and is not based on WP:GRUDGE but in following your behavioural patterns on articles and talk pages. Note that a handful of edits on articles such as Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic and Baroque architecture fit squarely in the middle of the promotion of the same subject matter beginning with your first edit to each article in the same sequence, and continuing on elaborating on the same tangent thereon: Gothic here, Brick Gothic here, Baroque here. Hardly a show of a diversity of interests and input on Wikipedia... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks to me as persistent disputes between two or more contributors, maybe a case of WP:TE/WP:DE, but it is very difficult to tell who (if anyone) was at fault. If anyone feels there is a serious problem here (I am not sure), please submit this to WP:AE. This subject area is covered by EE sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not merely a dispute, it's about a pattern of disruptive behavior, harassment (he opened this ANI in order to harass), misleading edits, wrong claims (evident here on this very ANI) etc. all done not in order to build the encyclopedia but to remove negative info about the Blue Army from the article about it. There's a reason why all the people who have interacted with E-960 extensively have had very negative experiences about him, that they do not have with others who may also agree with him on some issues.Faustian (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, why do not you or someone else submit a request to WP:AE? Most contributors who supported the topic ban above seem to be heavily involved in these particular disputes. I was not, but after quickly looking at this, I am not at all sure what should be done about it. Perhaps you are right, but this is not immediately obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it. We are here because he opened an ANI against me here for no legitimate reason, in order to harass me. Another editor, uninvolved in my interactions with him, reviewed the situation and proposed that he be topic-banned as a result of his behavior. Hopefully this is settled here; he has caused enough disruptions and spent enough of others' time. So far both admins who have reviewed this have supported topic-banning him. Faustian (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after looking more carefully, I think his editing in Allies of World War II and several other pages was problematic. Does it warrant the broad topic ban? That could be properly decided by uninvolved admins on WP:AE. However, I think you all need to simply compromise on the issues, because bringing this to WP:AE might result in sanctions with regard to several contributors. I can be wrong of course. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, no disruption that's clear. But if must, take this to Arbcom, but remember: it's a nuclear option, and few walk away happily from it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin perspective

Well this is a spectacular and complicated mess. Beginning with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Final_decision, closed in 2007, the article the editors are dog-fighting over is subject to discretionary sanctions, for which Faustian (talk · contribs) was previously warned under in 2014. E-960 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly named as a possible sockpuppet of COD T 3, logged at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3/Archive (see October 2015), for which he was apparently cleared (repeatedly) and more obtusely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive (alleged behavioral evidence as mentioned in the first SPI listed here). Given the above observations, I'd say that leaves the motives of both of the editors suspect here. My suggested course of action would be to topic ban both E-960 and Faustian, adopt a 0RR policy on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and permanently semi-protect the Blue Army (Poland) article to prevent ISP-based editing around a 0RR position and to better track any alleged sock accounts of interested editors working to undermine the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not committed misconduct on this article since my warning. I have sought consensus, opened neutrally-worded RFCs, etc. I am guilty of being present and active when someone else has been disruptive and feel that a blanekt topic ban would be unjust and would essentially be punishment for my presence, not for any actions. Please see this comment: [131] by User:Darouet, seconded by User:Iryna Harpy( [132]) Please consider the commnents by User:Wikimandia at the beginning of the ANI here also: [133].Faustian (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really think punishing Faustian is extreme. I don't see any diffs of him violating policy. This most recent episode, from what I can tell, started with a very non-neutrally worded RfC by E-960, who decided to begin removing info from the article claiming "consensus" on the still open RfC. (It has since been closed as no consensus.) Several of the editors active on the page have stated E-960 is an SPA and Faustian is helpful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see diffs demonstrating misconduct by Faustian. @TomStar81: I intend no offense, but Faustian and E-960 have essentially nothing in common, except their disagreement at Blue Army (Poland). Banning Faustian from the article would, in my opinion, be a fundamentally lazy response, since it requires the most superficial examination of what's been happening at Blue Army. Many editors have been able to disagree on the article and make some progress, but the combination of E-960's POV and inability to evaluate sources has repeatedly poisoned discussion there. It's entirely unclear on the other hand what Faustian's infraction is. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No offense is taken. Remember, this is a suggested course of action, and its based on a cursory glance through the article and its history. This also relates to me insofar as I usually take an all or nothing approach to these matters - meaning either everyone gets disadvantaged in the arena or no one gets censored - as such an approach usually lets me gauge who the problem people are. Often, but not always, its the people who complain the loudest when being locked out of articles who are the most disruptive editors. So far three independent people have come to Faustian's defense, I fact I have noted and it does seem to suggest that he is not part of the problem here, but part of the solution. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 3 December 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.

Proposed Topic ban for Faustian

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'd like to propose a topic ban for user Faustian on Eastern Europe, who has been blocked several times for his editing approach on the Blue Army (Poland) page, disrupted other pages with related topics, and has used inappropriate tone to comment on other editor's ethic background instead of focusing on the content of the article.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also here is a list of complaints from the ANI, which were filed against user Faustian by other edits:

• Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
• User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )
• User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )
• User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)

And a recant warning about Faustian's behavior on the Blue Army (Poland) page by admin User:MSGJ: @Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as noted above. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The above is a good example of this editor's dishonest and disruptive approach. A quick example - "user:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)": (link through google): [134] IP's claim was rejected by an admin, who followed my advice and semi-protected the article to prevent the IP who reported me from disrupting it. E-960 is using this as evidence to prove I am "bad?"Faustian (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC

• Oppose - silly. Additionally please stop accusing people of being in a tag team (WP:NPA) - that people agree with each other and disagree with you does not make them WP:TAGTEAM. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my experience, Faustian has been a constructive editor in those topics, and amenable to reasonable discussion. I'd oppose a topic ban, barring serious evidence of disruption, which I am not seeing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; ArbCom. Per my comment in previous section. Not all of E-960s complaints are invalid. Not all of Faustian's are either. And they're not the only editors who need to take a step back at that article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Faustian has been working to improve this article for years, and as others point out above, there is essentially no equivalency between their style of editing or contributions and those of E-960. Faustian's competence and good faith is well borne out by any review of the history of Blue Army (Poland) and Talk:Blue Army (Poland), and their longstanding ability to reach consensus, including at Blue Army (Poland), with editors who disagree with him/her. It would be outrageous to sanction Faustian for being the only person, in the long term, with the fortitude to tackle E-960's disruption. I certainly don't have it. -Darouet (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose too drastic an action. Dorpater (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darouet. It's a pity that the topic ban for E-960 has been closed off with no action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think anyone here deserves a topic ban. It's just a controversial, contentious topic with a lot of talk page discussion and some very minor edit warring (relative to comparably controversial topics). The matter needs to be hashed out on talk, although it's true that the issue really does need some fresh eyes because otherwise these two editors just end up going in circles. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 2 December 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.

Proposed topic ban for E-960 and Faustian with Pending changes 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.

---

This conflict has been going on for several years with no hope in sight. It is a terrible drain of Wikipedia resources. Some commentators (including an admin) since left Wikipedia. No uninvolved editors are being acknowledged by the active participants in this feud ... one of the better established puppet theatres I've seen. Repeat assumptions of bad faith shown in reverts and in uncivil comments never stopped since the article was created. It takes two to tango. User:Faustian has been warned by the Arbitration enforcement numerous times for edit warring in Eastern Europe, User:E-960 even worse (with repeat warnings: Callanecc, MSGJ). These two editors (incl. blocked: Factor01 and COD T 3 among numerous "cameo appearances") constantly goad each other and everybody else into prolonging the conflict by personal attacks, vilification, and accusations of bad faith as well as "falsehoods". Please be informed. The General restrictions affecting all users editing in this area have been defined in § 11 of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as follows: "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling." – We do already have in place all the administrative basis necessary for imposing this topic ban; and installing the Wikipedia: Pending changes protection in the article, in order to finally stop the bleeding! Poeticbent talk 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve a topic ban? I have not been warned "numerous times" by arbitration enforcement for edit warring. In 9 years of editing I have had one (24-hour) block on an eastern European topic, which involved reverting the removal of reliably sourced information by a since-permanently banned user (compare to your own block history: [135]). When I have run into trouble, it was simply due to not walking away from an article that was undergoing attack or disruption by a clearly disruptive editor. When someone provides a falsehood, I describe it as such and provide clear evidence for that. I have created about 30 articles on Eastern European topics (see my use page: [136], several of which were featured in the "did you know" section of the wiki main page, and made about 10,000 edits. Equating me with E-960 and proposing to ban me from eastern European topics is, sorry, just not right. Faustian (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Try to see the forest for the trees, please. This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you. The waste of time and resources will never stop until we stop it. Think about the Wikipedians other than you, who could use a break from this never-ending story for a change. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is nonsense. Faustian has not done anything to deserve a topic ban and Poeticbent's reasoning of "This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you" shows it is a bad faith proposal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator). None of them has shown any desire to resolve their differences between themselves, ever! This is a good faith proposal with everybody else in mind. Faustian made 231 edits to that talk page beginning in January 2011, E-960 made 118 edits there. The unresolved issues today, are the same as they were in 2011 long before E-960 showed up on the scene; nothing has changed one iota in spite of numerous attempts from the community. They need help, Poeticbent talk 21:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what topic bans are for. It appears you might be thinking of interaction ban, but I don't see that is warranted either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Equating a disruptive editor and someone else very active on the same page is wrong. I have opened several RFCs on that page to resolve issues, and I have worked collaboratively with non-disruptive editors with whom I disagreed (such as here: [137].Faustian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Faustian, has been the main editor who disrupted the article from the beginning. Most of the conflicts started when he inserted highly controversial material as seen in the talk page over the years, he has been edit warring with established edits on this page such as User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus not to mention all the newer edits like myself or User:Ivanevian.--E-960 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 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.

Move discussion watching 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.

---

Can one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 29 November 2015 please? RMs on the names of Indian cities have been a tense issue and the current proposal expresses concern about canvassing in previous RMs which does nothing to settle this. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of racism at Talk:Bangalore

I wish to propose a ban on User:Loginnigol from commenting on race in any forum. Two weeks ago, he claimed that stating an issue was "manifestly two-faced (Western/white versus non-)" was "not ... making it a race issue". He was asked to withdraw the comments, apologize and desist from making similar comments in the future. Today, he has returned to the attack by accusing opponents of "white supremacy (Indian sources are regarded as inferior to lily white Anglo Saxon sources)". DrKay (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notified the editor as required here. Is there a reason we shouldn't block under WP:NOTHERE? Race-biting over sources is not a good use of time here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He is editing since 2011 though and looks active, right? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DrKay had notified in a different section, perhaps you missed that Ricky. I'm pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise who had proposed placing this page under discretionary sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He should have been blocked for edit warring at Apple pie where he seems to have an anti-western or anti-American pov and introduced ridiculous "facts". Although others tried to use the article talk page to address his changes specifically, he did not engage. Also, he blanked different editors attempts to discuss with him on his own talk page. This may be more than just race issues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I propose a ban on the DrKay for making false accusations and for attempting to ban discussion on a TALK page? It's bad enough that the article is biased but that's not enough for some. They also want to prevent discussion on the talk page. Needless to say I categorically reject his claims that I am "accusing opponents" of racism whatever that means (I didn't even know there were "opponents" here. That itself sounds like racism to me. My comments today or yesterday refer only and exclusively to content, not "opponents" or persons of any other sort. —Loginnigol (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Opponents of the move. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, there will be no such "ban". I actually agree with Loginnigol that the comments on Talk:Bangalore aren't racist or race-baiting--they're just completely inane. I hasten to add that I have not looked at the issues signaled by Berean Hunter. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Inane isn't better. Either way, dismissing sources due to the race of the author accomplishes little and doesn't get you taken particularly seriously. And this is the sixth discussion (all five prior opposed) in just over a year so I'd say a ban on proposing the move again is prudent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, that's not better. But a move ban, sure. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 3 December 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.

Nonsensical Edit-Warring, Hostile Editing and MOS:LEAD Violation by TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD)

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.

---

Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [138] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [139] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP.

But you wouldn't know it's even a television network due to TRPoD's edit-warring.

User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been hell-bent on getting this deleted with either blanking redirects to the network's holding company or "Notability" tags.[140][141][142][143]. During a WP:TNT job he deleted the lede.[144] You would have no idea what the article topic is by TRPoD's edit. Naturally I added a lede per MOS:LEAD. That lede was:

Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India. It is offered by Zee Network, part of the Essel Group.

TRPoD deleted this sentence and didn't replace it with anything so nobody has any idea what even this topic is! His edit summary was "WP:BURDEN it is obviously a claim and unsourced." [145]

Either this editor is operating on the assumption that every single sentence in WP mainspace must be cited by sources or he's just being combative for the sake of combativeness. Given his history, I'm wondering if it's the latter. I wouldn't have brought this case to this board but I see that this editor was blocked by Administrator User:HJ Mitchell for "edit-warring and creating a hostile editing environment" so this behavior is clearly nothing new to him and he has learned nothing from that block. I also see TRPoD has been the subject of multiple ANI cases.[146][147][148][149]

Can something be done about this longtime problem editor? TRP

Also, can someone please fix the MOS:LEAD violation on the Zee Bangla page? --Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. In my opinion his edits do seem a bit too aggressive in terms of removing unsourced stuff (rather than tagging it), since it's not like this is a BLP or a situation where leaving tagged unsourced stuff up for a bit while people search for sources would be a problem; but I don't see how it's a policy violation, so it doesn't really belong here, especially since there seems to have been no attempt by anyone but him to resolve the dispute on the talk page for the article. In any case, if it's as big as that, answering his objections by finding sources should be easy to do, so I don't understand why this dispute has gotten so far -- just take the sources you presented here and put them in the article, if you think they pass WP:RS (I'm not sure myself, but that's something you can hash out with him on the talk page if it turns out to be an issue.) Also, you're required to notify people when creating an ANI thread about them, though I went ahead and did it for you in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of what you said is correct. This is more about this editor's long-term edit-warring pattern of behavior of that has displayed and still hasn't paid heed to the community's request he stop this behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are correct about Aquillion being correct, we can close this thread. User:TheRedPenOfDoom, the fate of the world is not at stake in this article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to close this. But I guarantee this is not the last time someone is going to bring this editor to community scrutiny.--Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? Does anyone still have the energy to resist Red Pen? This is one of the most destructive editors here (and yes, quote me on that). They have a vast history of edit-warring, wikilawyering bureaucracy to the overall detriment of the encyclopedia. How often does anyone see an edit from them that isn't an edit war?

Yet WP is seemingly powerless to act. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at the recent history of Krampus for yet more of the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, we've all had our little blah blah blah and everyone feels self-satisfied. Now read this again and let it sink in: "Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [150] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [151] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP. " — Why are we not taking this seriously? Carrite (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking what not seriously? Do we ignore WP:BURDEN because someone yells WP:BIAS? No one says find an English language source, just find a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Better delete the lede of MSNBC - "MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political opinion (mostly progressive) on current events." - because of WP:BURDEN and there's no citation supporting that claim.--Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not helping your cause here. Feel free to go around with WP:POINTy idiocy and test everyone. One reason I hate editing anything India related is there's almost guaranteed to be some claim that it's biased or racist or whatever. That and the ginormous overreaction to every little slight. And that's from someone who's Indian so I'm used to it. To summarize, unsourced content was removed, sources were provided and people still want TRPoD blocked anyways due to Gamergate it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing the simple sentence lede for which a vast majority of WP articles don't have a citation under the pretext of WP:BURDEN is what's WP:POINTy. I see even in your good and helpful edits, even you have opted not to delete the lede which is uncited - "Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India." - as that would be POINTy.--Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede doesn't require a source if the content below repeats it and contains a source. You don't get an out on sourcing by making all the content into the lede. The MSNBC page has extensive citations regarding those facts so the lede is superfluous in that regard. Even then, you argued about not just the lede but about a notability tag, the removal of an non-reliable source, and the redirect of the article. And as noted below, in all the complaining you've done here, the only talk page comment you have is "send it to AFD" which ignore the source concern entirely. Did you really want it taken to AFD or were you just being argumentative as you are here? Even then the lede isn't clear. It's discussing the fact that the channel was banned in Bangladesh without any indication that it is a channel in that country (if it is a current channel there). As I note on the talk page, there's three separate years when it allegedly began. Do you care about any of this or do you think that everyone should just ignore it all in favor of an unsourced list of programs and whatever else people want to post there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The source supporting the lede content, that this was a cable channel in India, was indicated in a source in the article, but TRPoD deleted the lede anyway. As pointed out below by Swarm who opposes a block, TRRoD should've brought this to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. As for what would transpire in the AfD, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE all make it explicitly clear that notability is indicated by the sources that exist, not that are present in the article. No editor with common sense would believe a television network with a viewership over 153 million [152] (it was even more than I thought earlier) would not have existing sources, and in this case, most likely in the Bengali language.--Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've been concerned with similar edits from TRPoD for a long time. I'm fairly certain I've seen several such edits from TRPoD, but the one previous instance that I can remember where I interacted with TRPoD for a similar situation was for the now-deleted article Heartstone (artifact) (see User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 12 and User talk:Calathan#Nomination of Heartstone (artifact) for deletion). In that case, TRPoD edited the article to remove all explanation of what the subject was, leaving the article as just one line of trivia mentioning that a single TV series had heartstones in it. As I explained at the time, while taking the article to AFD was appropriate (it couldn't be backed up by sources, and was deleted), removing any explanation from the article about what the article was actually about seemed ridiculous. I'm dismayed to see that TRPoD is still making similar edits. It seems like the most obvious of common sense that an article should contain a statement of what the article is about. If that statement can't be backed with reliable sources, then the article will clearly be deleted, but in such a case one of the deletion policies is the right solution. Removing any statement of what the article is about will just make it harder for people to either determine if it should be deleted or find sources (not everyone will think to check the history). In a case like Zee Bangla, where it seems obvious that some sources should exist, just adding a "citation needed" tag to the line in question seems like a fine way to handle an uncited lead statement. While WP:BURDEN is policy, it feels like TRPoD treats it as if it is the be-all and end-all of policy, trumping things like cooperative editing and the goal of building an encyclopedia. That simply isn't the case, and other editors need to know what an article is supposed to be about if they are to participate in editing it (or deleting it, or whatever the appropriate outcome is for the article). If anyone needs a policy justification for leaving articles in a state where other editors can understand what they are about, I would say Wikipedia:Civility, specifically the part that states "Participate in a respectful and considerate way". I'm not asking for any specific action against TRPoD over this, but just want TRPoD to please stop editing like this. Removing explanations of what articles are even about does not lead to a better encyclopedia, and isn't at all the right way to cooperate with your fellow editors. Calathan (talk) 21:37, 7 December 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.

Block TRPoD for disruption

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 think it's clear that TRPoD's conduct is disruptive. There is no need to remove content. 166.176.59.69 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.59.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support I agree IP and with Andy Dingley above. Seriously, what is with the failure to act? —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Did banishing TRPoD improve either the content of the deportment at Gamergate? It did not; things got worse. Yet some of the same actors who were so earnest in their pursuit of Gamergate’s targets, the five horsemen of wikibias, are back here. A block discussion is not the answer. A block is not the answer. The answer is to pick up your toolbox, go look at the television network page, and improve it. A network this large should should be covered in plenty of reliable sources; go use them. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, if even Gamergate won't have him, that's a strong suggestion that there is a problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a content dispute that has barely been discussed on the talk page. If discussion and regular dispute resolution procedures are fruitless, then we can consider it here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is about TRPoD's long term hostile disruptive behavior and inability to properly work with others. The "content dispute" is just another example of his behavior that demonstrates his recent block for the same behavior has had no effect on him.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• wut? I have no idea what Gamergate has to do with this (though I realise it is the horse Bernstein loves to ride) but the rest of his post is correct. It should also have occurred to TRPOD that this is a significant network; perhaps TRPOD has realised this now pablo 19:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a content dispute. (A) What article are we talking about? If people object about Gamergate, start a new discussion. (B) As to Zee Bangla, things are unsourced and so it can be removed. (C) The WP:BURDEN is on those who assert the statements not on the rest of us to just go with it. Cite needed is fine too but we do have over 100 pages with issues for over a decade. (D) Regardless of the claims about English-language bias or whatever, there is no requirement that sources be in English. The fact that no one has found sources in any language is problematic but not particularly disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  "Things" may be unsourced but the second paragraph of the source cited backs up both those sentences. You know, if you actually read it.  pablo 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • • The content dispute is the thread above, this is about the long-term pattern from Red Pen.

Wikilawyering is using policy to find an excuse to act in a particular way, regardless of whether the end result is useful or not. This typifies Red Pen's editing. I've known of them for a few years, this is all I've ever seen from them. Sometimes the end result is useful (real spam is spam and we're well rid) but all too often - and I'd hazard that it's 50:50 for Red Pen - the results are both harmful and yet policy-compliant. This is the behaviour of the cop who thanks you for pulling over to let the ambulance past, then issues you a ticket for parking on the grass. Red Pen's contribs history is one long slew of red - bulk sections of articles removed on the slightest of whims. Nearly every time he bulk-removes it's against another editor(s), and he will always then edit-war repeatedly to enforce his view and his remarkable persistence. He wins out by sheer doggedness.

Most of these removals are unwarranted. Repeatedly removing mention of a big budget film release as "unsourced" (see Krampus through November) is no excuse when the real fix is to find some sources and add them (It is implausible that a multi-million film doesn't make a footprint of good sources). I do not believe that it is acceptable editing to make this deletion-only edit repeatedly, even when policy permits that, when the better alternative is so obvious and so easily achievable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The deleting the the simple lede of this television network article was another act of WP:POWER rather than the benefit of the readers. This additional example of absurdity is demonstrating his recent block for this kind of behavior has had zero effect on him. Something more substantial needs to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking an editor over a content dispute. TRPoD can be abrupt and abrasive but I find his edits usually improve articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not just a "content dispute", but another example of an overall long-term pattern of hostile and disruptive editing that this editor has demonstrated. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out the long-term pattern? Simply saying "editor was brought to ANI multiple times" isn't going to cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only has there been multiple ANI cases against this editor for the same edit-warring and hostile editing, he was blocked earlier this year for such behavior.[153] I'm not alone on this board when feeling this behavior has gone on long enough. --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits and one block (one fewer block and 120,000 more edits than you). I am having trouble seeing this as evidence that "this behavior has gone on long enough". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Duration of time at WP is just a red herring and does not absolve an editor from persistent hostile edit warring.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I can put it any better than Liz has. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely deleting the lede and breaking MOS:LEAD because they were mad the article was still there did not improve the article. That edit-warring beyond "abrasive". --Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If you block TRPoD you may as well hand over the keys to this asylum to every promotional sock farm and paid editing group that proliferate our Indian and Pakistani entertainment articles. I don't think anyone who has not edited in this area can comprehend the amount of puffery, promotion and outright falsification of references that occurs in this topic area. Does he get it right every single time? No, though with 135k+ edits I can imagine it would be hard to achieve perfection. I see TRPoD started a discussion on the talk page prior to the issue being brought here and the response was pretty much "take it to AfD if you disagree", which is hardly constructive. I don't see this as an intractable dispute requiring blocks, people just need to talk to each other and figure out what content should be included (or not) in the article. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Multiple ANI threads" is just a red herring. Persistent hostility is unproven. BTW you do not need to respond to every post made here by those who do not agree with you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't find TRPOD's conduct in this article to be helpful or constructive, but no case has been made to demonstrate a blockworthy, ongoing problem. If the effort put into complaining about it at ANI was instead put to actually resolving his complaints, we wouldn't have an issue to begin with. Three problematic things I did see that I would caution him about: Notability does not apply to content found within an article, it applies to the subject of the article itself, and thus, content should not be removed for being "non-notable". The accusations of content being promotional appear to be empty. Do not label information as "promotional" unless it's clearly intended to advertise. Lastly, existing articles should not be unilaterally redirected. This is what AfD is for. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a good summation and I agree with a lot of it. I would point out, as pointed out above, TRPoD has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits. He knows all of this. He knows about notability not applying to article content, he knows what is "promotional" and he knows what should be the sent to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. But he ignored all of this, edited un-constructively and went to to edit-war to supporting these edits which he knows were wrong. That's why this behavior, which is nothing new, was brought to ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Tripod is a case study in why civility is not the be-all end-all of evaluating an editor. He does what needs to be done. I don't see any indication here of the personal attacks that crossed the line and got him in trouble before. Rhoark (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before life ate me into a lengthy Wikibreak TRPoD was regularly hauled to ANI and regularly had nothing come of it but sound and fury. I return and I may as well set my watch to it, because here he is again. And again, there's nothing here seeming to rise to the level of blockworthiness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. TRPoD is a good editor who has the gumption to keep a lot of our problematic articles sailing straight. For these pains of course they get dragged here a lot. TRPoD deserves the community's support. Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support and block Ricky81682 as well for his meat puppetry. The lede must not be touched. Ever. 166.170.50.225 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many opposers above. Strong good faith editor who edits in many difficult areas of the project, certainly not afraid to show a strong approach to NPOV as we know it in some of the more lawless spots! -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. TRPoD tirelessly works to bring problematic articles into compliance with our community's most important policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and the manual of style, and to maintain them in that state. Regardless of any merit to the objection to his behaviour in this particular case, there is no evidence of an ongoing problem which would warrant a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a content dispute which (when it was brought here) no one but TRPoD had made any attempt to resolve on talk. He should have looked for sources or tagged rather than just deleting, but calling the deletion of unsourced material "disruptive" is silly. Just find a source and restore it with that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the lede so nobody had any idea what this major television network was is what was just silly, not to mention disruptive. Calling bad behavior a "content dispute" simply because his disruptive behavior was instigated by a content dispute only masks the disruptive behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Supporters haven't shown any good reason to block TRPoD. The edit deserves, if anything, a WP:TROUT, not a block. There's no evidence of a long-term pattern here. clpo13_(talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of my neighbours watch Zee Bangla, yet i would support Red Pen to edit Indian entertainment articles. He doesn't have any personal hatred against Zee Bangala. There is too much paid editing and promotional editors in Indian entertainment articles, due to which people are bound to make mistakes. Last few weeks I am removing tons of crap websites being used as references and i found it strange that Filmfare and Stardust (magazine) a Bollywood magazine founded in 1971 is less likely to be used as reference, while these new unreliable websites are frequently used as reference though they don't have much popularity. filmfare 1958, filmfare 1960, stardust 1974, stardust 1980 The Avengers 05:43, 6 December 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:Suvrat Raj(sonu kumar)

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

---

This user appears to be the indef blocked user User:SUVRAT RAJ.

Almost all of his edits have been attempts at self-promotion - most recently, creating redirects from namespace to his user page, and also adding categories to it. PamD 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Someone might want to delete this too: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suvrat Raj(sonu kumar), because it ain't got a snowball's chance in hell... Thomas.W ^talk 10:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked and tagged them, plus I've deleted their various pages. It's a pretty obvious sock. @PamD:, you think that it'd be worth opening an SPI? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 3 December 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.

Alexiulian25

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 can somebody take a look at Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits/behavior - the background can be found here (talk page of the effected WikiProject, where I have tried to resolve the matter), but this is basically a low-level content dispute. I have been removing content citing WP:OR, Alexiulian25 has been reverting. I didn't want to come to ANI, but his edits are increasingly concerning, he is exhibiting severe BATTLEGROUND and OWNERSHIP issues, and he has now resorted to personal attacks e.g. "retard" which was followed by starting a section on my talk page called "Giantsnowman is a idot" [sic]. GiantSnowman 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not riding to the defense of the user here, Alexiulian25 has been rude and uncivil - however, they've calmed down a little and are starting to listen and make changes to their behavior. I'm willing to continue to discuss this with them on my talk page, and have asked them to apologise to you Giantsnowman. This user has, in the past, been a very constructive member of Wikipedia, however I understand if they continue that a block would be the result -- samtar ^whisper 14:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Snowman. I was really angry ! You did delete a lot on Wikipedia without giving me a warning to add references ! You should inform people before you delete --Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not require that - and you have been told by others about your editing problems. However I appreciate your apology. GiantSnowman 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor continues to edit war and is reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexiulian25 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ) Qed237 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 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.

Request to cease drive-by POV tagging

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.

---

@Jbottero: is apparently going to keep adding {{POV}} to the article Kshama Sawant [154][155][156][157] without any indication as to what the POV problem is. How are we supposed to correct the problem if nobody will tell us what it is? As the template doc explains: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Jbottero has been warned four times about this, with reference to the POV tag instructions. This could easily be resolved by Jbottero simply going to Talk:Kshama Sawant and telling us what the problem is. If they are not willing to do that, the editor should be banned from Kshama Sawant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If he's been warned for this four times, and is continuing to do this afterwards, I'd say that a block per disruptive editing is completely justified here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic but I looked at the article and talk page and did a quick web search about the subject. I don't see serious POV problems though maybe a few missing points could be added, e.g. from here. Jboterro did comment on the talk page on 21 October 2014,[158] apparently supporting adding material about Sawant's personal life that others opposed on IINFO and BLP grounds (I don't think Jboterro's comment in that diff is consistent with Wikipedia's current approach to privacy of article subjects). Since that discussion was more than a year ago, I'd say consensus has been reached on the issue, so the repeated tagging is unjustified absent a new talk page discussion with specific concerns. Simplest might be to just post on the article talk page saying this. If that is done and the drive-by tagging continues, it's reasonable to block for slow-moving edit warring. Right now I don't see enough ongoing disruption to warrant an immediate block. I'd support an admin leaving a warning message on Jbottero's talk page. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I put a "final warning" notice on Jbottero's talk page. People are not obligated to psychically guess what POV concerns other editors have. The talk page hasn't been edited since May so Dennis is right in that there's no way for him to be able to respond about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 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.

Viriditas is being combative and uncivil

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.

---

Viriditas was combative after his unilateral name change was reverted on 2015 San Bernardino shooting. He said: "Disagree all you want. Within the last day, all RS have taken to calling it "attacks", and the shooting narrative has since been dropped. I've changed the article title accordingly." followed by "Let's recap for those who can't keep up: consensus to move to a new article title is established. Since there is only one option for a neutral title supported by naming convention and reliable sources ("2015 San Bernardino attacks"), I moved the article accordingly. It was then absurdly reverted for no reason. What exactly do we have to discuss when there is only one logical option for moving an article to a title supported by both our naming conventions and all of the current RS that have been published? Are you unaware that RS are now calling this an attack and not a shooting? What exactly is it that you feel the need to discuss? Do you need personal attention of some kind?" followed by "There is no such rule or requirement, and since consensus for a move has been established above and there is only one logical target for a new title based on naming conventions and RS, a request for move is unnecessary. Do you oppose a move to a title currently reflected by our best sources? Why? Sources are no longer calling it a shooting, they have been calling it an attack for the last 12 hours. Please get on board." In a seperate thread he stated to me: "It is too soon and in poor taste to use the victims as the butt of your unfunny tu quoque attempts at humor. If you persist in what appears to me to be disruption, I will file a request for arbitration enforcement.", which I pervieved as a threat to attempt to censor me from participating in the editing of 2015 San Bernardino shooting and Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting pages. I attempted to resolve the conflict via Viriditas' talk page by suggesting that we avoid each other for the time being, but he continued to be combative. He made another comment: "Step right up and claim the "inept" description for your argument: the terrorists attacked the workplace and then attacked the police. Are you done?". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas has removed my ANI notification from his talk page. Should I re-add, or leave well enough alone? ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Leave it; removal is considered acknowledgement. NE Ent 03:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He as also added a further comment: "How can Park's comment up above not be considered a blatant example of trolling? We are way, way past the point of not talking about the faith of the terrorists, yet he still persists.". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI requested. The majority of the comments ParkH. Davis identifies with were made by IPs.[159] It's a bit odd that he appears to claim by inference that I was responding to him. Nevertheless, all of the comments were taken out of context, as the link I have provided shows. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Park is fresh off a 24hr edit warring block [160] for his 6RR whitewashing religion of islaic terrorists, but seems to have learned little from it for he continues to be disruptive. This is retaliation against one of the filers. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that he also levied a serious personal attack on me during his block when he accused me of "spread[ing] ... anti-muslim propaganda."[161]. I suppose that explains why I spent time encouraging a user to expand content on muslim attitudes towards terrorism in the article, opinions that explicitly condemns Islamophobia and presents the Muslim POV on the attacks.[162] Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I long ago lost my mind-reading ability, so I can't speak to the OP's motive for opening this. But I have no reason to retaliate against Viriditas for anything, and I agree that they have been a very disruptive force at this article. I was close to opening this myself, but couldn't summon the energy to assemble the airtight case required to have even the slightest hope of any temporary relief at all. It's there on the talk page for anyone who wants to check it out. If someone wants to demand out-of-context diffs, forget I posted this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, you cannot provide a single, unambiguous diff showing any semblance of disruption from my account in this article. Not one. However, I want to thank you for sticking to your registered account for this report instead of using your IP as you have been doing for a while now. Now all we have to do is find out who has been disrupting the talk page with the newest set of IPs. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Good ole time-tested, bad-faith ANI defensive strategy. If you can't defend your own behavior, throw up smoke by pointing fingers at others. If there is anyone who can't see through this, this should clear things up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the diff of my alleged disruption you promised? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the diff of me promising that? I already explained, quite clearly I thought, why I'm not producing diffs. If that means the disruption continues, so be it. I'll just move on and let others deal with you and the consequences to that article. I'm done responding to you, but I'll respond to a ping from anyone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas made this comment at User talk:Legacypac#Merge request: "Some joker named "Mandruss" has now appointed himself the official defender of all things ParkH. Davis, after I called him out for making fun of dead people. Just where do these weird people come from and why does there seem to be so many of them? I recently moved the article to "2015 San Bernardino attacks" due to consensus for a move on the talk page, and I was instantly reverted by another joker named "WWGB" who bizarrely told me to find consensus! Meanwhile, every RS has changed the narrative in the last 12 hours from shootings to attacks, but these jokers don't seem to be able to read, let alone understand basic English." Viriditas is continuing to be uncivil towards me and other editors. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And? Are you still alleging that I am spreading anti-Muslim propaganda for noting the religion of the terrorists? Are you still making fun of the victims of the terrorist attacks on the talk page by claiming we should talk about their favorite colors? Are you still trolling the talk page, claiming that the religion of the terrorists is irrelevant to their actions? Should I not refer to you as a "joker"? What then? Who in their right mind thinks it is acceptable to make light of the recent victims of a terrorist attack and to repeatedly remove any mention of "Muslim" from the article? Something is wrong here, but it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - this is silly and needs to be closed. Minor4th 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am fine with this being closed. It seems as if things have cooled down. I will, for the foreseeable future, continue to avoid interaction with Viriditas. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support close per Park's agreement. The main content dispute from last night's thread is now resolved since the San Bernardino incident is now being reported as a likely terror attack by many sources. There is an open RM discussion on the talk page, though the proposed target is "San Bernardino shooting" rather than "2015 San Bernardino attack". I'd ask Viriditas to be more careful about synthesizing conclusions. I don't support keeping sourced relevant info out of the article, but there are a lot of gaps in the available documentation and we shouldn't be the ones to fill them in. We should include whatever info and sourced interpretation we have available, and leave further interpreting up to the readers. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support close and temporary 1RR limit for both editors until they fully cool down. MySweetSatan (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't there a rule against altering other editor's comments? I'm deleting it as base trolling. MySweetSatan (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

MySweetSatan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point being? MySweetSatan (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - Time to move on. Jusdafax 13:19, 5 December 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 BLP issue on high traffic 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.

---

On the recently high profile Chan Zuckerberg Initiative page, an anonymous IP who then registered for an account (Special:Contributions/Peco_Wikau, and likely Special:Contributions/Kiri_Chafr in addition) is inserting several paragraphs of what appears to be borderline original research compiled through several sources, including op-eds and personal blogs. Another editor yesterday removed the contentious content in two edits 1. 2. The editor in question then proceeded to re-insert the content. I noticed the problem today and have now removed the content several times by citing it as a BLP violation and the 3RR exemption; it has been repeatedly inserted by the editor.

While several issues with these edits (including the sourcing and verifiability) can be addressed on the talk page later, at this moment I am strongly concerned with the possible BLP violation in the content involved, namely the use of the label tax avoidance to describe Zuckerberg's initiative. The article on tax avoidance describes the action as "widely viewed as unethical" as carried out by an individual; furthermore, my belief after reviewing this issue is that the description would be widely seen as incorrect as a legal term to describe the issue concerned, and thus potentially libelous. Since this directly relates to a notable recent action by a living person, I believe WP:BLP applies here, and I am requesting for administrator review immediately. Preferably, the page could be protected while we discuss the possible BLP violation with the new editor, who I believe has good intentions. Thanks. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like coatracking of a political argument. Unless he's doing something illegal (which I don't think anyone is claiming), that critique applies to Congress, not Zuckerberg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. I would have argued for a rewrite of that material in any case, but at this moment I'm most strongly concerned about the BLP issue, which I think is severe enough to merit administrator intervention. I've attempted to convince him to hold off on reverting the material back until I can discuss the BLP issue with him, but so far no luck. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted his changes once, and now he's edit warring to keep them in. I'll revert him one more time, then another admin needs to get involved. Katie^talk 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin go in and revert the potential BLP material for the final time, which is still on that page? I don't want to revert again as the editor might perceive this as an edit war and go crazy after the block expires. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted the material. It's blatant coatracking for sure. GAB^Hello! 16:29, 5 December 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.

Conduct of user Eightball

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 would like to point to the conduct of user Eightball in the following discussion: [163]. I do have quite a thick skin, but calling two editors "liars" and "incompetent" because they point to statements given in sources is unacceptable to me. Thank you for your attention. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 has thankfully pointed out to me that this was not the only attack by Eightball on another user in the past 24 hours, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning, I noticed it was right after another fresh warning for personal attacks. Any more nastiness and I think a short block would be called for. HighInBC 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I left the required notification that there is a discussion about them here. HighInBC 18:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, this is my first time here, I was not aware that I should have left something, I thought pinging them would be sufficient. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the behavior they displayed today form part of a wider pattern. They consistently revert to aggression when others disagree with them. Here, here and here (Some diffs of Eightball's comments in that discussion.) are some links to the discussions from the last twelve months in which Eightball took part. Tvx1 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And it continues: [164] Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Disagree" is an odd word for "be objectively correct and continually baffled as to why you people bend over backwards to maintain an incorrect and outdated wiki," but OK... Eightball (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You can disagree without resorting to statements like this. Personal attacks are never warranted. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I try my hardest to assume good faith but these people are doing their best to break that assumption. I have long passed my breaking point here. I'd love to hear them just once admit that they can't logically support any of their positions. It's so, so obvious, but they just won't back down, and it's infuriating. Eightball (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, Another personal attack was posted, despite this report and the subsequent warning. Tvx1 22:23, 5 December 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.

Unblock of User:Supdiop

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 requesting for the community discussion for the unblock of Supdiop. I have 8000 edits on wikipedia. I created many articles and reverted thousands of vandalism edits. I sincerely apologize for the actions. I want to continue my wikipedia career by creating articles, reverting vandalism and reviewing articles. Please give me a chance. I learned the lesson for my actions and I won't let it happen again. Please consider my request. - 188.42.233.34 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the correct venue for this request, since Supdiop wasn't blocked by the community. Appeals should be sent through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. clpo13_(talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I tried by appealing from UTRS, but they denied it. That's why I am asking for the community discussion for the unblock. Please don't close it. - 188.42.253.70 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 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.

CENSORSHIP OF FACTS

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

---

I was unfairly blocked from editing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting I added a reference from (https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/fbi-will-investigate-san-bernardino-shootings-as-terrorist-act) to Islamic terrorism and was unjustly blocked from posting the truth? I will make sure this goes viral since I'm being censored from posting facts with a .gov reference supporting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzazzPicasso (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It won't go viral. Sorry. 208.54.45.207 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PizzazzPicasso - Your block log is clean.... what account or IP were you using when the block occurred? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You were told you would be blocked if you made another personal attack on an editor, not based on your content contribution. This dispute is about your conduct, not your source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has not yet been blocked, and I doubt they understand what it means.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not posting it here, but PizzazzPicasso just posted personal information to Titusfox's talk page. I'm pushing for a block just on this evidence alone. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for linking to that outing attempt. That was just idiotic on my part. The attempt merits an indef, combined with persistent personal attacks and cries of "censorship." GAB^Hello! 21:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. PizzazzPicasso's block should be extended to indefinite. Not cool at all. He can take his abuse somewhere else. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where did that FB link got to? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

titusfox - I'm getting in touch with the Oversight team to have it suppressed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go Clean Up Checkingfax's Page. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gives Titusfox a hug. Sorry man, being outed is not a good feeling. It's been rev del'd and will most certainly be suppressed. There's nothing you need to worry about :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Already clean: I happened by and saw the personal attack, so I removed it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you remove the Sinebot Summary as it also has the topic title? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesnotcontain any sensitive info, this is why I did not remove the summary. Anyway, I contacted the oversight, they will do whatever is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that I've temporarily blocked the account. Should they return and repeat this behaviour, they will probably be blocked again, if not before. Content discussions belong on the article's talk page. I'll remind everyone to think about what they're repeating when they edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

PizzazzPicasso has continued to post that outing link so I have revoked his talk page access. It's a very limited block, I believe it is just 31 hours so it might have to be lengthened tomorrow if abuse continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone see what was outed on that link? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I Really would like to know, as I don't have 100% free internet access. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Titusfox: It was a link to a social media network. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it linked to Facebook as stated earlier, but what was on the page? I can't check due to my computer being locked down by a glitch on the Windows 10 Preview (I'm still using it!). TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This information won't be posted on-wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mike V has indefinitely blocked PizzazzPicasso as an oversight action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 December 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:PizzazzPicasso Harassing me and another editor

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

---

• User Talk:Checkingfax
• User Talk:titusfox

Can Someone deal with this please? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• He has now decided to bring it here as well. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 20:52, 5 December 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.

Tucks Post Card 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.

---

Involved parties

• WestCoastMusketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Gnangarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by WestCoastMusketeer

My edits including some photos of Old Tucks Post cards (dated 1911/12), have been deleted. The links are to WikiCommons Files. The party in question (Gnangarra) has accused me of 'using Wikipedia as a "soapbox"' and has threatened me to 'please stop the mass spamming of links to the site selling postcards or your account will be blocked'. The only link provided is that of Wiki Commons.

In my opinion, the pictures posted provide a historical outlook of the places being discussed in the Wikipedia Articles. The post cards are dated around 1911 and presents an historical picture of these places looked like 100 years back.

I also strongly protest against the language used by the party in question (Gnangarra). Further the party has accused me of 'spamming articles with what appears to be an intentional advertising of the company selling post cards', which is totally untrue.

The files in question are

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FREEMANTLE,_THE_PORT_OF_PERTH,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WILLIAM_ST._%28camels_on_street%29,_PERTH,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SOUTH_PERTH,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PERTH_%28general_view%29,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GOVERNMENT_HOUSE,_PERTH,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAY_ST._PERTH,_W._AUSTRALIA.jpg

The original source of these files are TucksDB.org which posts photos with a cc by-sa licence. Nowhere does this website promotes any sales of Post cards. I have uploaded 571 files to Wiki Commons, of which 10-20 would be Tucks Cards, so the accusation of me restoring to spamming by linking Wikipedia articles to commercial websites selling post cards is untrue. All my links are to Wiki Commons Files, which have been accepted by the Commons Admins.

Articles affected

• South Perth, Western Australia ‎
• Government House, Perth ‎
• Perth Town Hall Photo shows the Perth Town Hall on Hay's St in 1911
• Hay Street, Perth
• William Street, Perth
• Fremantle
• Wesley Church, Perth Photo shows Wesley Church on William's St in 1911

(WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

•  Note: This was taken to WP:ArbCom first, where it is in the process of being declined. So this may qualify as Forum shopping. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I had raised this to the Arbitration Forum as I was unaware of this forum. It was declined as it was suggested to approach this forum first (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

Technically, you should have waited for ArbCom to decline your case before taking it here. You also should have mentioned the ArbCom action in your posting here, in the interests of full disclosure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

When an editor is told by two arbitrators to go file at ANI [165],[166], it's not forum shopping to go file at ANI. And since all arbcom is saying is "no," there's really nothing to see there. NE Ent 12:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent. The user was clearly being told to take the dispute elsewhere first. The only thing they might have done differently is to formally withdraw the Arbitration Request, but, then again, WP:BURO. BMK (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• responded on Arbcom follow the link http://tuckdb.org/postcards/87850 Artist: A.H. FULLWOOD Estimate: $10.00 USD but on commons it states TuckDB as the author and the image as being cc-by when in fact they are PD. WestCoastMusketeer is the uploader to Commons. We have false attribution claiming the selling site is the author, incorrect licensing and a user adding images to multiple articles they havent previously contributed to meets all the normal spam WP:DUCK tests and warranted a warning over the users actions. Of course the user could have contacted my and tried to resolve my concerns but instead abused me on my talk page and then started an ARBCOM case, coming here is just a continuation of that despite it not even being closed there yet... Oh and the person failed to notify me of any these discusisons. Gnangarra 07:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • and as a admin on Commons I should have already deleted those images and warned WestCoastMusketeer for violating copyright but that will now have to be the work of someone else as I have a conflict of interest despite the issues these image have. Gnangarra 07:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Are these items, which I understand sate from 1910/11, still in copyright in Australia? They'd certainly be out of copyright in the US. The fact that the source for the images is a commercial website is rather irrelevant if they're in the public domain. BMK (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
      • There's nothing wrong with these images, at least as far as I can see. Commons:Template:PD-Australia says that artistic works (other than photographs) with known authors are in the public domain if they were created by someone who died before 1955. These being creations of someone who died in 1930, there's no Australian copyright problem, and they're quite obviously PD-US. Old postcards are definitely in scope, so unless you can find better editions of the same cards (e.g. these were badly scanned, and someone else did a better scanning job) or can identify other non-copyright problems, they shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Can Gnangarra provide evidence of me 'abusing' him on his Talk Page? About failure to notify, I am new to his process, and hence unaware of how to notify. In my opinion the focus of this discussion should be whether the photos added have been relevant or not. I had uploaded the files with the CC info provided from the website, its up to Wiki Commons admins to check and delete if inappropriate. Tucks cards have been discussed in Wiki Commons forums and have been acceptable in some cases. These files have been on Wiki Commons for a few months, and I assume they should be acceptable to link in Wikipedia

Now about TucksDB.org, if you see the link that has provided by Gnangarra 'follow the link http://tuckdb.org/postcards/87850 Artist: A.H. FULLWOOD Estimate: $10.00 USD'. If you read the content at this link, the page just provides an estimate of the value of the card as an antique piece. Nowhere does it provide any links to buy the card and offers selling the cards for $10.

(WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

• Comment This appears to be simply a misunderstanding that got out of hand. Gnangarra, first of all, this is not a copyright violation, just a mislabelling. The images depicted are by A.H. Fullwood and credited on the Tuckerdb.org site; all were published by Raphael Tuck & Sons and all before 1923. All that needs changing on Commons is fixing the license and stating the artist and/or publisher in the description. They do not need to be deleted at all. Secondly, you obviously did not check the site carefully. It does not sell postcards (the estimated values are based on printed catalogues) and is simply a database. See here and here. Finally, WestCoastMusketeer has uploaded dozens and dozens of images to Commons from many sources, including his own photographs. A quick check of his contributions there would have revealed that it is extremely unlikely for this to be him spamming the Tucker Database. Gangarra, you should have checked more carefully before reverting and sending WestCoastMusketeer a templated warning for spamming. WestCoastMusketeer, you should have responded more fully to Gangarra with an explanation rather than escalating this immediately, and you should take much more care with your descriptions and licensing at Commons. However, by no stretch of the imagination, does this comment qualify as "abuse". WestCoastMusketeer was simply protesting the " false allegations of 'mass spamming'", which is exactly what the warning template was, given the circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

PS I have now updated the descriptions and licensing at Commons for all the images listed above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone who has taken part in this discussion. Could there are be some inputs on whether adding the photos on the pages mentioned have enhanced the quality of the Wikipedia Articles, or they irrelevant. I am of the opinion, the photos show how these mostly urban landscapes looked like 100 years back, and hence are relevant. If deemed relevant could these photos be reinstated. (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

• Comment

WestCoastMusketeer has wandered through arbcom, and here, and shows very little understanding of what wikipedia is about, as well as accusing Gnangarra of things which show even less understanding of what admins are required to do when confronted by what he (Gnangarra) thought was going on.

Furthermore WestCoastMusketeer was more interested in adding items to pages which already had photos almost identical to the cards. There is little benefit to the articles that I checked, and I do not believe they are of any particular interest.

The lack of communication by WestCoastMusketeer is of some concern, to go wandering through inappropriate venues for something as simple as an admins genuine concern about cards that do not benefit anything in particular is a mis-reading of process, and should not be condoned or encouraged. JarrahTree 14:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the "wanderings" seem to me to be simply the actions of someone who is a relative newbie - hence going to ArbCom first for a relatively low-level dispute, being unaware of AN/I and so on. I'm not sure what you would have wanted someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's internal processes to do. In fact, if a newbie shows signs of knowing all the ins and outs of this place, it generally raises some suspicion that they might not be a new editor at all.
  Regarding duplication or near-duplication of images in a particular article, that's a content issue which can be decided on the talk page of each article in question. If you think two images are near duplicates, keep the one that is the best representation (not necessarily the one that was in the article to begin with) and delete the other. If other editors object, discuss it on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Pretty basic stuff. BMK (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in order to resolve this issue I had initially contacted Gnangarra on his/her talk page. Only to be dismissed saying I was linking Wikipedia Pages to 'back to a site selling them as postcards', without checking the links. Voceditenore has investigated and confirmed the site TucksDB.org is not a commercial website. Further, this interaction also led to Gnangarra accuse me if having 'abused' him on his Talk page. I asked him/her to provide evidence of my alleged abuse, and have still not received any. I had been accused by Gnangarra of 'mass spamming' and in the interest of natural justice, I have the right to defend myself against these accusations, and that is exactly why I raised this issue. Many of my edits have been reverted, modified before, I understand all articles follow due process of scrutiny. That's fine. But to accuse some of 'mass spamming' without verifying the facts is wrong.

About approaching different forums. I am a merely interested in editing and contributing articles, and unaware of these process. All I did was to do a search on Google for Wikipedia Dispute resolution and it led me to the other forum, where the arbitrators were kind enough to point me to this forum.

Further Gnangarra in his Talk Page has commented that 'Oh and I note that not one regular editor of Western Australian topics have reverted the removal of those images'. While taking opinion of a certain group of experts could have some advantages. However, in my opinion relying only of a certain group's opinions is dangerous, and could lead to regionalism creeping in, affecting neutrality of the articles. Also, I thought Wikipedia articles are judged on global standards, and not only based on opinions of certain group.

About the photos I added being similar to other photos, I could not find much similarity. Anyways, I will take this up with individual talk pages on these articles, as suggested by BMK (WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

I thought the postcard added to the William Street, Perth article, and maybe (if added to the gallery instead of standalone) to Government House, Perth. I wasn't convinced about the others in the list above. Scott Davis ^Talk 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, those opinions should be expressed on the talk pages on those articles, not here.

If no one is going to present any more behavioral evidence against either of the parties -- one for spamming, and the other for inappropriately labeling an editor's contributions as spam -- then perhaps this discussion might be closed with advice to WestCoastMusketeer to be more discriminating in adding images by not duplicating existing images, or replacing them if the new image is a better representation; and advice to Gnangarra to take more pains to be certain that what looks like spamming really is spamming, and also to communicate better when an editor inquires of him, as administrators are required to do. BMK (talk) 01:29, 7 December 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:‎Timber72

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.

---

Needs to be blocked now [167] (see also their recent contributions).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See Ymblanter section below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 6 December 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:‎Ymblanter

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.

---

Needs to be blocked now [168] (see also their recent contributions). They are escalating a conflict based on differences of interpretation of Wikipedia policy, and uses threats and intimidation in the process (including reporting here.) Timber72 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? No. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timber72 blocked for edit warring and disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbeeeerr! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

He appears to be part of a right-wing splinter group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good one, Bugs! Someone archive this deadwood before it takes root and becomes a thorn in everyone's side, adding to the ANI logjam. Strictly for the birds. EEng (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Stahp. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We should nip this in the bud. EEng (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's withered on the vine now. EEng (talk) 21:26, 6 December 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.

Civility board

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 needs to be a board to discuss being incivil. Look at the needlessly aggressive conduct that was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andrevan/SM64 to attack an admin without discussion over article drafts. What happened to not being a jerk here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.135 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to drop the stick regarding these deletions. clpo13_(talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The stick has been taken away from them. I expect we'll see the usual block evasion so watch out for socks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Another block 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.

---

Need another block: Special:Contributions/166.170.46.61. EEng (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 7 December 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 deletion of Copyvio notice

A week ago, I deleted some copyvios on the Nazi architecture page. Most of them included a source reference at the end, but no indication that it was a direct quotation, nor where it began and ended. It turns out that they were much longer than the "brief quotations" allowed by WP:COPYVIO. Some investigation showed that these passages (and many more) had been added by two users 10 years ago; also that the initial version of the article was a large block of unsourced text. Even today, most of the text of the article seems to come from these three suspicious sources. I documented this in Talk:Nazi architecture and tagged the article with db-copyvio. User:MER-C changed this to Copyviocore and listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 29.

Since then, User:IQ125 has removed the template three times:

• IQ125 removed the Copyviocore template.
• I reverted, with Edit comment:

(a) you have restored some of the known copy vios; b) this is not correct procedure.. you need to discuss; c) it doesn't matter how many editors have contributed if most of the text is derivative of copy vios

• IQ125 again removed the Copyviocore template (and restored copyvio content I had removed).
• I wrote him on his Talk page, explaining in more detail that this was not an appropriate action, and restored the Copyviocore template.
• IQ125 again removed the notice.
• IQ125 appears not to understand our policies, so I wrote him a final explanation on his talk page, but did not revert.

Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd appreciate it if an administrator would clarify to him our policies on Copyvio and on removing Copyvio templates. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the copyvio template and warned the user. I will be watching this as it unfolds. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Page British School Muscat error

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 page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_School_Muscat has got into an error contision:-

  A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

  Function: WikiPage::insertRedirectEntry

  Error: 1205 Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.64.32.22)

  • Please, how can this error be cleared? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is asking me to move British School – Muscat to British School Muscat, but the move attempt keeps jamming "database query error". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Has it been confused because you moved the version with a short dash (which was a redirect) to British School Muscat rather than the long dash version which had the content? MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The database error seems to have fixed itself. Anyway, I have completed the move. The page at British School Muscat should now contain the result asked for at WP:RMTR (permalink). Let me know if I missed anything. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 December 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:Champak bora

The user apparently created a sock of Ritu sarma913 with repeatedly creating Non notable pages. In addition, the sock removing the A7 template despite being tagged. So called up the admin noticeboard to lookup to these sockmasters D'SuperHero (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment this IP address removed the speedy deletion tag and i'm completely sure this IP is of the sock of CB. Please admins ping. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition the sockmaster did wrote his biography whereas Wikipedia strongly discourages of autobio writing D'SuperHero (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media

Disruptive edits are being made to Rhema Media.

• Sourced content is being repeatedly removed without explanation.
• Third-party sources are being deleted, and even basic bot fixes are being reverted.
• Content is being added that is copyright, unsourced, non-NPOV, advertorial and highly subjective - most copied from here or here.
• User:Leenz999 has done this here and here. They have made similar edits here, here and here.
• User:MikeMediaNZ has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged.
• User:RM1251 has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged. They continue to make disruptive edits.

Thanks. Paewiki (talk)

Very, very clear promotional and COI edits. Note the usernames: Leenz - Lee is a named employee in the article about this New Zealand (nz) company. MikeMediaNZ - Mike is also the CEO's name. RM1251 - Rhema Media 1251 (AM 1251 is a their radio station). Requested page protection and left a message at WP:COIN pointing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks and all editors notified about COI. Let's see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With three COI editors inserting fluff such as "Star reflects that life really does begin at 50 and has the music and teaching programmes to prove it, but... don’t tell the kids!"[169], the article had turned into ad copy. It still is. Reliable sources for this article subject are surprisingly few for a broadcaster; I've been looking. See Talk:Rhema_Media#Deletion? It's one of those situations where the article subject is just barely notable, and AfD seems inappropriate, but there's very limited third party coverage. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin attacking User:Oiyarbepsy for protecting new 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.

---

User:Oiyarbepsy keeps on getting attacked and insulted for trying to protect hate and terrifying nastiness against new users. Look at the attempts to protect user drafts at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6_for_default_Article_Wizard_text and the complete ignorance shown by other editors as to why it's is utterly hateful towards yell, insult and destroy the good work of editors here. We need more eyes and votes to protect people from ripping to shred the hard work of alll editors and not subject them to admin bullying. How does unilaterally without notice deleting thousands of articles off the encyclopedia help anyone? 166.176.59.231 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any attacks or insults. Ricky81682 is suggesting deleting pages like this, that is, pages with no content other than an AfC template. That's hardly destroying the "hard work" of editors. If Oiyarbepsy disagrees with the proposal, that's their right, just as it's Ricky's right to question them on their reasoning. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I also notified both Oiyarbepsy and Ricky81682 about this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Oiyarbepsy did agree that deleting those kinds of pages should be considered hateful for what it's worth. I think I'm the one being attacked but whatever. I'm asking for a proposal to add to CSD. If it's rejected, then we're back to today's status quo which is probably me just flooding MFD every single day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting unnecessary stuff helps everyone because the growth of online [170] data is that it's literally incomprehensible and unreadable by any individual. Wikipedia has value not only of because what it has, but because of what it doesn't. See apoptosis for the biological equivalent. NE Ent 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is another example of the deletionist lunacy that has driven editors off this project for years. We should be encouraging new editors not terrorizing them by having all their stuff deleted from beneath them. They was a legitimate alternative provided, move all these pages into separate categories so we would have "Blank drafts from November 2009, blank drafts from December 2009, etc. 166.171.120.75 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And editors can support either proposal. Getting upset and running to AN/I isn't productive. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

it is when you want admins to stop the rampant mass genocide of tens of thousands of articles from users. The collective hundreds of thousands of hours of work creating this project could all be thrown away in an instant. Everyone here would agree that they would accept the full 46,000 old drafts out there rather than one possible, plausible article be deleted. How do you know that the singular 'blank' draft some editor started in 2009 couldn't have them return after a decade of inactivity and create our newest featured article? The risk is just too great . 166.176.59.146 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

While I do appreciate a well done troll, you're totally overplaying "indignant," -- perhaps you'd like to move on now? NE Ent 00:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Your the IP editor on a campaign to harass Ricky81682 about his clean up efforts. Using terms like "mass genocide" does tend to make editors not take your remarks very seriously. By the way Ricky81682 is mainly tagging articles. Others are deleting them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought that IP address looked familiar. I suppose it's just a coincidence that Ricky81682 is heavily involved in the topic this editor is banned from. clpo13_(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm like super-deletionist man here. AFD is for article that have made it, I'm killing them before they start so it's going to anger quite a few people, I'm aware of it. I still think this character is related to the Koch mess not the WOP anger I caused. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an aside, I'd appreciate it is someone offered an opinion as to how long should a user be inactive to be considered inactive for their drafts. I've been opposed on all sorts of grounds because the editor "appears to have stopped editing" language is too vague. I mean, there's an argument at MFD over a nine year old single edit userspace copy of the "good version" of Super Mario 64 being opposed as premature so I really hope it isn't literally we have to wait a decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

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.

Just want to make a comment after the close that this is part of the 166.x.x.x range that has been hounding Ricky81682 for the last few months. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The range was also topic banned from articles about long-living people. There's been regular trolling from that range, but my understandingis that the scope is too large to allow a range block. BMK (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking of putting together a ban proposal in my sandbox. I started browsing through the AN and ANI archives looking for other instances of this IP range. However, I've since discovered that the 166.17x.x.x addresses have been used by two other banned users, Ararat arev and David Beals (the umbrella vandal). This introduces quite a complication to my investigation. Blackmane (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown is vandalizing pages and pov pushing

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:SheriffIsInTown should be blocked not only because he is disruptive and an extreme pov pusher but because, after being warned, [171] continues to remove vital sourced information from Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani's article. [172], [173] He claims that Ghani, who was born in Afghanistan and lived in America as a U.S. citizen, is a Pakistani. [174] SheriffIsInTown is simply insulting the Afghan President and spreading Pakistani propaganda. There is no record or any source that even mentions the Afghan President residing in Pakistan, he only visited that country like how Obama and other world leaders do. That doesn't make them Pakistanis.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is completely wrong accusation, the information which I removed is unsourced, I asked Krzyhorse22 to add the sources to pertinent information but instead of doing that he is reporting me here. This matter could have been easily resolved if he would have added the sources. Moreover, I never claimed that Ashraf Ghani is Pakistani. Krzyhorse22 removed "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" from the page which I restored providing a url in the summary line which says he holds Pakistani identity card. Many Afghans lived in Pakistan when they fleed the war in their country and it is possible that he lived there as well but that does not make him Pakistani and never did I say that. Instead of following the policies Krzyhorse22 is unnecessarily harassing me. He can add back the removed information if he can add pertinent sources to corresponding content. Sheriff (report) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He removes large amount of properly sourced and vital content from Afghan President's article and says "[t]his is completely wrong accusation[.]" All the sources clearly explain that Ghani lived in Lebanon and the United States but SheriffIsInTown doesn't accept this, instead he believes Ghani lived in Pakistan. Paki identity card is ONLY issued to Pakistanis. Therefore, we're dealing with a disruptive pov pusher who is spreading propaganda and destroying articles of notable individuals, and falsely accuses others of harassing him.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you know the word "Paki" is derogatory and you snuck that one in to push your own POV. I don't see any "vandalism", but rather two competing points of view that could and SHOULD be taken to the talk pages. I for one am sick of people using these boards as a way to circumvent discussions and take out petty squabbles. That's my take, and I'll now leave it to the admins.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Look and pay close attention at the above diff again, he completely removed sections with properly sourced content from the article of a world leader. That is vandalism. Paki used for a person may be derogatory but I used it for a piece of document. This proves you're uneducated, and you're defending a vandal. Don't feel bad but if you have nothing useful or inteligent to say, don't say anything. Let admins deal with this issue.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This has escalated to the point where Krzyhorse22 needs to either strike his last comments or be sanctioned. MySweetSatan (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You just created this account,[175] likely a sock.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I went back to check why he is claiming that I removed sourced information and found out that in his subsequent edits he did add one source (Brittanica) which somehow I did not notice when I reverted him. I added all that information back for which there was a source. I did not check whether the source actually supports the content in the page or whether Brittanica can be considered a reliable source.

His comments above show his hatred for Pakistanis in general and then he claims that I am a Pakistani POV pusher but actually he has shown by his comments that he is an Afghani POV pusher if someone needs to be blocked is him and not me.

He kept insisting addition of "Mohammad" to Afghan president's name citing a WP:PRIMARY source while 23 reliable sources in the article mentioned his name as Ashraf Ghani without "Muhammad" his WP:COMMONNAME but he kept his attitude of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and recreated the redirect when it was speedily deleted upon my request to facilitate the move from Mohammad Ashraf Ghani to Ashraf Ghani. Then another example of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT was when he moved Hamid Karzai International Airport to Kabul International Airport while article itself mentioned that the name was changed in October 2014, the move was reverted by me. It seems like all of this upsetted him enough to look for an opportunity to report and punish me. What he does not understamd is that as Wikipedia editors, our edits can get challenged by other editors because they are here to contribute as well and difference of opinion exists. Then, he also wikihounded me to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and reverted one of my edits there which was reverted by FreeatlastChitchat supporting my edit.

There are also issues of WP:OWNERSHIP, to me it seems like that he thinks he owns all Afghanistan related articles and think that no other editor especially a Pakistani editor has a right to edit them or challenge his edits on those articles.

All of my edits are based on valid reasoning and policy enforcement but some of them may seem like Pakistani POV edits to another editor but they are actually not and I have valid policy based reasoning for those edits. Sheriff (report) 14:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First of, SheriffIsInTown seems to know very well all the policies of Wikipedia but yet he vandalizes the article of the current Afghan President, i.e., removes properly sourced entire sections, especially the President's birth information and early education. I think he's doing this to provoke me into an edit war, which I often avoid. Second, the Afghan President in his own website says his full name is Mohammad Ashraf Ghani,[176] it is you who keeps removing the "Mohammad" by showing the I don't care attitude. The third point is that you keep adding "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" to Ashraf Ghani's article, where is your proof that he lived in Pakistan? About the airport, I was the first editor in 2014 to rename Kabul International Airport to Hamid Karzai International Airport. My recent rename was my misunderstanding but why is that a big deal to you? Why are you excessively focusing on my every edit? You completely removed the alternative name "Kabul International Airport", which has been the name for 70+ years. You should learn to understand that the whole world is watching these pages, so when you vandalize an article many will come to fix your vandalism.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Block both Completely uninvolved in this conflict, but checking the diffs shows that both the reporter and reportee have violated several policies and may not be here for the right reasons. I'd suggest two short blocks to give both a chance to cool down. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, please cite the policies which were violated by me and when? Sheriff (report) 15:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I think you're being prejudice here, you should be blocked for falsely accusing me and for jumping to conclusion without knowing the facts.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of Krzyhorse22 Personal attacks and ethnic slurs don't belong on Wikipedia. MySweetSatan (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed several copyright violations from Ashraf Ghani, finding the originals in his official biography. Several more sentences seem barely paraphrased, but I have to run - could someone check? Likewise, I've not checked where in all the abovementioned warring this material was introduced. NebY (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment shows hatred for vandals, not for Pakistanis. The name MySweetSatan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for trolling. [177] It was created yesterday, defending SheriffIsInTown and wanted me to get wrongly blocked. The name was uniquely made like SheriffIsInTown, an indication that it may be a sock, especially seeing User:FreeatlastChitchat doing this. Notice the similarities in the names, behavior and area they edit in. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What you are talking about is not WP:VANDALISM rather it was WP:GOODFAITH as I realized later on that you added a source to some of the information which was completely unsourced when I first removed it. Please read the policies and stop falsely accusing people, it's not going to get you anywhere. Sheriff (report) 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)s

You may deny it all you want but what you did clearly amounts to vandalism. You should have carefully reviewed my edits. You still cannot provide any reliable source about Ghani living in Pakistan. Why are you keep saying that he lived in Pakistan when the fact is he was living in the United States?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see this as more of a content dispute than anything, leading it to edit war if I am correct. Based on what I see, this is just nothing but a pitiful back-and-forth case or he said he said. I am seeing rather an issue with both editors now making accusations of socking, NPA, harassment, and God knows what else. This needs to stop NOW. This is getting no one anywhere and rather makes case look weak for both editors. Now, my 2 cent. From what I see based on the diffs, I see sourced content being removed without reason. However, I see that SherrifIsInTown "sourced" one of their additions. I am contemplating closing this thread for content dispute. I see no efforts from either editors on the talk page discussing these changes. It was just a plain case of going straight to ANI without further consensus on the core issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, with editors such as SherifIsInTown its useless to discuss anything because he's one of those who has that I don't care attitude. I did try to discuss the issue with him on his talk, he showed that I don't care attitude. That's why I came here so others can step in. He's an edit-warrior pov pushing, removing from articles anything he doesn't like. The proper thing to do is to insert 'citation needed' tags but he completely removes well recognized information. Every source about Ashraf Ghani has all that information that SherifIsInTown has removed. MySweetSatan clearly acted as a sock, can you explain why I may be wrong?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that you tried to discuss it at User talk:SheriffIsInTown, just two canned edits, the first only two days ago.[178] In any case, that would have been the wrong place. You need to discuss it on the article talk page where other editors may engage in the discussion. I've started two discussions there, raising concerns about various matters including copyright violation, conflict of interest and sourcing. NebY (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say that. Thanks for beating me to it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread may be closed now. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 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.

Claudia Kishi

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.

---

Checkuser Claudia Kishi

It will show you it is

User:Ariel_Flyer

User:Mallory_Pike

99.192.9.116

It is all linked to User:Kagome_85 who is perma banned.

This user has multiple accounts which is against the Wikipedia rules

As I said checkuser

156.57.88.131 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 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.

Punitive Block

Discussion moved to AN. NE Ent 09:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Choor monster WP:NPA/WP:AGF

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.

---

Choor monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently violating WP:NPA/WP:AGF, characterizing good faith disagreements as "trolling" or "lying": [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]. I've asked him to stop: [184], [185], [186]. (Diff after last warning). Other editors have stepped in to revert grossly uncivil edits to the talk page: [187], [188]. Sławomir
Biały 11:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Riemann hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Background 1: In late July of this year a certain editor (I'll call him D, I note he is not getting himself involved, so I see no point in archiving his role here) introduced unsuitable material into the article. It was about a certain mathematician had uploaded his 2015, version number umpteen-whatever, of his claimed proof of RH. We are not NEWS, this is not a FORUM, etc. It's self-published, primary, and until the mathematical community takes note of it and says something about it in an RS, does not belong here. Since the only reference provided was the SPS itself, I reverted. D put it back, I reverted, and at some point D put it back with a claimed source, which led to this thread Talk:Riemann hypothesis#Sarnak official Clay Math statement on RH. The source in question is known as Sarnak 2005 (but originally it was discussed with the wrong year, which I later fixed). D then cited four sources, and I pointed out what they all talked about was nothing beyond 2004, and using them to justify a WP statement about a 2015 preprint is ridiculous. D then settled for a less sweeping statement, one that was in accordance with RS. At this point, Slawek joined in, stating he thinks it's notable, and I patiently explained that his personal evaluation of an SPS primary is not relevant. Slawek more or less asked for a rehash of everything, for no reason I could discern.
• Background 2: Somebody made the news all over with an implausible claim to have proven RH, leading to this thread Talk:Riemann hypothesis#In the news: Dr. Opeyemi Enoch of Nigeria. In the course of multiple editors explaining why no, this is not going in the article, someone suggested somebody buy a copy of the alleged proof (apparently the only way to get a copy) and extract the good bits for the article. This was shot down, and in part of the various explanations why this won't happen, D mentioned that it was for sale and thus not an RS. I pointed out that WP:PAYWALL says this is irrelevant, and after a round or two of not getting it, D let it go, at which point Slawek jumped in, rather incompetently. He even quoted the portion of PAYWALL that says this is not a problem, I pointed out this is not an issue, and Slawek got wilder and wilder, doubling down on defending his obvious mistake, and making ridiculous exaggerations and implications regarding what I was saying, for example, mocking me for apparently claiming "existence" was not required of an RS. Pure obnoxious trash talk on his part, serious case of WP:IDHT, and I called him on it: troll.
• Background 3: Slawek also referred inaccurately to the June exchange described above, and I corrected that. At this point he went off the deep end, inventing an entirely fictional version of what happened, that I had removed RS-based material, to wit, Sarnak 2005. He even linked to a diff, documenting that I had not done what he claimed, but he couldn't bother to acknowledge this. I pointed out this was not true, that the link did not support his statement, and again, he doubled down on defending his obvious mistake. At this point I called him on it: liar. The sheer chuztpah of his willfully not trying to be accurate is amazing. His final response begins with him stating his "understanding" of what happened, and then just spins out his fictional version. An "understanding" is how one summarizes what some editor who is no longer here did five years ago and why that caused trouble and it's just simply too much work to track down in some far flung place for so little gain. It is something one backs off from when someone who was actually there and remembers what happened tells you otherwise. And in this case, when the history is right there in front of you, in a known location, with the participants all present, there is absolutely no excuse for engaging in such a fuzzy enterprise.
• See WP:IUC (part of WP:CIVIL policy), paragraph 2, item d). In its entirety, it identifies "lying" as uncivil behavior. See also paragraph 1, item c), which objects to "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". There is nothing GF about someone who repeatedly says black is white when the exact words are available, quoted at him, by him, and blithely ignored. I see serious WP:CIR issues.
• I'll note my accusations are well-considered. Of all the links Slawek provided, none of them include the bit where I allegedly deleted Sarnak 2005 and an RS-backed addition. Choor monster (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Choor monster", yes the record is really there for all to see. You removed reference to de Branges' 2005 preprint. I pointed this out. Now you've accused me of lying, trolling, and (now) incompetence for pointing out this removal (diffs above, but you've conveniently repeated most of it in this wall of text).

But I don't really think the fine points of our disagreement are relevant here. As regards content, I would say it is really an honest misunderstanding. This is not a misunderstanding that you have made any attempt to make right, since you have failed to assume good faith. Instead you chose to characterize another editor as an incompetent lying troll, along with a host of other personal adjectives. This is behavior that you continue to defend here, trying to justify it through wikilawyering.

I think the fact that Choor monster not only doesn't acknowledge that his behavior here is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but actually defends this violation (and apparently doesn't believe in WP:AGF at all) suggests that some administrative remedy is appropriate. I don't see any evidence that this disruption is likely to abate (see recent history of Talk:Riemann hypothesis). Sławomir
Biały 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your diff above is to my removal of the 2015 de Branges preprint SPS reference, as you could have bothered to notice, and as I have been telling you repeatedly. As it is, you have now changed your tune, before you accused me repeatedly of removing the Sarnak 2005 RS reference. You are having a good deal of difficulty keeping your story straight. You're just wasting my time, and anyone bothering to read this. Choor monster (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The emphasis here is not on content, but on your behavior. If you feel that I was referring to Sarnak's 2005 preprint instead of content that you did remove, perhaps a better way to get clarification would be to ask for clarification in a civil way rather than call the other editor a troll, a liar, and now (apparently) incompetent. Misunderstandings do happen. Your first apparent reply to this misunderstanding is "You really are a shameless troll", and your next reply contains the sentence "That you continue to point-blank ignore and deny the utter obvious, and then lie about it, whether it's explicitly stated policy/guideline regarding pay sources (above) or the utter impossibility of a 2005 source saying anything meaningful about a 2015 preprint, is the hallmark of trolling." Your next reply contained an accusation of lying (and more trolling): "You are also lying when you say I claimed it could not be improved... Maybe you can acknowledge this point already? Instead of trolling?" (I'm really astonished at this characterization, since you had said earlier "...it was impossible for me to improve it." But this is clearly another misunderstanding.) Every single one of your comments in that thread was an obvious personal attack. I don't think that puts you in a position to complain that the other editor didn't resolve your misunderstanding of what they were saying. In any case, I'm sure you would have made bullying comments no matter what I said. Sławomir
Biały 22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My first comment to your accusation that I removed the Sarnak 2005 reference was to point out that I did not do so, pure and simple. There was nothing to clarify, it was simply false. The correct response would be to withdraw your accusation, and apologize. Instead, you responded by repeating your accusation, along with a diff that clearly showed I did not do that. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of deceitful behavior on your part. It was bad enough you repeated your nonsense, but then you pretended you actually had a link? That is what got the "shameless troll" comment. Instead of waking up, you just kept barreling along with your false accusations that I removed the Sarnak 2005 RS. And, yes, you lied again when you said I said something that I never said. It's simple, OK? Choor monster (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I said that you removed reference to the "evolving preprint", and I attempted to clarify this ("That is, you removed not just the link to the latest revision, but the sentence mentioning the claimed proof.") The diff I gave clearly shows this. Anyway, the details are irrelevant. I'm claiming we have a misunderstanding, which happens. You could have calmly corrected me or asked for clarification. Instead, you immediately accused me of trolling and lying, and you continue the personal attacks despite warnings. Even here, you continue to accuse me of deliberate deception (no idea who I would be trying to deceive—newsflash: no one cares!) What's clear is that the personal attacks must stop. If you need to be blocked before that happens, so be it. Sławomir
Biały 23:35, 7 December 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:Khodr_Addam COI

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 chose to do this anonymously because i know the person in question personally and I wouldn't like this to turn in to something personal. Dr. Addam is a dentist without proper botany training who is self published. Now he is inserting links to his work on wikipedia. I am not aware how wikipedia tolerates this kind of edits and if the works he is citing would be acceptable if he wasn't inserting them himself. Regards. -212.28.245.164 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Addam has a formal education in botany is irrelevant; what matters is whether the material he's adding is verifiable. It looks like the references he is adding are to a predatory, pay-to-publish journal. (It's on Beall's list, at any rate.) Almost certainly not a reliable source; the references should be removed irrespective of any COI. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see ample evidence of a user who does not know how to add cites, who hasn't been welcomed (blank talk page) and who wasn't notified of this discussion. I've done that for you. All the evidence suggests a noob and, frankly, I don't think WP:ANI is an appropriate venue to welcome newbies. If you know him personally, why not simply have a private chat to explain your concerns? Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. With friends like that, who needs enemies? EEng (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Make that back stabbing enemies, "with friends like these, who needs backstabbing enemies".FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair... The complainant did not claim they are friends... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: your comment is out of place. I never said Dr. Addam was a friend of mine and I don't want to walk him through editing here because he wouldn't accept my guidance. I know his ego and I wish you @EEng: and @FreeatlastChitchat: good luck with that endeavor and Fuck you very much -212.28.245.164 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 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:McBurgertown

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

---

I'm requesting that an admin block McBurgertown because he is a vandalism only account. I haven't taken this to WP:AIAV due to the lack of sufficient warnings. Tony Abigail (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Tony Abigail: I've reported to WP:AIV as a blatant vandalism-only account -- samtar ^whisper 14:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

McBurgertown has been blocked indefinitely. Tony Abigail (talk) 17:48, 7 December 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 move mess

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:Arundalmia has twice moved his user talk page to Arun Dalmia in main space. It contains useful history dating back a month concerning prior warnings etc, but is now flagged for speedy deletion A7 in its present location. Simply moving it over the redirect isn't an option, as new warnings have been added there. Can the article's edit history be merged back into his talk page, perhaps moving its current contents to a user subpage? I've temporarily removed the A7 speedy tag while this mess gets sorted out. Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:NeilN for fixing this. Norvoid (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. History merge performed (correctly, I hope) and user indef blocked with an explanatory note as this is an ongoing problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 7 December 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.

Request block for edit warring troll

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

---

‎Merry christmas and happy new year (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring to repeatedly reinsert trolling material (9 times at this point) at the Science Reference Desk (page history). Troll has been given a final warning. Please block. EdChem (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There's already an AIV report sitting there. GAB^Hello! 01:47, 8 December 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.

Almost two dozen articles, apparently robocreated

User Carolineneil (talk · contribs) created nearly two dozen articles in the span of as many minutes this past weekend. One of them, Different Instruments for Different Equations, has recently been nominated for deletion. I agreed with that assessment, it was a case of textbook writing and the creation of a chapter name, and treating that self-chosen name as if it were a distinct "topic". I then checked regarding the article's creation, and found nearly two articles, all pretty much in the same style were mass created by the same editor. At most one of them, Roy model, seems to be an actual topic, and thus salvageable. (As written though, perhaps WP:NUKE would be appropriate.) There are also two more created after the initial spree, and again, perhaps one of them, Maximum score estimator is an actual topic, but again, nuking might be best.

WP:DP does not seem to have a mass deletion option. It seems pointless to have the same discussion once per article. Recommendations?

Also, someone with biochemical expertise might want to peruse the several successful AFC's on the Talk page. The subjects do not look like "topics" to me, but they are far enough from my expertise that I refrain from pushing it. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion delete the pages in whole, not the specific discussion topic. Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a biochemist here either. Most of these seem to me to be indistinguishable from sections of a multi-chapter review paper - highly specific, and very textbook-style. The editor should try to a) fit that material into existing articles (there's an easy match for the role of 'parent article' for each of those), and b) turn the text into an encyclopedia article, not a didactic monograph.-- Elmidae 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one of his successful AFCs, Glucose oxidation reaction was speedily deleted yesterday as content duplication, User:DGG/CSD log#December 2015, while another Biosynthetic mechanism was turned into a redirect. As an outsider to biochemistry, I'll venture that it would seem "Glucose oxidation reaction" ought to be a redirect to Glycolysis, the existing content duplication, which I'll mention the editor in question has now added material to. And again, speaking as an outsider, I have the impression that "biosynthetic mechanism" is not a topic as such, and so that entry should have been speedy deleted. Choor monster (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Glucose oxidation should have been redirected as you say, & I will do it. I redirected biosynthetic mechanism to this nearest phrase; I would interpret the potential meanings as either reaction mechanisms of biosynthetic reactions, or biochemical pathways of metabolism; the draft article seemed rather confused between them. I don't think the redirect useless just in case someone types it in. It is in cases like this with a confused article an open question whether to delete and then redirect, or just redirect. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking Google, I find that "biosynthetic mechanism" is in fact a term of art in biochemistry. So you are correct, and I was flat out wrong. Whether or not it is a "topic" as such, it is a genuine search term. Choor monster (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As Elmidae guessed, many of the titles match sections in this textbook (ToC linked there); perhaps others match sections of other books. The content doesn't seem to be identical to the book, though. Kanguole 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just happened to come across this. I'm an academic (not a biochemist) and have read that textbook repeatedly. The articles he's writing seem to be rewrites of condensed notes drawing from multiple reference texts, with some attention paid to organizing them into reasonable topics, not a mere copying of that textbook. I should also note that this textbook in question is more similar to an advanced reference text in econometrics rather than a typical textbook, meaning that its treatment of the topics are fairly encyclopedic, and the methods covered have generally gone through some notability criteria.

Having gone through the dozen of article he's created, while several articles have textbook-style titles, my opinion is that they could be close to encyclopedic quality if renamed and reorganized, and certainly not all of them should be deleted. These are legitimate and notable statistical methods that have been widely used and adopted in multiple disciplines. There is currently a huge gap in Wikipedia on some of these topics, since so few of our users are statisticians. I would recommend not discouraging the effort from this user.

I also went through his edit history. Those articles were not robo-created; he actually worked on them in a sandbox. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason we have WP:NUKE. I identified one of them above, Roy model, as possibly being a genuine topic, but what we have is not in any sense an encyclopedic article regarding Roy model, and I feel the same about the others I looked at. But keep in mind there are more than one meanings to "encyclopedic", "notable" and so on. Compare with something elementary, like "reduction to lowest terms", which is covered extensively in textbooks, but we do not have a separate article on it, and probably never will. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

178.217.194.100

178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has, over the last few weeks, been trying to add a huge table about birth rates by the country of birth of the mother and father in England and Wales. When reverted at Demography of England, the IP posted it at Demography of the United Kingdom, then when reverted there at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, and now Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, despite warnings not to continue doing so. Seeing their latest edit, I thought that I would see what they have been adding to articles on other countries. I found this addition to Demographics of France, including the text: "If French people (whites) didn't wake up they will be minority in their own country, and they arleady lost Paris". Is it time to block? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Following my revert, the IP has restored the unsourced commentary less the racist postscript. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have removed and deleted it as a copyvio of http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/04/race-in-france-a-sketch-based-on-first-and-second-generation-immigrants/. They began editing in June with gnoming table edits on demography, they appear to be an experienced editor. Their recent commentary noted above reveals a disturbing motive for their editing, it may be time to block if they won't properly engage in discussion. Fences&Windows 08:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of the user's edits can cause improvements, as the information added to demographics of the UK was then turned into prose by myself. The problem is that they have never engaged in discussion or edit summaries and most of the edits miss the mark on the style of Wikipedia (i.e. overloaded tables). The scale of articles with such tables added is staggering and I'm amazed this has gone on for so long without being picked up. Maybe a block will force the user into discussion... Jolly Ω Janner 09:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstracting out the content issue, there's an interesting question regarding tables and data, especially tables which collate readily accessible (and verifiable) information, possibly from multiple sources, but which don't fit well, stylistically. Is there a place to put big data tables? Wikidata seems to be the wrong place, but articles do suffer from large tables. Argyriou (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth saying that excessive lists of statistics are discouraged by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A reply from 178.217.194.100: "My mistake, I'm sorry for that. It won't happen again. I'm still learning what is acceptable. I like French people and I want to help not hurt anyone. Notice that I help in editing many pages about demography in many countries". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to get 178.217.194.100 to understand how to use decimal points, but I'm not getting a response and they continue to use commas for this purpose. Any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You could try reverting a few of the edits, since that's normally when the user is prompted to engage in discussion. It's rare that any of the edits are worthy of inclusion anyway. Another alternative would be to follow the user's every edit and cleanup after them, but this is very time consuming and perhaps a waste of time since these tables are barely worthy of inclusion (I certainly don't want to volunteer!). Doesn't look like the topic is attracting much help from admins, sadly. Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite a further reminder yesterday, this has continued this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that edit as suggested, Jolly Janner, but 178.217.194.100 just reinstated it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• 178.217.192.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be previous IP for this user. The edits with this IP address go back to December 2014 with the exact same edits. This user has shown the ability to read and write in English and engage in discussion with us. I don't think the user will ever listen to our construction criticisms. Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the people, (WordSeventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), involved are still refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. This is obviously not an isolated incident, at least for WordSeventeen; they have been blocked for harassment before: [[189]] They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.dif here:[[190]] (for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have had issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Cursory looking can show obvious signs of WP:DISRUPT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT. Even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and making edits, they continue to ignore repeated attempts at discussion which is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen have been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like their trying to to illustrate their tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well. After filing the premature arbitration request, instead of making comment there, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same, if not improved articles, from when AfD was voted against before. His AfD was immediately declined [[191]], see there, and yet he refiled , see here,[[192]], with the exact same AfD proposal statement. He has done this in the past before as well, and was told not to do so. He has been violating the same policies over and over for vast stretches of time, exemplified here [[193]] and here [[194]]. Why has he not be sanctioned? It's an obvious pattern in behavior. Pages that illustrate their refusal to co-operate:

• [[195]]
• [[196]]
• [[197]]
• [[198]]
• [[199]]
• [[200]] (Reviews of a person? There are no reviews of "her".)
• [[201]]
• [[202]]

It was suggested to me to pursue moderated dispute resolution, but one of the requirements on that page is that the topics must have been discussed thoroughly on the talk page; this does not meet that requirement because they are refusing to talk about anything. I really feel like a topic ban is the only thing that will make them stop. WordSeventeen's persistence over such a vast span of time is disturbing. It also appears Zpeopleheart is calling me a bitch [[203]] WordSeventeen practically confessed to his improper behavior here as well : [[204]] The administrator Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also comments on this review page's history "Not done. I'm quite certain that my motivation in asking about this was and is preventative. You have acted quite disruptively and dishonestly in the past. As you say, your record is right there to see, so you must have known..." So again, this seems very cut and dry that his conduct is wrong, and the amount of hurdles I have had to go through just to ameliorate such an obviously horrible situation is irritating. SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) SanctuaryX, after a cursory look, I've placed warnings on the two editors who have repeatedly "warned" you - regardless of who is at fault, it's pretty clear that their actions are verging on harassment samtar ^{t} 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that neither Zpeopleheart nor WordSeventeen have used the talk page at CollXtion I despite being prompted to by SanctuaryX clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have prompted them on all the talk page articles CollXtion I, Allie X, and Catch (Allie X Song); Zpeopleheart only bothered to reply to the birth date question in Allie X after Karst began discussing it with me.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why has he not been sanctioned? Because, generally speaking no matter how many times I'm accused of being a block-happy fanatic, we're generally quite hesitant to sanction people. When I locked the pages, I wasn't really suggesting arbitration - just engaging on the talk places, bringing in people through appropriate noticeboards, and then coming back to another board if, after the solution doesn't resolve itself in the time the article is protected, the disruptive parties will find themselves having a hard time editing Wikipedia. WP:DRN was suggested by someone else in the arb request, but I wouldn't even suggest going that far. I'll make a comment on a relevant talk page, but if this is still an issue f complete failure to engage when the protection wears off, the disruptive parties will find themselves the blocked parties. Also, wrote this before taking a full look at the diffs involved, which I'll now do and potentially take action on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed that misquote; sorry. I never meant you were suggesting arbitration. I got ahead of myself.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen

I propose a topic-ban from all articles related to Allie X for User:WordSeventeen. His or her campaign to delete the articles is disruptive and has aspects of an obsession. The singer is referenced by multiple reliable sources and passed an Articles for Deletion nomination six months ago. So now the editor has again opened another AFD, arguing WP:TOOSOON, when that argument was already considered and dismissed, and then opened yet another AFD (3d nomination) while the second nomination is still pending. That is disruptive editing having aspects of an obsession. I was uninvolved until an ill-advised Request for Arbitration was filed and is in the process of being closed, but it is clear from that evidence that WordSeventeen is being disruptive and should be topic-banned.

• Support as proposer. Do I need to move this to the bottom of ANI because no one will read it up here? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. If he doesn't figure out how to behave reasonably well in the next week, a tban will just send him in to another area of ENWP to be a problem. He has the next week to shape up. If he doesn't, well... I no longer oppose a topic ban or a WP:CIR or WP:TE block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)\

This behavior has been going on since May, intermittently albeit. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my oppose - what I really meant is if he keeps doing the same stuff until I block him for longer and longer periods of time, or he'll voluntarily get the point and stop being an issue (with, which the rather stern warning issued, is the hopeful outcome.) Tbanning him from Allie X will throw him in to being a problem in some other part of the encyclopedia; he needs to either get on board and fix the problem, or get tossed off the ship. Hopefully he'll get on board and be a genuinely productive editor even re: Allie, but if he doesn't, I have no problem personally tossing him overboard. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I would hope if he did just go making problems elsewhere instead of just whomever requesting a topic ban at the new place, they would just try to get him flat out banned after seeing his previous history. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's slightly confusing that we use both 'block' and 'ban,' but I can indefinitely prevent him (block) from editing all articles by myself if he continues to be disruptive, unless another admin strongly disagrees. A ban is much harsher, more like a 'community endorsed indefinite block', requires more evidence of disruption, more discussion, etc. If he was tbanned from this area, I would either have to start following his behavior in another area to see if the disruption persists, or drop it (letting him potentially be equally disruptive in an area no one is paying attention to.) If he's not tbanned, I can just block him for increasingly long periods of time until he either gets the point or is unable to edit effectively permanently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense and either way sounds marvelous. Thanks for explaining. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as initial complainant. It should be noted that Zpeopleheart clearly shares the same ideas, as per his reasoning for the delete vote in the AfD. He filed an ANI for edit warring and he was sanctioned himself [[205]] SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support WordSeventeen has a history of harassment and hounding and it all seems to stem from him either not knowing when to stop or not wanting to stop: [206], [207], [208] [209], [210]. It should also be noted that with the last block for harassment, WS's permissions (rollback and reviewer) were revoked. From what I can see with this particular instance, a topic ban seems quite appropriate considering the circumstances (the proposer's note that WS seems to be "obsessed") as well as the user's history of disruption and inability to back off when advised to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC). Arbitrary break
• Support – I have filed a checkuser on Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen; I would be very surprised if they are different people. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oculi:Thank you for doing this. I thought the fact they shared the same tendentious views was odd, but with everything going on I did not want to be the one to make such an accusation. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose You guys might want to check around and do a few searches or ask Bbb23. Been done. Some of you editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also any further accusations against me with diff or concrete proof will be personal attack. Happy thanksgiving. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't notice, he made that request. We both noticed it didn't check out. Try to be civil. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: @Robert McClenon: I am on my phone so I can't easily tell, but someone has illicitly segregated WordSeventeen's response. I'll assume it was Zpeopleheart because he added a reply. This has messed up the voting for topic ban etc. Someone fix this please. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Zpeopleheart attempted to highlight a couple of things WordSeventeen said, possibly to call for a topic ban on SanctuaryX. I restored the original flow of the voting and comments. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to the editor's pattern of trying to blank, redirect and/or frivolously AfD this article, and the obviously retaliatory topic ban proposal below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

_

• Oppose and speedy close WordSeventeen (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If anything, your removal of your own harassment from my talk page at the same time as this seems like a confession. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And now, you're only furthering your ban because you can't even stay civil and neutral on the request for closure page.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for SanctuaryX

There is no way that consensus is going to be established to tban SanctuaryX, and, if anything, the discussion below provides valuable feedback about appropriate action in this situation towards other actors involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support and Speedy Close - I agree that obsessioni is a good topic t o be discussing but instead about the about the editor SanctuaryX. Regardng a pattern of disruption by SanctuatyX in the article set regarding the articls about AllieX and watched the back and fort between SanctuayX and the other one with a Z name something or other. Of course all those articles are still on my watch list from when I tried to edit them, but SancuaryX was so disruptive during that period of time since she had taken complete and final WP:OWNERSHIP of them it was really to tedious to even try to to edit the Allie X article. I would propose today SanctuaryX is a SPA. Practically all of her edits have been about all those articles with the exception of a few toke plant species artice. at this particular moment in time I only have a mobile. I will add the diff to all these points. Please note I am out of my regular town and on emergency military to act in response to the expected, and or possible bombings within the United state on the night before Thanksgiving. But I will respondmore fully when we stand down here in USA. So anyways, I kept seeing these edited and the articles popping up on my watch list and when I saw the first disruptive Ani pop up, I went ahead and read over it. I entered a comment on the ani. So I would say that me editing a group of articles months ago, and thanks to the obsession ally disruptive user sanctuary ally User:SanctuaryX who is continuing to show ownership and take over everything about definitely needs a topic ban on all AllieX, articles topics discussion or any other matters abount in or around the topic of the 'artist' Alliex, and or a WP:BOOMERANG . or any tother sanctions or blocks they may wish to apply to the editors account of Sanctuatryxxx. Thank you all, please have a wonderful American Thanksgivg. Zoe any other holiday you and your May celebrate. hoooooo RrrrrrrrrrAaaAaaHHHH. ---- peace to the world!!! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I admitted already my behavior wasn't the best. But you have no proof of any of this. Just please stop stirring up trouble. They can see where you've made these evidenceless accusations towards me before. And considering I have worked on many more plant articles at a scholarly level, than those related to Allie X, I am clearly not a "SPA." And even if I was one, as long as my edits are generally unbiased, it wouldn't matter. They saw how I behaved as well. This isn't a one way road. WP:STEWARDSHIPSanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Support a lengthy topic ban of three weeks toward user sanctuatyx due to the the fact as supported by her involve the in the alli x article with different editors over like a six month period The one looks to have apparently given up and did not try to edit the. Article any more. The n months later I tried to edit the same group of artles But due to the completely obsessive disruptiousor tenditios practices of SanctuaryX. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close - this topic ban proposal is clearly nothing but a retaliation for the one proposed against the nominator directly above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close per Ivanvector. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close Both of their grammatical/general English mistakes makes this even difficult to comprehend for me. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close – absurd suggestion. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart

See everything in above two sections involving this editor and WordSeventeen for more detail on his obstinately disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT)in addition to the following dif's and associated edit comments: [211], [212], [213]. Edit: And as you can see below, it's really quite impossible to show all the difs, much simpler just to look at history pages like this: [214] and to look at my talk page where he is continuously "warning" me.

• Support as nominator. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment umm not sure what you mean. Is this a new stick? or what? I just got back into town, been away for a while. So if you think I of all the in the a I above please provide the diffs and concrete proof from within the past 12 hours or so. Otherwise I will have to consider having you charged with a PERSONAL ATTACK. Did you not understand the rules and procedures here. Acting in good faith, I will give you one chance to apologize, we will call it a day, and I will leave all alone for a bit and let you work out your WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Have a great evening all! And remember I got 99 problems and this ain't no fun. Cannot we have peace on a holiday? A sort of detente. Peace Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack. You clearly aren't doing what is asked by many people. I wasn't overly nice at first, but I have been civil since even with your repeated poor behavior. I'm not sure where the communication here is failing, but it's clear you have issues. I am clearly not experiencing ownership issues. I repeatedly tried to advise you of Wikipedia policies, I tried to explain to you why what you're referencing doesn't apply or isn't true, and I tried to discuss it with you, and you failed on all three counts. I have no problem with people editing the page, only when people like yourself constantly remove things that are perfectly acceptable not by my standards, but according to Wikipedia itself. For you to come here and try to silence me on the ANI just adds to my case. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor is showing signs of being difficult/slightly disruptive, both here and on the article you've linked to. However, they above state that they will "leave all alone for a bit" - due to this I don't think a topic ban would be preventative anymore -- samtar ^whisper 20:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit is kind of vague; that could be minutes, hours, days, a week before they start being obstinate and tendentious again. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is vague - perhaps Zpeopleheart would agree to voluntarily leave the article alone for a set period of time, to allow people to chill out? -- samtar ^whisper 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty calm, do I seem particularly obscene or uncivil? @Samtar: And as you can see now, that a bit didn't even last a day.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't the first article Zpeopleheart has refused to actually discuss the changes they want to make. See the Black Lives Matter article history. They repeatedly reintroduced material that had serious issues (no citations, BLP claims, ect.) that was removed by multiple different editors. A talk page section was started after the second revert and they refused to participate. Refusing to participate in a collaborative project is a serious issue and the multiple articles they have done this on is a pattern of behavior. They claim to be dropping it and leaving it alone for a bit. However, the "for a bit" is what concerns me. Are they going to pick up right where they left off in a week after the holiday is over? There needs to be some assurances that this is going to stop and they are going to start participating in the discussions that people are asking them to participate in. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you search through the above sections, you'll see he has been sanctioned for edit warring before as well. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing more to say here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - clearly disruptive editing, repeatedly reverting to maintain their preferred version of an article, and failing to make any reasonable effort to discuss their issues on the talk page despite being pinged repeatedly. Multiple editors have tried to reason with this editor both to understand their weird view of neutrality, to ask them to expand on their rationale or provide any sources at all for their insistence that the subject must be viewed negatively or not at all, and to try to explain why this behaviour is disruptive including a fairly dire warning the last time this page was full-protected to prevent the same disruption they're continuing with right now. Competence is required; consensus is not optional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: After posting my comment above, Zpeopleheart has continued to try to push their own view on Allie X. They also posted a false warning on SanctuaryX's talk page claiming that they filed a bad AIV report [215] when SanctuaryX has not even posted to that page at all according to their recent contributions [216]. Their abuse of Twinkle to add pointless and false warnings to other editor's talk pages is purely retaliatory and needs to stop. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Ivanvector, and Stabila711. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The 2 apparently different editors Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen share an obsession with Allie X. WordSeventeen has taken it to afd twice (both snow keeps) and Zpeopleheart redirected it to Catch (Allie X song). Between them they have made 63 edits to Allie X, most of which are against the consensus at the article (ie all other editors there disagree with Z and W). Oculi (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note - Zpeopleheart has been blocked 36 hours for continuing to disrupt the Allie X article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Unarchived per request. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Acejet could be a sock of old blocked user Siddiqui

This case needs only behavioral analysis.

• I came across this user Marduking (Created on 18 March 2010) whose name is very similar to Mar4d (Created on 16 April 2010). Marduking has only 353 edits on English Wikipedia yet connects with Mar4d in 55 articles including many categories and one template.

• Siddiqui (Created on 9 December 2005) has 11,789 edits and connects with Mar4d in 1066 articles including 31 categories and one template

• AlphaGamma1991 (Created on 18 January 2010) has 5,718 edits connects with Mar4d in 702 articles including many categories

• Ata Fida Aziz with 1,822 edits connects in 323 articles including lists and categories

• Paknur with 1,476 edits connect 226 articles

• Mirza Barlas with 242 edits connects in 59 articles

• HamzaOmar with only 52 edits connects in 7 articles

• Last time when I suspected Mar4d was socking with Lyk4, I came to ANI instead of SPI and the result was fruitful as Wikimandia gave some extra evidence and Future Perfect at sunrise gave crucial evidence which only Administrators can see. After that Wikimandia filed SPI against Mar4d and the result was shocking.

• In this SPI back in 2011, it was found that Mar4d was using an alternate account but CU was not run as he accepted when the SPI was filed. He was left with a warning. This comment was made by HelloAnnyong:

• • Sorry, I'm not buying it. You've had Drspaz since early June 2011. You're supposed to mark your accounts as being owned by you. But even besides that, you're clearly using the accounts for less than legitimate purposes. For example, at 5:40 Drspaz makes this edit. Five minutes later you make this one. Am I really supposed to believe that in those five minutes you were suddenly on a public connection? — User:HelloAnnyong 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)-----copy pasted-----

• Acejet (Created on 13 March 2009) Siddiqui and Acejet---- Siddiqui and Lyk4.

SPI where it all began

• Moonriddengirl found credible evidence The accounts were considered stale and Mar4d was not connected.

• Why Acejet was not caught? First CU check for Siddiqui was made in July 2010. Acejet made this edit on 21 April 2010. After that he stopped editing for months and edited on 6 January 2011.

• Mar4d admitted that he has office accounts. Most likely scenario is that when Check Users were checking Siddiqui socks, at that time Mar4d and Lyk4 were being operated from office.

The Avengers 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good finding, I have no doubt here. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators can see the details and if this is correct, then they must be re-tagged as Siddiqui socks.The Avengers 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But still the appropriate place to report this is SPI. You just need to post this information there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reported to me by an IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05 new users

Originally reported to me on my talk page, I thought I'd post this here:

"New users, NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 123.136.111.59 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"

However, they haven't provided any evidence for this in terms of diffs, so it can't yet be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05.

-- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed at Knanaya

For some time, Knanaya has been repeatedly affected by at least two editors trying to enforce their views, both using myriad sockpuppets and IPs. Periodically, an "anti-Knanaya" editor has repeatedly added disparaging material about the group, misusing sources to do so (see discussions here, here, and here). Alternately, a "pro-Knanaya" editor (or connected group of editors) edit-wars over the article to excise material they disapprove, even (or especially) well cited material by academics who studied the community (see discussions here, here, and here). They've edited under the names Stansley, Psthomas, and various IPs:[217][218][219]. In August, the article had to be semi-protected through November,[220] and now that it has expired the edit warring has resumed.
I'm also submitting a WP:RFPP, but it's a shame to have to semi-protect the page for so long considering that the disruption seems to come primarily from two people or groups. Perhaps someone could look into the feasibility of a range-block for this problem?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[221],this revision has kept the excised material intact with previous references. This gives more clarity to the subject. Further more if the collected excised material is checked Admin's can see various Origin stories apart from Neill. The only official version that should be taken is the material mentioned in Knanaya community website(http://kottayamad.org/knanaya-history/). That credibility is more than enough for publication (This is the approved version by bishops, priests, synods and community members). If looked more into the excised material Swiderski himself reports as per Cuchullain version that he is unsure about the Southist-Northist divisional history. All these points to the self-conflicting and invalidation of Swiderski's material. Disregarding this facts and further backing up this fictional elements seems to be more detrimental. These material is published in the 1980's and under a foreign private university, so the standards of this are also questionable. But probably out of respect that Cuchullain is a Master Editor, there are requests to keep the Southist-Northist theory, but under a separate title or a new page. None of these sensible suggestions seems to be tasteful for Cuchullain. I hope the use of these semi-protection requests aren't a means to an end; the edit history shows as such. Let the excised material remain excised or to the other person's request under a different page or title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't address the sockpuppetry and edit warring matter at all. For others, please see this, where 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person.[222]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the edited version is a mere grammatical correction which gives more clarity and the same are on the same page of request and if the both parties seems to be o.k about it, where does your sock-puppetry claim stands. Is it a deflection from the mentioned concerns. If not so you have failed to ascertain how a person from Delhi and Maharashtra can be the same - Then that will be the million dollar answer. Other Admins may look at this: http://www.distancesfrom.com/ (From Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India to Pawti, Maharashtra 431703, India) - 1274 Km; I only just saw the talk page rampant now. But standing within all respects to Cuchullain, I have to say from edit history checks, this is not his/hers first claim on the article. There might be people who say that keep the excess material in it and all. I would say just remove it. This is too much and the issue is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People using proxy servers to disguise themselves happens pretty regularly on Wikipedia, and people from different areas can easily coordinate together as meat puppets. The issue here is that we have multiple IPs pushing the same edits on the same subejects at the same times, and revert warring over it. That's not going to fly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I don't think wikipedia allows edit through proxy servers. I use CyberGhost 5 to overcome certain area-restrictions. You may use it and try an experimental edit - Wikipedia wont allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for 6 months due to the sockpuppetry problem. Short of someone implementing range blocks it's probably the only solution that will work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User Springee Canvassing

User Springee has taken to canvassing to find support for his point of view on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. He explicitly asked SlimVirgin to contribute to the discussion after discovering s/he held the same position as him in an earlier talk page discussion from 5 years ago. [223] I warned[224] him about canvassing which he dismissed as an attempt to "intimidate"[225] and then continued to recruit SlimVirgin to weigh in on the discussion.[226] His statement wasn't neutrally stated and he didn't contact anyone with an opposing point of view to join the discussion. This is a violation of WP:VOTESTACK and Campaigning as described by WP:CANVASS.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Except for that there isn't a vote, and that this could just as easily be seen as someone asking an expert opinion. Your warning consisted of nothing more than dropping a template on their talk page. No doubt this results from all the animosity on the talk page, where Gamaliel has already asked for the thermostat to be turned down a little bit. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee's Reply This is simply a case of an editor with a wp:battleground mentality trying to game the system rather than assuming good faith in addressing a content dispute. It is similar in nature to an ANI the editor filed against me in September also related to the Southern Strategy article [227]. Admin Ricky81682 was the only admin to reply to (excluding some unrelated IP harassment) noting that "There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is."[228].

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to edit a section of the same article. Scoobydunk has reverted my edits a number of times[229][230][231][232][233] claiming, in part, that WP:RS says that non-peer reviewed sources are less reliable than peer reviewed sources and thus can not be used to challenge a peer reviewed source.[[234]] Likely due to the walls of text this discussion yielded no support for his views. To get outside help in solving the WP:RS question regarding scholarly vs non-scholarly contradicting sources I started a RSN discussion.Reliable Sources Noticeboard Given the contentious exchanges in the topic only editor replied prior to today (only after I started replying to this ANI did I see today's replies to the RSN discussion). Given the lack of replies I went looking for older archive discussions and found the thread Scoobydunk is referring to. It was clear from reading that discussion that the consensus was that peer reviewed sources should not automatically trump non-peer reviewed sources. I asked an editor from that thread to weigh in on the topic. I did not ask the editor to decide if the sources I was using were reliable nor did I ask the editor to decide if the edits I was making to the article were correct. It is quite possible the editor would totally disagree. However, as someone who was involved in the discussion and as one of the editors who helped craft the WP:RS guideline it seemed reasonable to ask for the opinion. I do not feel I asked in a non-neutral way since I was asking for the opinion on a policy, not article edits. Furthermore, asking ONE involved editor hardly seems like canvasing. Springee (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I was starting to be on your side until I saw you responding to DreamGuy with a half a mile of text, and now you're doing the same thing here. Good god you are wordy. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And we see that once again history repeats itself. A "slim", "Virgin" is at the centre of drama. Apparently Springee has abducted the aforementioned virgin to render him favours, which does not suit dunk's view as he wants the Slim Virgin all for himself. One a more Boring and wiki policified note, this does not appear to be a Canvass as the forum being used is not one which relies on voting. This is a basic request for views on source credibility and asking an expert to voice her(yes I presume all virgins that are slim should be "her") views. So, in a nutshell, Mush Drama about nothing. Regards , a slightly high FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry about the long reply. I too often feel the need to include all the details. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Canvassing is not limited to "voting" and clearly applies to debates and noticeboard discussions. Also, if Springee wants to make his own ANI topic to address his concerns, he's more than welcome to. However, this topic is specifically to address WP:VOTESTACK concerns. The policy explicitly says "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." Not to mention the part about Campaigning. Springee didn't just ask for clarification, he repeatedly asked for involvement on the RSN which is directly defined as canvassing. He explicitly explains how he found this discussion, identified a user that had the same opinion as him, and requested that user weigh in on the discussion, while no asking editors with opposing views to weigh in. That's verbatim WP:VOTESTACK which also says nothing about "voting". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is notifying one expert vote stacking? Springee (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." as per WP:VOTESTACK. It's literally right there in the policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What is an undue number? Springee (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More than zero. BMK (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's an uneven number. But let's not forget about this part too "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." here we don't have to worry about defining "undue" because this explicitly explains what you did in encouraging SlimVirgin to participate in the discussion. You knew their position on the matter, only selected that single editors, and encouraged them to join the RSN. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

She (I assume she) was an editor who helped write the RS policy and thus was well placed to tell us what the indented meaning was. Contrary to how you portrayed things, there was a general consensus in the archived discussion that RS does not automatically place scholarly sources over other reliable sources. The debate was how that should be communicated, not that it was the intent. Springee (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Notice: I got pinged here so whatever. I think that was canvassing but Slimvirgin commented mentioning that and did not actually seem to offer an opinion. I think the Scoobydunk's templating is fine, nothing more is needed as long as Springee stops doing anything more in that vein. Second, there are four outside other opinions at RSN now so I don't think there's nothing more needed as the discussion is properly focused on weight which is the actual issue. Third, god the length and bickering is nuts here. I think it's almost time to consider dual topic bans or something just for the sake of the rest of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Question I have been accused of asking only a single admin in an archive thread. Scoobydunk claims there was not consensus on the particular question I was asking. So whom else in that archived thread should I have asked to avoid the perception of imbalance? Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Scoobydunk previously accused me of canvasing when I asked another editor to lend a voice to the Southern Strategy article. When looking for an 3rd party POV I was deliberate in picking an editor whom I respected but almost always disagreed with.[235] As can be seen in the article talk section and the notice board discussions Fyddlestix has largely not agreed with me and my proposed edits including the ones related to this discussion. For the trouble of going out of my way to pick an editor whom I assumed would not be inclined to agree with me I was accused of canvasing.[236] Springee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that Springee is frustrated. Let's channel that frustration in other ways. The impulse to seek other opinions and break an impasse between two editors is a good one, so instead of complaining about inappropriate canvassing, let's try to channel that into an RFC or a post at Wikipedia:Third opinion or some other means of appropriate dispute resolution. Here, this discussion is just becoming an extention of the initial dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I only listed canvassing concerns for the current RSN, however they've been going on for about a month in various degrees of our discussions. If Springee is going to reference his outreach to Fyddlestix, then the rest of his outreaches should be noted. So, Springee considers Fyddlestix a typically opposing view when it comes to matters of dispute, however Fyddlestix had no previous involvement on the Southern Strategy article before Springee contacted him. Springee left Fyddlestix, the opposing view, a neutrally worded message. At the same time, Springee contacted Rjensen [237] who had been recently engaged on the Southern Strategy, and left him a clearly biased message laying out his argument in full and seeking assistance. I gave Springee a warning for this biased approach in recruiting editors, as Springee notes above. Since then, Springee has also contacted Scott Illni [238][239] who's previously edited the article similarly to Springee, like including information claiming Reagan didn't use the Southern Strategy[240]. Springee has also contacted Guy Macon[241] to seek assistance, and Guy Macon has taken similar stances with Springee regarding multiple political issues in the past. Then, of course, there's SlimVirgin. So Springee attempted to involve 1 editor with an opposing view, while contacting 4 editors with supporting views over the course of the last month. I only focused on SlimVirgin and the current RSN because I don't like raising issue when the content can be subjective, and with SlimVirgin it is an objectively verbatim violation of WP:VOTESTACK. However, if Springee considers his outreach to Fyddlesix to be an example of recruiting an opposing view, then his similar outreaches to 3 supporting views should be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Not these two again! It's User:Scoobydunk and User:Springee continuing to forum shop and quarrel about Southern Strategy. This has been going on for a month at multiple noticeboards. They have both been notified of discretionary sanctions for American politics. Can some uninvolved administrator please topic-ban them from discussion of and reports about Southern strategy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You previously accused me of forum shopping in a NPOVN discussion that was started by Scoobydunk. I do not understand how that would have been forum shopping. Asking a specific RSN question is also not forum shopping (and no one claimed it was). This ANI was started by Scoobydunk so again, please don't accuse me of forum shopping related to this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon this is one thing I agree with Springee, and your accusations of forum shopping do not exhibit good faith. Every issue posted at the relevant noticeboard has been separate and justified. This hasn't been over a single issue, but regarding multiple aspects of individual pieces of information, sources, and behavior that a single noticeboard does not encompass. The issues have ranged from Majority opinion over the Top-Down approach, to NPOV concerns, to reliable source issues, and now behavioral. There is no one noticeboard that can address all of these and they all regarding different edits. I also think it's inappropriate to suggest a dual topic ban when editors follow the dispute resolution guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure based on self enforced break I'm announcing here that I am going to stay off the Southern Strategy article for at least the rest of the year. As I've said before, between multiple undos of my edits by Scoobydunk and the generally heated (as noted by others) discussion pages I think it has become too challenging to work productively on the topic. I hope this will simply put this mess behind us and hopefully other editors can work with some of the sources I've brought to the table. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a self imposed break is a solution. The last time Springee suggested a self-imposed 30-day Iban for wikihounding another editor[242], he immediately went back to following that editor to different articles and reverting his work after the 30 days expired[243][244][245]. Those are just 3 of the article reverts of HughD, but there are over a dozen reverts that all occurred on the same day his iban expired on October 15.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, if your object is to get both of us topic banned I suspect this is a good way to do it. I think we have two admins who would be quite happy to see that happen. If that is your wish so be it but I would rather not be topic banned. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So Springee followed the self-imposed break then. I don't see a problem. If Springee self imposes a break until the end of the year and doesn't edit the article until the end of the year, is that enough for you Scoobydunk? Else what do you want, four weeks? A full ban? You're free to bring this up again if this starts on January 1st but I'm assuming that people will move on to disputing the next item then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Ricky81682 I'm not sure what all an I-ban entails but he maintained contact with HughD either directly or indirectly throughout[246][247][248]. He just didn't directly revert his edits. What is the difference between a self-imposed break and one forced by an admin? I think if I understand this, it will help me answer your questions about what I'm looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A self-imposed ban means nothing but an admin can shut this discussion down as moot and we can move on. An admin one is admin imposed and either requires an admin deciding to do it or enough support here to do it. Again, what would you propose be done? As I stated above, mutual topic bans may be required if it's helpful to the encyclopedia. If you two simply cannot co-exist together, and I can't figure out who's more at fault, I'd prefer not having this page nor AE filled up with bickering by telling you both to find another one of the 4.9 million pages here that aren't this one. If Springee stays away for the next few weeks, then you have free reign there but if you're back here on January 1st complaining that Springee is back, then we've resolved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My complaints are strictly limited to policy violations and have never been because "someone is back". I don't see how a mutual ban is any sort of solution when Springee is the only one who's canvassed. I'll settle for self imposed break, but I hope next time Springee resorts to wikihounding, canvassing, tendentious editing or whatever, an admin actually does something about it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying if there's a limited self-imposed ban, I would be surprised if upon editing there again, the same issues didn't pop up again and thus all we've done is had three weeks of quiet and delayed the inevitable. I'm not offering any opinion as to your complaints, as noted above, you were correct in that it seems somewhat inappropriate so the templating is correct but I don't see it as problematic enough to warrant a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk's comments and demand for punishment come across as WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. Perhaps we should both voluntarily leave the article for the rest of the month. My requests for outside help, improper though they now appear to be, were the result of Scoobydunks efforts to absolutely block all my editing efforts in the 1970-1990 subsection (we were the only editors at the time) and a desire to avoid an edit war. An ANI less than a month back found we were both less than civil [249]. 1RR for me, Scoobydunk got a warning due to a technicality [250]. Taking advantage of my 1RR limitation, all 5 of my edits from Nov 14th to Nov 28th were systematically reverted, [251][252][253][254][255]. The first was new material to the article. The subsequent 5 were good faith effort to address the limited feedback Scoobydunk offered for the undos. These reversals of good faith edits go against WP:DONTREVERT and look like WP:OWN. I'm taking the time off from the article because I'm tired of the above and tired of the implications of bad faith after spending several hours in a research library finding hard copy sources. If Scoobydunk wants sanctions then I suggest we review the above reverts in context of the recent uncivil editing ANI. But, perhaps the better option is we both take some time off from the article (I am) or we just drop it. Springee (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one responsible for your behavior Springee. Springee also misrepresents the events. Following his 1RR sanction, Springee immediately took to reverting information in the article again. [256] Yes, he did add some new material, but he also removed and edited pre-existing material which partially lead to his 1RR sanction in the first place. Slakr was the admin overseeing our previous edit war ANI and he has been kept informed of just about all of the editing since he gave Springee a 1RR sanction. This includes all of the diffs Springee just listed above. Slakr ultimately decided to temporarily lock the article and asked us to use dispute resolution.[257] We have been following Slakr's advice since then, but since the DRN's weren't going in favor of Springee, he decided to start canvassing and that's why we're here today. Since Slakr suggested we use dispute resolution, there hasn't been any edit warring and we've been following his suggestions, however it's hard to achieve a valid consensus when one editors resorts to canvassing to influence the outcome.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of immediately 'started reverting again' makes the presumption that the article was 'correct' before the reverts. The ANI finds (which found against both of us) did not make any ruling on the quality of the material, only the uncivil behavior of the editors. The article lock also didn't claim to support the current state of the article. Slakr told you he saw nothing wrong with the continued edits.[258] Your comment about DRN's is misleading. 3 of your 5 reverts occurred before you filed a COATRACK NPOVN claim. After it was clear that claim got no support I tried to edit 2 more times. You immediately reverted both edits. My RSN filing on the 29th, was made after your 5th reversion of my material. Perhaps your intent is to get us both blocked in order to maintain status quo in the article. Either way, I think Ricky has made it clear that if you think sanctions are appropriate, propose them. Else, let it drop. Springee (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I already said I was fine with your self proposed break, then you started to bring up information that has already been addressed by Slakr. So it's clear that you're the one that needs to "drop it". Also, for every revert of mine that you're complaining about, it followed a revert of your own. That's to say, you resorted to reverting first instead of waiting for a consensus of a dispute resolution. Also, I didn't mislead about anything and I actually started a DRN before Slakr locked the article and suggested using dispute resolution, which is all I spoke to. Yes, I've been using dispute resolution to solve these issues, but you've resorted to reverting the article to suit your narrative and then resorted to canvassing to affect the outcome of the dispute resolution. Again, I'm fine with the self imposed break.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If Springee is canvassing, he is really, really bad at it, based upon the fact that he also asked me for advice (User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing). Springee is familiar with how I do things, and would have known that asking me is pretty much asking to have me impartially examine his own edit history along with the edit history of whoever he is having the dispute with. I declined in this case because I don't think I can be unbiased on this particular topic (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Strategy), but he had no way of knowing that ahead of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest (but not mandate) that no canvassing of anyone in the future be done. It's clear some people will take it as a slight no matter who is contacted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actual canvassing is bad. Asking for help is not. Because I have been involved in WP:DRN for a long time, many people who have been is DRN cases that I mediated ask me for help or advice regarding content disputes. Nothing wrong with that unless they have reason to believe that I will favor their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't really matter whether there has been canvassing. It doesn't really matter whether there has been improper forum shopping. It isn't important to come up with a proper wikilawyered identification of what is wrong. It is clear that these two editors do not like each other and are disrupting multiple Wikipedia forums with their dispute, and it is clear that something needs to be done. Rather than an interaction ban, which wouldn't work well and might result in more arguments, I suggest that an uninvolved administrator topic-ban both editors from Southern strategy, broadly defined. They have both already been alerted to American politics discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the very same sanctions Robert McClenon just referenced: "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions." This is precisely what Springee and I have done. We've followed the principles and have sought dispute resolution instead of edit warring. So to recommend a topic ban when both editors are following the very same principles they've been informed of seems unmerited and counterproductive.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism

Since we now seem to have stopped him from making dubious edits to enwiki using the edit filter, it looks like User:Léogâne Paix has been on a cross-wiki editing spree, editing fr:Léogâne, ht:Leyogàn (komin), it:Léogâne and pl:Léogâne to add a dubious flag and even more dubious information in infoboxes. I don't speak all these languages, or know their internal procedures -- how on earth does one go about dealing with this sort of cross-wiki vandalism? Is there some sort of global edit filter, or global blocklist? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

For global blocks, talk to the stewards. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just done so. See meta:Steward requests/Global. User:Léogâne Paix's mixture of editing via a mixture of IPs and multiple usernames across multiple wikis makes them a difficult case, though. The only thing that's really been really effective has been the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Large sock cluster

The problem is evident looking at the edit history of Silver nanoparticle. There are multiple accounts named "Nano(something)" (e.g. Nanomsg) making large-scale edits to a number of articles, also including Colloidal gold, Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy) and Photothermal therapy. Some of the edits are okay; other contain dubious health information. Either way having a bunch of what look like computer-generated accounts acting in consort is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanoadm. Twenty accounts so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a college class project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, class project at University of Pittsburgh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest forwarding this on to the WMF. Jusdafax 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just ask Eryk (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed) and see if they know anything about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but I remember back in March there was at least one - and maybe two - unregistered classes editing gold nanoparticle articles. I remember we contacted one prof (not at Pitt), but I do feel like there were other edits that looked like classes whose origins we couldn't track down. Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Rhododendrites was the one who solved the mystery then. He may remember more. I'll keep digging, see if I made any other notes. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): I remember it well, but that was at a school on the west coast, not UPitt (being vague because it seems like referencing a very specific class at a specific university without their prior knowledge is fuzzy WP:OUTING territory). I spoke to the professor on the phone in March and we exchanged several emails. He was very interested to work with us (Wiki Ed) next time around, but as I'm not managing the classroom program now I'd have to check with Helaine (Wiki Ed) regarding whether or not she's been in touch with him this term. I've forwarded the March email thread and a summary to her so she can follow up. That doesn't help in the immediate, of course... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I'm skeptical it's the same class. The website for the previous class has not been updated and there are indeed multiple IPs working on these articles which geolocate to UPitt. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the SPI was declined and closed by Mike V so that's a dead issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a diff which covers most of the changes made by the "Nano*" accounts to Silver nanoparticle: [259] It's not clear what the intent is. (Incidentally, Wikipedia needs a smarter diff engine; less changed there than the volume of changes would indicate.) It does not appear to be a promotion for "colloidal silver", a popular scam-type medication. (The Mayo Clinic says that doesn't work and may be dangerous.[260]). Not seeing any COI issues. The edits look reasonably legitimate, and have cites, but the cites are not easy to check without access to a medical library. Nobody ever put an AN/I notice on User Talk:Nanomsg or User Talk:Nanoadm, so I just did, along with a note asking them to please tell us what's going on and to read WP:ASSIGN. If they engage, this will get straightened out quickly. If we're lucky, we get some new editors with medical and chemistry expertise. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I dropped them all notes. Hopefully one of them will pass the message on to their instructor, and she or he will get in touch with Helaine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the usernames are all the word "nano" followed by the editor's initials. Nothing wrong with a group editing articles, though as usual we should make sure the edits are up to standards. As long as they're not POV-pushers, likely they just need to be pointed to WP:SCICITE and WP:MEDRS rather than accused of sockpuppetry. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption

User:@DreamGuy: with this -edit and this edit with the summary maybe someone with a clear head can say if what you say is true are clearly intended to inflame a situation previously listed here at AN/I after probably but not yet rejected from arbcom and goad me into an edit war. I ask someone intervenes. Gnangarra 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can say with great confidence -- as anyone who follows ArbCom should be able to -- that the case will be rejected, as it's clearly not arbitration worthy at this point. I don't see an NPA in Dream Guy's comment, but I do see in your edit a failure to get the message aimed at you from the previous discussion here, which is that your judgment in this controversy has not been the best. As an WP:INVOLVED admin, you really shouldn't be editing these post cards out of articles -- leave it to others who are not entangled to decide. (Which is also, I believe, Dream Guy's point.) That you, an admin, see this as a "Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption" is a bit disconcerting. BMK (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:NetworkBooster

So I just wanted to bring attention to User:NetworkBooster. I think their account may be a WP:VOA and WP:NOTHERE may apply. Their two edits consist of vandalism in relation to Jim McMahon (politician) - McMahon's page and my user page. Their edit summary at McMahon's page was also false stating "Background information gathered from Oldham City Council." I warned them their first edit was not constructive. Not the most serious case, but may be useful to deal with early on. AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Fences&Windows 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

IP 94.195.18.40 modifying talk page contributions made by other editors.

IP re-factoring other editors talk page contributions @ Talk:National_Front_(France) Welcomed [261], then requested not to modify [262] and explained reason, reverted the original contribution [263], IP then accused me edit warning [264]. I would revert, but I believe the IP is trying to force a blockable offence. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They self-reverted and apologised. Hopefully 94.195.18.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) will avoid changing others' talk page comments in that manner in future. Fences&Windows 21:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AIV help please

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.

---

Sorry to bother the busy admins here, but could someone help out with the backlog of reports at AIV please. There is at least one IP who has continued vandalizing for nearly an hour since he was reported there. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleared by many admins helping out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 8 December 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 and possible IP sockpuppet insisting on placement of image with copyright issues

In Matt Bevin, User:Sohsowski2015 and a possible sock at 72.201.235.143 are evading copyright requirements with placement of the image File:GovBevin2015.jpg (missing evidence of permission). I won't prescribe what should be done, but I want to make sure admins know about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sohsowski2015 has also just restored the image to Governor of Kentucky. Note that this user's edits seem to be centered around this subject, but the bottom line is that we currently don't know we're allowed to use this pic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that we are allowed to use it, but we don't know that we're not. Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments doesn't include Kentucky in its list of states which default to public domain for government works, and it's not clear that the photo is an official government portrait, or a work by a private individual who has authorized the Commonwealth of Kentucky to use the photo. The webpage on which it appears does say © 2015 Commonwealth of Kentucky. All rights reserved., so I'd guess that it's not public domain. The permission tag is bad - it says it has been released by "The People of the Commonwealth of Kentucky", which is not the usage that the state government uses on its website. However, the photo is tagged for deletion if proper evidence of permission is not produced; you should leave it at that. You shouldn't edit war over it - either the uploader supplies evidence of permission, or the photo goes away automatically. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right about not edit-warring over it, which is why I haven't edit-warred about it (I stopped after 2 reverts), and brought it here. I just thought there might be some consternation about a user insisting that such an image stay on display before they have acted to supply evidence of permission. At any rate, thank you for covering the legal questions involved. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Threats made by user Baseballbugs

Th-th-th-that's all folks! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=694183865&oldid=694179234 He's intentionally threatened to do harm to another wikipedian. This is totally against policy here and I would like to ask an admin investigate and take appropriate action to prevent this from happening in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.238.124 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) At most he's suggesting harm to rubber duckies belonging to a racist disruptive troll, if I understand who he is talking about. This is hardly a credible threat and certainly not a threat to any Wikipedian. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:44, 8 December 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 from previously blocked user

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

---

Reporting Bigbaby23. Previously blocked editor keeps inserting grammar errors, punctuation errors, and peacock language into Holly Holm, a BLP (1, 2, 3, 4). Violation of 3RR as well. User continually ignores attempts at communication and ignores the policies cited while resorting to name calling in edit summaries. -- James26 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BoomerangBigbaby23 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not how that works. --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see myself violating the three-revert rule within a 24-hour period on the page's history. You have, though. -- James26 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Bigbaby23, not you James. He clearly needs a time out. --Tarage (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment was directed at him as well. Yes, a time out would do some good. -- James26 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment meant, that I am tired of editors pushing their agenda with bulshit citation of policy aka gaming the system. There is no peacock language, he doesnt care about punctuation etc. He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss. The lead in the article is well cited and creates interest for the reader to read on.By Boomerang I meant not only should James 6 not be rewarded with this editorial behaviour, but punished for it. Really, this whole game puts me on the verge of wanting to stop contributing to wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And 'what' a loss that would be... --Tarage (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigbaby23 - You may want to retract the personal attack in your statement there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

i'll drop my two cents, as someone who encountered this problem editor long ago, doing exactly the same things and following up nastily and harassingly. Thank you so much for blocking them, and please make it permanent. This user is aptly and trollfully named. WP:NOTHERE — Smuckola(talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss."

An incorrect assumption, and irrelevant. -- James26 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 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.

Legal threat by 82.132.213.175

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.

---

Notifying the IP's talk page of this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let it go. It's on an experienced administrators' page and "sailing close to" is very different than sailing on to (especially if you're sailing on the downwind side of something.) NE Ent 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent - it's good to run into you again :D -- Yeah, I was questioning if making this ANI thread was the right thing to do or not. If it's skating pretty close to the edge, but isn't falling over, I'll humbly accept my ten lashings for the unnecessary thread and call it good - especially given the fact that it was left on an admin's talk page. I must be a lot more tired than I think I am. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. We don't "let it go" when it comes to legal threats. It is a legal threat even wrapped in words like "sailing very close to". It was clearly meant to intimidate. You were 100% correct to report this here, thank you. HighInBC 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies, and targeting an admin is not the smartest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the legal threat, the editor identifed that they have a COI with some sources on articles relating to aviation. Can anyone identify the possible individual or is this just more smoke? —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

After some digging, the block appeared to happen over a spat of vandalism at Badger and Clan Gunn from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying "I reserve the absolute right to be able to edit where my own research is incorrently inserted on your pages" pretty clearly indicates they don't understand how Wikipedia works, aside from everything else. At first I wondered if he was a certain past banned editor who was an aviation author, as there was a certain gut feeling from his style, but said fellow doesn't seem to have had the Ta 152 amongst his remit, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC - Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 7 December 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 deletion of Copyvio notice

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 week ago, I deleted some copyvios on the Nazi architecture page. Most of them included a source reference at the end, but no indication that it was a direct quotation, nor where it began and ended. It turns out that they were much longer than the "brief quotations" allowed by WP:COPYVIO. Some investigation showed that these passages (and many more) had been added by two users 10 years ago; also that the initial version of the article was a large block of unsourced text. Even today, most of the text of the article seems to come from these three suspicious sources. I documented this in Talk:Nazi architecture and tagged the article with db-copyvio. User:MER-C changed this to Copyviocore and listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 29.

Since then, User:IQ125 has removed the template three times:

• IQ125 removed the Copyviocore template.
• I reverted, with Edit comment:

(a) you have restored some of the known copy vios; b) this is not correct procedure.. you need to discuss; c) it doesn't matter how many editors have contributed if most of the text is derivative of copy vios

• IQ125 again removed the Copyviocore template (and restored copyvio content I had removed).
• I wrote him on his Talk page, explaining in more detail that this was not an appropriate action, and restored the Copyviocore template.
• IQ125 again removed the notice.
• IQ125 appears not to understand our policies, so I wrote him a final explanation on his talk page, but did not revert.

Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd appreciate it if an administrator would clarify to him our policies on Copyvio and on removing Copyvio templates. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the copyvio template and warned the user. I will be watching this as it unfolds. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:55, 7 December 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.

Legal Threat

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 2005 has an implied legal threat posted on their talk page. Under the heading 'No Drama/Stalker Free Zone' it says:

"Please do not add soap opera or other personal drama content to this page as it will only be removed."

And then:

"The Wikimedia Foundation is located in California. California Penal Code § 653 makes it a crime with a penalty of up to one year in jail for any person to use electronic communication with intent to annoy or harass."

It's clear this is an implied legal threat intended for anybody who violates the first sentence. As such it is against Wikipedia policy.

Popcorntastesgood (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A weak threat at best Popcorntastesgood - @User 2005: would you consider removing this text? -- samtar ^whisper 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd also recommend removing it. I'm unaware of the background of either user or how they relate to one another, but offhand I can say that putting this on your talk page does not make you seem like an easy person to approach and will immediately put other users on the defensive because they don't know how you will interpret what they say. It might be a weak threat, but it can still be seen as a threat by other users that you may pursue legal action. You might not actually do anything, but it can still make it difficult to really work with other people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Popcorntastesgood is a sockpuppet of the many times blocked stalker Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DegenFarang. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about but it appears you've just admitted to threatening an editor. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And regardless that is not something that should be on your talk page, or on anyone else's, ever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it reaches the threshold of violating the letter of WP:NLT; but it clearly violates the spirit and purpose of that policy. The intent is clearly to have a chilling effect on posts by anyone posting to the talk page. If @2005: wants some sort of notice to behave appropriately on the talk page - instead of the state codes, better references to use would be towards WP policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:USERPAGE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment doesn't have anything to do with a chilling effect on "anyone" making user page comments. It's a statement of fact. And, it wouldn't be an issue with anybody if not for the stalker (who has previously been permanently banned) creating another identity to report it and waste people's time here. 2005 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't be intellectually dishonest. There are zillions of facts that could conceivably go on your talk page, so unless your choice of this particular fact was completely random, you put it there for a reason, to stop people from posting annoying or harassing messages. I can understand and sympathize with that, but not with your denying its clear and obvious purpose. Own up to why its there and make your arguments for why it should stay, but don't try to tell us that it's not there to do what it's obvious it's there to do. BMK (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I will sue you" is also a statement of fact, at least if one follows through to it, but that doesn't make it allowable under WP:NLT. LjL (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's not intended to chill comments, then it doesn't need to be on your page. If it needs to be on your page, then it is intended to chill comments. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 9 December 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.

Troll at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

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

---

Identified a new editor who's stated purpose and only edits are summed up as "Without a criticism section, elaborating on the opinion that the event (Paris terrorist attacks) was a hoax".[265] See their user page where they clearly state their intention User:Justitia_Nai and their generally trollish edits all to the talk page Special:Contributions/Justitia_Nai. I don't think they are here to build the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They want a criticism section added. That's not trolling. I take it you don't want a criticism section? Branding a new user you disagree with a troll is not very constructive. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There's many eyes already on that article. It is subject to active community sanctions as noted on the talk page. Any impropriety will be efficiently dealt with. -- œ^™ 10:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism is not the same as introducing WP:FRINGE theories that the event was a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with them, discuss it on talk pages. Disagreement doesn't mean they are trolling nor is it a reason to block them. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the recent Paris Terrorist Attacks are not a HOAX - hence this user is trolling with a Single Purpose Acct. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And considering they wanted to use this and this as sources...well that says a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah these are everywhere. Whenever a mass shooting/terrorist attack happens, there are immediately people posting videos and articles with fake photos and witnesses to claim it's all a government hoax. Trutherism seems to be a cottage industry guaranteed to make money off YouTube hits and Google hits because of the sheep who believe everything they read. Excuse me now, I'm going to go make an outraged video about how the World Series didn't happen and it's all a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one about how that wasn't really Kyle Busch winning the Sprint Cup when he came back from his injury might do even better! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I knew the Giants were robbed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was just going to block indef, but since a DS notice was placed on their page, and they haven't posted anywhere since, I'll limit myself to archiving the idiocy on the talk page and making sure they understand the trolling/fringe pushing is over. Please post here or tell an admin if one more incidence of trolling occurs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. We're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant trolling. I agree with the above. GAB^Hello! 22:30, 8 December 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:Jhona43

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

---

Resolved

I am a newcomer here so am sorry if this is not the right place to request help. I am creating articles about past Australian cricketers. Today I created an article Allan Young (cricketer). Just in the first minute when I wrote the first line of the article, the user Jhona43 put a tag on the article that the article was unreferenced. I was taken aback but after completing the article I went to Jhona43's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhona43 and requested him to not put such tags in the first minute. I noticed on the talk page of the user that many other editors have complained about the same thing to Jhona43. I checked further and found that Jhona43 never replies to any such request made to him to stop reviewing articles like this.

I request Wikipedia managers to ask Jhona43 to stop reviewing new articles. Gracias. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We're all volunteers. There are no managers here as such. Now, step one - I notice that you posted on Jhona43's talk page one minute after posting here. Usually, we ask that you discuss problems with other editors before coming here. Was there discussion on a talk page somewhere that we missed? I also notified Jhona of this post, so that he can come here and participate in this discussion.

As for the issue of an incomplete article being tagged? It happens. People don't always see how new the article is, or know that you are actively editing it. You can always start it in your userspace at User:Xender Lourdes/Draft or some such. Or create the article in the Draft userspace. Then you can take your sweet time and finish it at your pace, adding information and references and whatnot. Once that's done, you can have it moved to the main article title - and then you're done. It's really not a huge issue, in the scheme of things. But there's no violation of policy here, as far as I can see. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Missed your notification of Jhona, sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow that. I am new here so do not understand the way some of the things work here. That is why I was a bit taken aback at getting an unreferenced tag. And then a bit more when I saw some other editors telling Johna43 to not bite new editors by tagging immediately. I also didn't know there are no managers here. I thought administrators are managers. Thank you for replying with the advice. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think new editors would be better off starting drafts either in draftspace or their own userspace as the new page patrolling can be a little quick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The "creating a new article" page mentions creating the article in one's userspace at the bottom of a 5-bullet-point list, and Wikipedia:Your first article mentions it as item 7 of 7 after a longish introduction. New editors may actually be better off starting articles in draftspace (which isn't mentioned in either of those two locations) or their own userspace, but the guidance to do so is really thoroughly inadequate. Suggesting that a new user do so after encountering problems from an over-reaching user is really kind of WP:BITEY. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong. I'll mention this to Jhona. Was waiting for a comment here from them, but they appear to have apologized on their talk page for not allowing the editor 10 minutes to complete the article before tagging it. So, some concerns there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona43 is also not discussing other issues when they are queried, e.g tagging a new article as unreferenced when it had six references and then removing the query from the article creator. Their own page creations are very limited and two were speedily deleted under other titles (and I have just nominated one for deletion). I would advise Jhona43 to hold back from reviewing brand new pages as they were already advised on their talk page, and to engage more themselves in quality content creation - so they know how to assess - and improve - pages when acting as a new page patroller. Fences&Windows 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona has replied very considerately on the User talk:Jhona talk page. May I request that this post of mine be withdrawn or closed as I am very satisfied with the guidance provided by helpful editors here and also by the response of User:Jhona. I have also joined the Guild of Copy Editors who have a notice that can be put up on top of an article when I am working on it. This notice informs any review editor that they may wait for some time before reviewing. May I also comment that I do not feel bitten, specially because of all the responses guiding me. (I did not know what the word meant till I read the Wikipedia page on it) Thank you all Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:45, 9 December 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.

False closure of ongoing debate about notability of certain cricketers

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:Davey2010 made several false closures of AfDs about marginally notable cricketers on the grounds of SNOW KEEP. There is a serious debate going on about such articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davey2010 Their non-admin closure is completely unwarranted. SageGreenRider ^talk 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit talk about bad faith!, Consensus was to Keep and as I said if you disagree with it you go to DRV, BTW as an aside you're meant to discuss it with me before hauling my ass here!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• For those who can't be bothered to go thru my contribs here are the AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)), I'm no genius but I'd say the outcomes to these are blindingly obvious, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the phrase "hoist with one's own petard"? SageGreenRider ^talk 00:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No and it has no relation to this as I've not screwed up .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that your foul language is the result of present intoxication? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Please do not use foul language. SageGreenRider ^talk

I'd suggest retracting that comment as it could very easily be considered to be well over the boundary of a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope no intoxication - If you don't want me to use colourful language then don't bring me to the dramah board over stupid reasons, I'm no genius but those AFDs are obvious keeps and the only reason I'm here is because you don't like the outcome, I've had AFDs that were closed as for instance Keep when I wanted them gone .... Would I bring someone to ANI over it ? Hell no. –Davey2010^Talk 02:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• All of these look to me to be clear keeps, and WP:SNOW did in fact apply - coming across them I would have closed them exactly the same way. There was no "serious debate" ongoing in these AfDs. In one there was some discussion, but nothing to stop the closure as was done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• They are part of this debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6 as Davey well knows

• I've not even commented on that DRV and I never participate in DRV anyway .. So no I literally have no idea!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Further point would be, if "serious debate" is going on, then what is there worth of an ANI to report? Davey2010 closed them as clear SNOW KEEPs, which anyone read the !votes would conclude. I think the only reason you believe the closures to be "false" is that you don't like the fact that articles you proposed for deletion have been kept. If this isn't closed forthwith as frivolous, we might begin to wander into boomerang territory. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Have you looked at the articles? The !votes come from the cricket cabal that has a tendency to believe that anyone who puts willow to leather is notable. SageGreenRider ^talk 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate going on in the DRV because there is an issue over GNG v sport-specific statements like at NCRIC. THis is an editorial discussion, not needing admin intervention. It does not belong at ANI. It really shouldn't be in a DRV either, but at a suitable policy location where widespread community input can be included and considered. Sage, if your perspective is supported in that overall discussion, these deletion proposals will be revisited, as will the one at DRV. You and Davey having a conflict over them is neither necessary nor productive for either of you in advancing your perspectives. Speaking as a contributor to the DRV who was and remains critical of Sandstein's close of the AfD, the overall outcome will be reached more rapidly without pointless conflict. EdChem (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. At what forum do you think this debate is best hosted? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Village Pump, with neutral notifications at the N and NCRIC talk pages and at the DRV? Maybe others have suggestions? I just don't think that a suitable location with a broad audience has yet to be found / used. EdChem (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW Sandstein's controversial closure of the AfD was caused in part by a mechanical failure of WP:CRIN to point to the section it is supposed to. On some browsers it doesn't point to the correct section. SageGreenRider ^talk 02:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse all of Davey's closures. Clearly had consensus to close all as keep. --Jayron32 03:00, 10 December 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.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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.

---

Wd all realise that he quality of NPP leaves a lot to be desired but there is no need for experienced users such as HW to give us cause for concern, just as

It is with great hesitation that I have to report the conduct of such an experienced editor as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · count). Unfortunately, a large portion of his/her edits consist of arbitrary removal of AxD and CSD templates from various articles.[266] [267] [268] [269] [270] - these are just the last two days. His/her actions have met with resistance and questions from a large number of editors - please see User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

I don't know what is the community view on serial removal of deletion tags - maybe sometimes it can be justified - so I'd like to present this case to more experienced editors. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• There was nothing wring with removing those speedy tags. I agree with HW that none of those articles met the speedy deletion criteria. Reyk _YO! 14:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• One of those is a PROD, which anyone can remove without explanation (and the removal was explained and warranted); the speedies were all removed with good cause as all the articles show claims of notability. Furthermore, you accused Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of remov[ing] speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, which was not the case at all, and you went on to say It's not the first time that you remove AfD [271], when in fact none of them are AfDs and HW has never removed an AfD tag. This is looking more and more like a WP:BOOMERANG for you, Kashmiri. I suggest withdrawing this thread while you still can. Softlavender (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Softlavender Thanks but I'll keep this. It's not WP:BOOMERANG - I simply see little point of discussing when WP:BRD is not followed, the editor pushing for an edit war instead [272] [273]. ANI is then my preferred way, sorry. What you mentioned is the text of the standard warning added through Twinkle, I have little control over it apart from the comment (and yes, it was not his/her first controversial AxD removal, in various articles). However, HW's mass removal was (rightly IMHO) objected in more than one case, say here [274] (HW's incorrect claim that article "survived AFD") or here [275] where the article was created by a SPA and obviously fails WP:NACADEMICS. As AKS.9955 wrote below, the mere speed with which HB removes templates, seemingy without actually going through sources quoted and edit history, is of concern. kashmiri ^TALK 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• These edits appear to be legitimate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wolfowitz certainly has issues when it comes to removing CSD and PROD templates. For instances, check this post on his talkpage. I am of the opinion that he is doing it AGF but he needs to slow down and exercise caution; especially when so many people have raised objections. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• AKS.9955 - I agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should be asked to review Wikpedia's CSD and AFD guidelines, exercise caution and slow down with his tag removals. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• ~Oshwah~, yup, I wouldn't be too worried about edits from Wolfowitz as it is evident that he is contributing positively to WP. From what I have noticed, he seems to be well aware about the policies however it is his speed which is causing the problems (as the case I cited above). Just my two bits on this issue. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Almost specific example noted seems to be an invalid deletion tag. Most are unambiguously bad tags, a few are debatably bad; in those cases a debate should happen, which is what WP:AFD is for. Instead of blasting HW for removing bad tags, maybe we should focus on educating the community on the proper use of the CSD system... --Jayron32 16:44, 10 December 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:Sirlanz

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 on my phone so I have to keep it short. Could someone please review the recent editing of User:Sirlanz? Please refer to a personal attack at User talk:Lmmnhn, and disruptive editing at Elsie Tu which he admitted was intended to prove a point about “Chinglish” and “gibberish” by Hong Kong Wikipedians. Told Lmmnhn (a prolific editor of Hong Kong subjects here) to stick to editing the Chinese Wikipedia. Disruptive and needlessly combative/insulting editor. Citobun (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Citobun: you are required to notify the editor about discussions here, so I have done that for you -- samtar ^whisper 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Citobun (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sirlanz: shame on you for that huge shower of consecutive edits on Elsie Tu, which you made as separate edits just to make a WP:POINT. That's disruptive. LjL (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Before descending into a personal attack, you might have looked in depth at the edits and worked out (1) the original page was an appalling mess requiring a mass of editing; (2) many of the postings contained multiple edits and (3) the approach taken was a response to an editor who was protecting their own material and who had rejected, without comment, without discussion, my edit of plainly horrible grammar. That lmmnhn creates material which is of a very, very poor English standard is no basis for emphatic criticism but his/her blithe undo was rude, arrogant and an alarm bell that he/she does not accept correction and unaware of the problem. Had he/she not simply, rudely slapped that undo back at my obvious grammar correction, we would not be here. Really poor editing plus a serious overrating of one's abilities is a troublesome combination. Sirlanz 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: While considering this matter, you might also look at Citobun's original attack on me which included a sarcastic/snide remark about use of the Preview function. This was completely without foundation. Virtually all of the edit postings the subject of this review were original edits, not corrections to edits which might have been avoided by previewing them. The remark was nothing short of an emotive attack to embellish the criticism made. The quality of what's being said by my protagonists cries out for scrutiny. I started out with a good faith attempt to deal with an appalling page, was instantly rebuffed by a page-posessive lmmnhn without Talk, without comment; I provided dozens of fully-commented edits for the convenience of other editors and particularly lmmnhn to come to grips with the specific grammatical errors/defects. This was a diligent and painstaking exercise and, of course, bottom line, it took a total load of garbage and made it at least grammatically sensible, if still leagues short of meeting WP's standards in substance which is a task for another day. Sirlanz 04:15, 11 December 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.

Der Statistiker and Paris-based 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.

---

Map of the Greater Paris Metropolis (Métropole du Grand Paris) and its 131 communes.

New Development

This has just taken on an entire new dimension. Outright canvassing forum members to target several Wikipedia contributors specifically.

English link: [276] - Original French: [277] - targeting 3 Wikipedians, posted on the 30/11/2015

English link: [278] - Original French: [279] - mentioning just one (yours truly), posted on the 30/11/2015

I got there by:

1. looking for sources for unsourced numbers that Der Statistiker and Minato ku had insisted were the 'right' ones (without providing sources) [280]
2. that turned up only two Google results:
   1. A post by Minato ku on the aforementioned skyscrapercity.com forum, citing (banned, but member since 2006) forum member "Brisavoine" [281] (fr)
   2. But more importantly, a post (most likely the one cited) by "New Brisavoine", member since 2007, on the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum [282][283] (en)
3. So, in the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum, reading a few pages ahead from the 'numbers' post, it seems that Brisavoine "knows" the London French correspondant for the French newspaper "Le Monde" - funny, the same one that interviewed Der Statistiker and I last year? [284][285]
4. And those maps look really familiar, just like the one Der Statistiker uploaded to Wikipedia (the one to the right), especially the oldest version [286]
5. So a google image search for that [287]...
6. ...turns up yet another forum, pss-archi.eu, where forum member "Brisa" had posted it [288]
7. And a google search for "wikipedia" and "paris" in that website ... [289]
8. ...turns up, right at the top of the list, our targeted-canvassing post; it had been removed (why is in the post itself), but Google still had a cached version. [290]

And, since it's relevent once again, the link to the canvassing from last year's meat-debacle skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=146#2915(fr) [291] (en - gt): Brisavoine was probably already banned then, which is why it could never be proven that User:Der Statistiker was a member there.

What gets me most was the craftiness of hiding the targeted Wikipedians' names through posting their names in image... and how even those other forum members were lied to and WP:GAMEd to get them to help disrupt Paris articles.

Cheers, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerned and Canvassed Contributors

I'm putting these here because they are related to this case (not part of it, this is only about Der Statistiker) and are still registered wikipedians here. It is up to whoever decides here to decide to decide what they want to decide if they find the evidence acceptable. Apologies for the links, but it seems that skyscrapercity(dot)com has been blacklisted, so I can't post them directly, or the translated version - please use google translate (just paste the corrected url into the 'French' input field)

First off, perhaps it's useful to mention now that Der Statistiker is Hardouin, which sets this canvassing (and other bad behaviour) much farther back, but, in addition to the same trying to publish the same WP:OR and same 'tactical' disruptive behaviour, one tie-in (I can provide more) related to the above evidence:

Minato ku's first 'backup' appearance on the 2007-07-20 when Statistiker (Hardouin) was creating/publishing WP:OR for which he could not provide references (but was trying to preserve by reverting/edit warring all the same) : [292]

then Brisavoine (Statistiker) mentioning me in a skyscrapercity forum conversation with Minato ku on the September 22nd, 2007 : www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=284568&page=8#149.

www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=149#2962
In the link above, the canvassed contributors in the skyscrapercity forum thread (being instructed by Minato ku where to go and how to edit Wikipedia); they were:

Minato ku (who has made a few wikipedia edits between his 2007 first appearance until 2011, but returned in 2013 directly to the vote debacle, and has been 'backing up' Statistiker ever since [293]) - edit-warring & voting [294]

Sesto Elemento (most likely also Sesto92 - [295]) - edit-warring & voting [296]

Clouchicloucha - voter only [297]

Abdel-31 - voter only [298]

AvemanoBZH - voter only [299]

These are the votes they were called to: [300][301][302]

If anyone has any further questions or would like any further evidence, please feel free to ask. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Original ANI

Der Statistiker (and his www.skyscrapercity.com allies [303]) has, in all impunity to date, been disrupting editing to Paris-based articles since years now, and this is I-don't-know-how-many-th'd case opened against him [304][305][306][307][308], and many contributors, including administrator jmabel[309], expressed overwhelming support for a topic ban over a year ago [310].

Der Statistiker is particularly good at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia. Wikipedia's default 'assume good faith' is easy to abuse: for one example, he repeatedly creates false claims that look plausible on the surface so that, if an administrator takes only a quick look, they will seem legitimate. He then directs complaints to precisely those administrators who have taken his claims at face value in the past [311]. Concerning that last diff/complaint: I made my first real edits to the article (and I had announced my intentions on the talk-page well before) in a year on November 11 [312], and Der Statistiker, after a total absence of a year from the article, came a week after [313].

But that in itself was not really a problem at that point, until Der Statistiker replaced recently-edited (by SiefkinDR) article-relevent data with out-of-context data [314], and I edited that back into context (without removing anything)[315]: Der Statistiker reverted this with another false accusation (calling it 'starting a revert war') and, again, threatening admin intervention [316]. Again there was no rationale for this, even after SiefkinDR's protesting questioning [317], only an 'answer-sounding' non-sequitur...

...because the rationale for that, and everything from there on, was pure WP:POINT disruption: one of the skyscraper-forum members (who by now has been around long enough to be considered a real wikipedian), Minato ku[318] first edit on wikipedia in months is to remove a just-edited Paris-events paragraph [319], and the same day, reverts a just-edited entire section to a state last edited by Der Statistiker over a year before (under the edit summary 'reorganising')[320], and Der Statistiker's response to this was only to update Minato ku's outdated revert himself, and, even after voiced opposition, re-insert the removed content under a misleading edit summary [321]. The entire 'what happened' is on the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker and Minato ku have worked as a 'team' since around 2007, as made obvious in the Economy of Paris article (the scene of his 'bigger than thou' battles with other big-city articles) and talk page.

While writing this, yet another skyscrapercity.com-er, Clouchicloucha[322], just showed up to 'vote support' Der Statistiker and Minato ku.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I can provide more data if it is needed. Please do check up on my record, and any questions are welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Promenader. Der Statistiker has a very long history of problematic behaviour surrounding the Paris article. I still remember his trolling comments when I promoted the article to GA, disgusting. He has shown time and time again he canvasses support from offwiki as evidenced by the recent Clouch "support", gaming the system. Based on what Jmabel told him before I strongly suggest we topic ban this editor from Paris articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Here the only person I see contacting people off-wiki is ThePromenader, who, in the admission of Jmabel himself, contacted Jmabel last week (see [323]), despite the fact that there is no trace of any message by ThePromenader in Jmabel's talk page history ([324]). So we have an obvious case of off-wiki contact there, from someone who accuses other editors of "gaming" the system. And I suspect User:Clouchicloucha is an account created by ThePromenader himself to discredit me by writing what looks like awkward messages of support in the talk page right in time for ThePromenader to open his complaint against me here. Like how timely and convenient! Der Statistiker (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did contact Jmabel off-wiki (an admin here, by the way, not an off-wiki forum member), for advice and to intervene, which he did, and he said as much [325]. The only difference is that now he doesn't have his talk-page full of complaints.

The User:Clouchicloucha accusation is just lame. Both Der Statistiker and Minato ku know full well who they are. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a user asking me (or anyone else) off-wiki to take a look at what's going on with an article and my openly indicating that I did so. If you think something about this was inappropriate, please say precisely what it was. If you don't, then stop making insinuations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again!! The problem came from a badly written transportation section full of errors that did not bother anybody until I changed it to put more information (accurate information). I think this bothers ThePromenader because it does not follow the plan he wants. In his few edits of the transportation section prior to my edit he kept the numerous errors that were there. Does he really care about the quality and accuracy of the information in the Paris article?
I don't understand why this change of the transportation section has created such noise. No content was deleted; quite the opposite, information was added.
I don't get the war between Der Statistiker and ThePromenader and I'm tired of being used as a pretext for this war (find another scapegoat). I want a good wikipedia article about Paris at the level of New York City article. Nowadays Paris article is more like a tourist guide focused on history (more like the history of anecdotal events rather than a history of the development of the city) and stereotypes. You just need to compare Paris' article with London's article to see this problem. The quality of the information in the Paris article should be the goal of everybody rather than this stupid war of ego. Minato ku (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For both comments above, I'll let the Paris talk page speak for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

But about the 'scapegoat' issue: the article quality concerns you mention here is what the article talk page is for. If you see a problem, open a discussion, and you may find people even helping you. You and Statistiker have overlapping goals (showing Paris as the most modern, etc., city possible), but his example of "impose X (in total disregard for other contributors); use 'tactics' to make it stick" is an extremely bad one to follow; Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on cooperative reasoning, not 'tag-team tactics' (against (an)other contributor(s)), so if you're going to 'team up' with the latter, it's going to turn around to bite you in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles

As per above, there has been clear evidence that Der Statistiker is gaming the system and causing disruption of a large scale with Paris-related articles. ThePromenader has already supplied the diffs above and previous evidence as well as another proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles last year. The evidence is overwhelming and the disruption caused seems to go at no end. He has also been cautioned about meatpuppetry and despite the warnings, he is clearly doing it again. I propose that Der Statistiker be topic banned indefinitely (provisionally) from Paris-related articles, although it might be more suitable if an admin determines the length. JAGUAR  14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Long time coming, should have been topic banned last time. I'd suggest a permanent ban as he has a habit of returning after a year or two and causing trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There has been too much disruption at the Paris article and several editors have been forced away because of the behaviours exhibited there; this needs to end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The foremost challenge when editing Paris articles should be article quality, not Der Statistiker. This has gone on for too many years already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I reviewed and promoted the article for GA and was dismayed at what happened to it thereafter. Der Statistker's repeated interventions seemed to me to go beyond what was reasonable and collegiate as we understand it in Wikipedia. I hope we can eventually rescue the article and restore it to GA standards. Tim riley talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The is no "clear evidence". There is insinuations from always the same user, ThePromenader, who apparently thinks the more something is repeated the more people will believe it. It reminds me a lot of Saddam and weapons of mass destructions in 2003. None of the diffs above prove anything. This wouldn't stand a chance in a regular court of justice.

As for "disruption", here the one who creates the most troubles in this article is ThePromenader, as is obvious with repeated complaints on this noticeboard despite the fact that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise asked all editors from the Paris article to stop doing so, and with ThePromenader's aggressive behavior in the Paris talk page and the history of the Paris article (for example here accusing another editor of "POV creep", or here rewriting Minato ku's edit from just a few hours before, and in the process introducing various errors such as a dot after "daily" instead of a comma, or repeating "257 stops and 587 km (365 mi) of rails" twice in the same sentence; isn't that the very definition of disruption?). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what Der Statisker has done wrong. He is bringing useful information in the article. I find rather funny to see ThePromenader saying Der Statistiker is disrupting the article because since I am a member here I found ThePromenader much more of a problem in this article concerning the quality of the article's content. Also I find strange that SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld suddenly found this complaint here that is not mentioned anywhere in the talk page of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is clear, and this has been going on far too long. A waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: While there's certainly disruption here that may be in need of admin intervention, I'm not convinced a unilateral ban of Der Statistiker is the right way to go. Last year when I intervened as an admin in this conflict, my impression was clearly that of an it-takes-two-to-tango situation: There are two parties with equally strong POV perspectives, Statistiker and Promenader, who are both backed up by their respective tag teams, are both equally allergic to each other's presence, and both probably suffer from "m:Megalomaniacal point of view" to an equal extent, insofar as they both seem quite unable to realize that their own POV is just that, a point of view like others. The article was quiet for a year as long as both of them were away, it exploded again within a matter of days as soon as the two of them were back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is what it may look like on the surface (according to statistiker's complaints to you), but, if you look further, namely at the diffs I provided above concerning the complaint to you (and everything else, for that matter), that's not the case. I don't see where the POV accusation comes from, nor the 'tag-team' one: just because article contributors find themselves having to deal with statistiker's behaviour doesn't make them a 'team' pushing a POV. And even then, it was article contributors opposing one contributor and others summoned off-wiki... I don't see how it is possible to overlook that. When this happened two years ago, I only became aware of it after it was already in full swing, so I'm hardly any 'ringleader' in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is repetition, but concerning 'just me', statistiker had been gone over a year when I announced [326] that I was available for editing (and would be editing soon) just to be sure, and it was another month before I made my first edit to the article [327]. Statistiker showed up one week later [328], and for everything after that, I refer to you to the Paris talk page. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support:Der Statistiker has consistently been rude, sarcastic and aggressive, attacking and insulting any editor who disagrees with him. He makes it very hard to work on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest disruption on Paris has come from Promenader. If anyone is to be topic banned it is he. It certainly does not help when his friends dr blo and schrocat add to the disruption. Their POV pushing has been going on forever at Paris. Caden ^cool 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, then? JAGUAR  20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors who have had long-time involvement in either of the tag-teams mentioned, as well as their habitual wikifriends and wikifoes, need to lay off this discussion; their !votes here are unhelpful and unwelcome. (Caden, that certainly applies to you just as much as anybody, given your long-standing feuds with Blofield and friends.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The evidence of off-wiki recruiting for meatpuppets to aid in an edit war is clear and damning. No opinion whether ThePromenador is also behaving problematically, since it isn't important to this case: two wrongs don't make a right. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support. I think Der Statistiker has good content to bring to this, but in practice he doesn't seem to have worked out a way to work on the articles cooperatively. I'm sure he will be able to make solid contributions elsewhere, in articles with people with whom he gets on better. At the same time, I'd recommend to the others working on the article that they think long and hard about the general issues he's raised, and how the article might better address these concerns (especially that it shorts Paris as a present-day city). - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins

ThePromenader already asked for my topic-ban from the Paris-related article ([329]) but his request was suspended by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who set the following rule: [330]

" from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time."

After nearly a year without editing the Paris article (in a large measure due precisely to previous witch-hunting by ThePromenader, which doesn't really induce people to spend time to work on this or other articles... I note that the French editors who used to work on that article are all gone now), I finally made my first edit in almost a year in this article on November 19, 2015 ([331]). Almost immediately, and despite the fact that I had had no contact or interaction with ThePromenader in almost a year, ThePromenader:

a- accused me of "POV creep" ([332])

b- then opened this new complaint against me with for the most part with the same old recycled paranoid and unsubstantiated stuff as last year

If words have a meaning, a- and b- both breach the rule set by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article. I find it unfair that I have to defend myself against someone who breaches rules and harasses me within 24 hours of my 1st edit to this article in a year. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If your first edits to an article since a year are confrontational [333][334][335][336][337], there's already a problem, and some sort of (not 'harassment', push back ) reaction is only to be expected, don't you think? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker has been bringing out this one-time 'ruling' every time his behaviour is questioned since... a year now, and seems to think that it's an excuse to act in all impunity (because people aren't 'allowed' to complain about his behaviour). A look at the Paris talk page will show this clearly enough, but I can provide diffs if needed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, distorted presentation of facts... I haven't made a single edit in the Paris (or Paris-related) article between November 30, 2014 ([338]) and November 19, 2015 ([339]), i.e. almost an entire year. Yet you somehow imply that during this one year when I have not been editing the article my "behavior" has been "questioned" and I have brought out this rule "every time"... in a year when I haven't even edited this article. Like... right. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thus the '...' in my reply. Before, after, here, like a day never passed inbetween. Shall I provide examples? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's high time for an interaction ban. It's pretty clear that these two editors will argue forever. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not like before. I actually regret leaving my last comment, there was no need to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Summit, I have no opinion about whether an interaction ban is a good idea or not, as that decision belongs entirely to the admins, but I think if an interaction ban is decided, it should also include User:SiefkinDR as per for example the case that I've detailed here on Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this. An interaction ban limited only to ThePromenader and myself would fail to achieve the goal of pacifying this article I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has no place here - one cannot use admin attention to an inquiry into one's own behaviour to try to 'enforce' a personal vendetta against another contributor - but it is a perfect demonstration of the aforementioned WP:GAMEing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins: ThePromenader is now moving around comments from other editors in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page: [340]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also of note for the admins: in the Paris talk page, SiefkinDR claims that he rewrote the section about the Greater Paris Metropolis that I had written and created only 3 days before because "it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole." ([341]) The diff of my edit from 3 days before shows that this section in fact DID contain the area and population of the Metropolis ([342]), contrary to what SiefkinDR is claiming. This is an example of what I'm confronted with in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New attacks against editors

I hope the administrators are aware of the posts that were made at the end of November on two French urban planning sites, urging members to come into Wikipedia to support Der Statistiker and specifically to attack me, Promenader and Blofeld. The attacks on me, by name, and the other editors are quite personal and insulting. This kind of behavior is unfortunately typical. Der Statistker has to stop using articles on Paris to promote has personal agenda. See the posts below.

English link: [343] - Original French: [344]

I hope administrators will act to stop this kind of behavior. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this isn't getting any attention at all - it's been six days since this was opened. I have to keep making silly comments just to keep it from being archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Jeppiz:: since you have been concerned in/submitted past same-subject ANI-cases [345][346], your input would be of value here, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That link constitutes pretty shameless stealth canvassing, including naming individual editors to oppose, and asking for the notice to be removed before anyone here sees it. I don't have a stake in nor overview of the Paris issue, but this is not acceptable behaviour.-- Elmidae 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we know the person on those external fora is Statistiker? So far the only thing that seems clear is that it's somebody who's friends with Minato Ku. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you did look it over, please go through it again. There are so many overlaps that it's just not not possible, and that's even without considering the WP:DUCK aspects of it all. And the silence reigning speaks volumes, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin give this some attention, please

The concerned contributor has disappeared [347] since the update was posted (the 4th of December, 2015), but to close the door to future abuse, this case still needs proper attention. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:33, 9 December 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.

Thank you. What of the canvassed forum members, should they become proxies? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hollister Co. being hit by IP vandals

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.

---

Hollister Co. is being hit every few days by IP vandals. The IP addresses change, so there's no point in blocking them.

• [348] (Petty vandalism)
• [349] (Petty vandalism)
• [350] (May not be vandalism, but no cite for big change in store count.)

Request some semi-protection. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism is too sporadic for semi-protection. Plus, this really belongs at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 8 December 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.

Distruptive editing by editor already under WP:TBAN

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 partisan POV user Hugh (talk) is unable to accept consensus, insisting that his sources are impeccable (while his paraphrase is not) and has started four duplicative talk page segments on identical topic:

1. Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent assessments of partisanship
2. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship
3. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology
4. Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

The fourth being an RfC to to overturn a 3 to 1 consensus in an article where the editor is already under topic block.Diff In yet another wall of text, the editor has created an extensive overview from his point of view. After I added my "Additional by opposing editor:",Diff to his interpretation of "Opposing views" the editor summarily moved this, relevant RfC logic, to a less conspicuous position WP:TPO (a location beneath my Oppose vote),Diff retaining only my signature, making it appear to evaluators that this was the original location -- this is WP:SIGFORGE IMHO. Disregarding the topic ban, the editor continues edit in the article space.Diff Diff Per the very broadWP:TBAN,Diff (appeal was denied) the Koch, Franklin Center, Donors Trust connections have been stated in the article, sourced and unchallenged at Watchdog.org.Diff Apparently, the editor has also taken to stalking User:Safehaven86's talk page, Diff and has been rummaging around in my contributions, now scrutinizing the latest article that I've donated.Diff It has been suggested in Arbitration that the editor should be blocked from American politics entirely.[351] In closing, I believe there is a hopeless bias and an inability for this editor to function neutrally in the entire topic of American politics. This editor's COI (perhaps undeclared paid?) editing is disruptive and perhaps unhealthy. My disclosure: I do take on paid editing (mostly biography cleanups) all of the works mentioned here are voluntary where I have no paid association. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It does look like he is violating his TBAN on Tea Party topics, since Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which he was blocked for editing, and when he appealed ARB determined that editing this topic indeed violated his ban.[352] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hugh

No disruptive edits. An RfC is often preceded by related talk page discussion. An RfC is often initiated by an editor in a minority in a local consensus. An RfC is how the we broaden community discussion to address an apparent local consensus which possibly contravenes policy. This is a straightforward content disagreement improperly escalated to ANI. Involved editors are respectfully requested to return to article talk to make their best policy- and guideline-based case to exclude relevant, neutral, well-sourced content.

No violation of topic ban as per recent failed, harassing AE request for enforcement; our project's article Watchdog.org is out of scope "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN", except for, until very recently, part, as per WP:TBAN 4th bullet: the funding section where a dubious "blocking" mention of a banned topic was inserted by the AE complainant in a sad failed attempt to advance an ugly harassing AE filing.

Respectfully request decline action and quick close. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing topics related to your TBAN is itself disruptive. Why are you on this talk page at all? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to recent Arb request. It does appear you are able to edit Watchdog.org so long as nothing is related to the Tea Party or the Koch brothers, although I can't see the logic in this since the Koch brothers are major investors in Watchdog. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Respectfully may I request a strike-thru of your comment one subsection above as well? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've struck through. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Response by 009o9

I see that the editor has the respect enough here to ask you to strike your comments, rather than moving them out of context.Diff The topic ban for Donors Trust, Koch topics and Franklin Center related aside (all three apply), this opinion so far does not address the disruptive editing WP:REHASH, retribution via user page stalking[353], [354] and now the RfC (user talk) modification and signature forgery (by omission).Diff As a paid editor, I'm walking on eggshells around here, do you think I would have brought this to ANI for a minor issue? Everything I have seen the editor propose is WP:CHERRY nothing is WP:BALANCE, I can't go anywhere near this kind of WP:ADVOCACY for my subjects. He is quite expert at presenting different persona to different audiences; for example, changing a section heading name, that includes a personal endorsement of his sources, removing them just minutes before requesting outside input from WP:30. Diff, Diff Forgive me, but I was thinking that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX might apply. Respectfully requesting a closer look be taken here. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 00:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have notified the original TBAN and blocking admin (User:Ricky81682) about this discussion. Clear and direct violations of the exact terms of his TBAN were violated between October 29, 2015 (the block) and December 7th, 2015 AE closure.

1. October 22, 2015 Watchdog.org clearly contains, "It is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." in the lede paragraph. Diff
2. October 29, 2015 User:Ricky81682 informs HughD that he is blocked in addition to the TBAN for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban and states: "As I shouldn't have to remind you, your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general." Diff

HughD has numerous edits in the article space on Watchdog.org since the Oct. 29 block.

Disclosure I am not connected to the topic at hand in any manner, paid or otherwise, my paid edit statement in my signature is there out of an abundance of caution. -- -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Evidence (partial list of Diffs) of HughD, editing in article space, in a Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity related website (Watchdog.org) after direct clarification and BLOCK on Oct 29 and prior to Dec 7, 2015.

Dec 3

Dec 3

Dec 2

Dec 2

Dec 2

Dec 2

Nov 30

Nov 30

The above are diffs, even with the OCT 29 clarification (with accompanying block) and TBAN in effect, he just found another Franklin related site and kept right on editing. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Safehaven86

It's clear that HughD is violating his Koch/tea party topic topic ban by continuing to edit at Watchdog.org, in an article that states it is "the primary media investment of the Koch brothers...." As this is a topic ban violation, however, it should be brought up at arbitration enforcement. Other related issues with HughD's editing may need to be addressed here, but the immediate issue seems to be that he's aggressively editing a Koch-related article while banned from editing Koch-related articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. However, AE just yesterday determined he is allowed to edit at Watchdog.org despite his TBAN on Tea Party and Koch Brothers. It's totally illogical. Callanecc stated that "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN." I think it's clear there is an issue here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw the AE close and when I noticed HughD was continuing to edit the Watchdog article full speed ahead, I posted on Callanecc's talk page to ask for clarification. Hopefully we'll get some. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody actually looked at the original block and ban? The one year TBAN and "anything at all related to" appears to be pretty concise.

• ===Tea Party movement=== "HughD (talk · contribs) topic-banned from any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)"[355] Pinging @User:Ricky81682 on this one.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• In User_talk:Ricky81682#HughD.27s_ban Admin Ricky81682 directly informed (admin?) Callanecc (AE closing editor) of the all inclusive terms on 18 October 2015, so it looks like Ricky81682 has been stabbed in the the back. The scope of the one week block and one year ban is also clarified to HughD here: User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 04:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I can't understand this. That was a bad call. Watchdog.org is clearly within the scope of the TBAN. They allowed him to edit here and within 48 hours he's already at ANI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone wants to chime in here: User talk:Callanecc#Question on arbitration enforcement. Safehaven86 (talk)

• I commented at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement in detail but my view is that this is another line-drawing gameplay that isn't helpful here. Problems are being created at the article talk page because people can't discuss the Columbia Journalism Review in full without HughD violating his own topic ban so he's avoiding responding about that. People that are topic banned shouldn't get to fracture and make everyone else juggle the discussions around so that there isn't a violation of a ban they got. I suggest expanding the topic ban to all conservative US politics post-2009 (when the Tea party movement began) which is a subset of the post-1942 US politics total ban area. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the alleged "problems," "fracturing," and "juggling." Kindly very clearly and very specifically document the disruptive edits, and the violations of specific policy or guideline which in your mind justifies expanded sanctions. Are you seriously recommending expanding sanctions, because of talk page discussions I did not engage in? Hugh (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky, and sorry you keep getting dragged into this. It appeared to me that you and Callanecc agreed to extend the ban to all of conservative US politics post-2009, but then it seemed that Callanecc changed course and told Hugh that he could continue editing at Watchdog.org, where IMO it is clear that his edits about the sites partisanship are related to the sites funders, the Kochs. I have requested further clarification from Callanecc, because this same situation keeps happening over and over again. We all need more clarity on where this topic ban applies and doesn't apply. IMO, if it doesn't apply on the page of an entity that is the Koch's largest media investment, it doesn't apply anywhere, because what could be more related to the Kochs than their own funding/organizations....Safehaven86 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial thread at User_talk:Callanecc

Are we to presume that the user Callanecc talk-page conversation of (paraphrased) ... go ahead and keep editing Watchdog.org but stop threatening discretionary sanctions (four instances) in your talk page comments ... is somehow in congruency with Ricky81682's recommendation of elevating the TBAN to all post 2009 conservative political topics? (I also note that WP:TBAN also expressly includes contributing to topic ban related talk pages in the first bullet.) IMHO the ban should not be partisan; a non-neutral editor bias is just as damaging as advocacy in a a pro-liberal article as it is when focused in an anti-conservative bias (the reverse condition would also apply).

I request that @User:Callanecc goes on record here, regarding what appears to be some sort of alternate decision at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement. As indicated in that, and other threads, Ricky81682 is already exasperated from his long history of sanctioning HughD and has asked Callanecc to handle the TBAN elevation. Regardless, the outcome, the result should be on record here so we don't have to also reference talk page discussions should future issues arise. Thank you. 009o9 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Once I work it out on my talk page I'll comment here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 11 December 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.

Center for Security Policy/Frank Gaffney

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.

---

LavaBaron has been vandalizing the Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney pages for months and appears to be a new sockpuppet of long banned user W. Frank. He's repeatedly been warned about removing content from these pages and has shown no interest in altering his editing behavior. There's no substantive dispute about the articles. He is excising content at random (for months). There are secondary edit warring, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL issues here but the sockpuppetry and vandalism are the central problem. Baramop (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a retribution ANI in response to a sockpuppet investigation recently filed against Baramop here and is the latest ANI filing against me in the last several months by the voluminous accounts associated with the Gaffney Sock Circus, whose ire I attracted, apparently, with this RfC. While I'd love to address the specific charges leveled here they, as usual, contain no diffs that would allow me to do so. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. LavaBaron (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I started looking into this, but I have to leave. Baseless accusations against LavaBaron. I suggest an admin review Baramop's edit history, the overlap with Zeke1999 (see link to the SPI above) and timing of their edits relative to Zeke's block. I imagine a block of the OP and reblock of Zeke will be warranted, but confidence is not high enough to do so without further review, and I'm out of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron's comment is an obvious falsehood. He requested (on the article talkpage) that I post here. None of his edits can be construed as constructive or legitimate. A 48-hour block would give him time to cool his heels. Baramop (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The scary thing is I'll probably get it, too. LavaBaron (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that Baramop's edits have generally been an attempt to whitewash the articles. I have seen nothing untoward in LavaBaron's edits. If there are sanctions due here, they're BOOMERANGS. BMK (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You've been goal-tending LAVABARON's edits of these pages for months. You're not an objective party. Zeke1999 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back up your claim, Baramop? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. He removed legitimate, sourced criticism here [356] because it was sourced. If you look at Talk:Frank Gaffney you will find LavaBaron has been re-adding his personal conspiracy theory that Gaffney is Jewish for at least eight years. He previously used the sockpuppet Alice.S or Alice (it's no longer clear which one though maybe both) which CheckUser confirmed are sockpuppets of the banned user W. Frank. LavaBaron is just another sockpuppet of a banned user. Every single edit the account has made to these two pages has been to remove large amounts of content with no explanation, replacing the page with POV-pushing conspiracy theories of 'nefarious Jewishness'. Baramop (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a diff where I said "Jewish nefariousness"? What does this article even have to do with Judaism? This is the first time it's even been brought up. Can we please get an admin in here? There is no reason I should be subjected to this shit. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LAVABARON, I had not noticed the "Jewish nefariousness" issue. I plan to look into this. I have noticed that your Wikipedia account is suspicious. You're obviously a very experienced editor yet your first recorded edit was in January 2015. Who's really running socks here? Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've informed Baramop that he either needs to provide evidence of this alleged anti-Semitism, or he will be blocked indefinitely. @Zeke1999:, if you make such an accusation with this account without proof, it will be blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Floquenbeam. I looked over some of LAVABARON's edits from last summer and did not find evidence of anti-Semitism. He did add language in July that CSP was "a pro-Israel activist group." diff This was biased language but did not amount to anti-Semitism. My willingness to entertain Baramop's claim was due to this sentence. After I objected to this in September, LAVABARON dropped this language. Zeke1999 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One more comment on this. LAVABARON, who is posting comments about this ANI complaint on several talk pages and seems to be lobbying for an admin to block me again, posted this comment on jamesbwatson 's talk page:

"Normally I'd let an ANI against me run its course. but Zeke and his new sock have now gotten particularly vile, accusing me of a variety of anti-Semitic slurs (no diffs, off). I'm confident I'm one post away from being called a pedophile and I'd rather not be. Can you please make a quick ruling and either block me or close the thread?.LavaBaron (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"

You can see above this claim is untrue. This kind of comment is beyond the pale. I'll leave it to the admins to decide how to address this. Zeke1999 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As you were told by myself and user:Cwobeel, you were reverted because your edits undid wording that had literally just been decided in a RFC consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dxrd - aka LavaBaron aka banned user W. Frank - adds in the lie, again, that Gaffney is Jewish.[357] Under the LB account over the last several months he has massively removed actual, cited content (including actual criticism of the organization)[358][359][360][361], deleting the fact that he was Assistant Secretary of Defense and replacing the introduction with 'he is a conspiracy theorist who won an award from a Zionist organization'. Also note that the FG article no longer has him listed under Cat:Scottish Americans[362]. None of his edits to either the CSP or Frank Gaffney articles can be construed as legitimate. In the words of another user who was not involved in editing these pages: "Baramop's version is superior in completeness, BLP, NPOV, and due weight. Revert warring against it will need something much better than alluding to an alleged prior consensus"[363]. There is no content dispute here. Baramop (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia critics on Reddit provided before/after diffs. Rather than copy and paste, I will link to the post. [364] 50.196.177.155 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked Baramop indefinitely; this is not evidence LB has posted anything of the sort. I'm strongly inclined to block Zeke1999 for sockpuppetry, but will wait to see what a Checkuser decides at the SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I cant believe I'm on the verge of being blocked again on false sockpuppet charges by LAVABARON. Please don't do this. Zeke1999 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you persist in writing "LAVABARON" when the editor's name is "LavaBaron"? BMK (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to sanction LAVABARON for bullying other editors in the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy Pages

There is no Gaffney sock circus. There is an editor, LAVABARON, who has been making false charges like this to bully other editors to prevent any changes to his NPOV language on the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy (CSP) pages.

LAVABARON made major changes to these pages over the summer. I tried to add balance to his edits in September. My changes, which were explained on the talk pages, left the negative material and added text on other issues that I thought were significant such as the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal and a rally against this deal it sponsored in front of the Capitol that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz spoke to. See these diffs diff1 diff2 I think the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal is significant but it seems LAVABARON wont allow any material to be added to the Center or Gaffney pages that distracts from the single emphasis he is pushing that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist.

I also disagree that a consensus was reached on the Gaffney page since LAVABARON engineered a biased RfC.

99.170.117.163 and I reverted LAVABARON's mass reverts of my edits in September. LAVABARON reverted our changes and began to make a series of false charges, including that this IP editor and I were sock or meat puppets. We were both blocked due to these charges by LAVABARON and his associates.

The unfair block against me was lifted a few weeks ago. The editor who lifted it recommended I stay away from the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages. I did not agree to this but have stayed away anyway until writing this complaint. I was stunned today that LAVABARON has filed another false sock puppet charge against me even though I have not made any edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages since October 3. See this link

Let me repeat this: I have not made ANY edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages or their talk pages since October 3, 2015 but was just hit with another false sockpuppet charge concerning these pages by LAVABARON.

Among the false complaints lodged by LAVABARON in this case was this one to the Fringe Theories noticeboard DIFF3 (See discussion #90) The admins on this page, location jps and ad_orientem mostly rejected LAVABARON's complain but raised a lot of questions about his behavior. I think this page gives a fairly objective account of this dispute.

I lodged a complaint against LAVABARON to the ANI notice board in Sepember. See this diff (number 72) BeyondMyKen, who has been defending LAVABARON's edits, closed my complaint with a non-admin closure.

LAVABARON appears to be an editor who is personally invested in the Gaffney and CSP pages. Based on his behavior and some of his comments, I suspect he is a professional or personal rival. If LAVABARON's behavior to block editors who disagree with him on the Gaffney and CSP pages is not a clear example of unethical bullying, I don't know what is. Zeke1999 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ho boy. I think there are issues here that were well-beyond my ability to help. To be clear, I am not an admin, and while I clashed a bit with LavaBaron (over style rather than substance), I think that we should acknowledge that there are potential conspiracy theories being inappropriately advocated here (which is one of the main concerns of LavaBaron). There are also WP:BLP issues we need to balance, and political articles like this are always a mess. Additionally, when things get heated it sometimes becomes hard to see the forest for the trees, and good editors can sometimes fall into traps that are hard to get out of, which is what I suspect may be going on here at least in part. There could also be some WP:CPUSHing happening, but I haven't looked into it that closely. This conflict, sadly, looks like one of the ones that tends to end up at arbcom sooner or later. jps (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Time to end your bullying. Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, POV-pushing editors frequently see any action taken to mitigate their attempts at skewing our articles as "bullying". BMK (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely and Zeke1999 abruptly announced he is "INACTIVE INDEFINITELY AS OF 12/10/2015" [365] following endorsement of a CheckUser in the SPI investigation of him. I would suggest this would be an appropriate time to close this nonsense. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As Lavabaron and Floquenbeam's false accusations have run off a competent editor who has not violated policy, I would suggest that a strong sanction against both is appropriate. I also recommend that BMK be sanctioned for battleground conduct [366][367][368] and I support the block of Baramop who failed to provide evidence of his allegations of sockpuppetry and racism. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Gee, wonder who this could be? BMK (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Tell Frank Wikipedia says hi. LavaBaron (talk) 06:21, 11 December 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.

Bias from rape supporters

(non-admin closure) 166 troll. BMK (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the edits at David Lisak and Mary P. Koss and at RSN. Anti-rape activists are being run off this site in favor of the typical men's rights/rape deniers. This is not how neutrality works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.177 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC) The way to call out a controversy is not use personal attacks. Suggesting this be closed. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Some diffs would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see that Ricky81682 made an edit to Mary P. Koss, hence our resident Ricky stalker on the 166.17x.x.x addresses has surfaced. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Article silliness - Miss Earth

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

---

Could some kind person please have a look at Miss Earth, try to establish which was a good version, and maybe semi it too for a while? If you have a look at the history you'll see what concerns me. I can edit only right now from a mobile and I think others might do a better job. Thanks 213.205.198.190 (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Miss Earth looks like it needs page protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Eh, I might take that back actually. Stand by :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging from this revision, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the current one so far. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so apart from recommending protection, I don't see anything blatantly wrong with the article's current revision. I'll leave this thread open for someone else to check out as well, just in case I missed something. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think it is still in trouble and needs semiprotection at least. I don't think many editors know what its current state should be! For example, the current motto is given as "Proud to be Pinoy". On the external website, and in the previous incarnations of our article, it is and was "Beauties For a Cause". Is one of these right? Have you seen the sheer VOLUME of edits there? I am not going to labour the point but I do think this article needs more help than it is getting. Best wishes 77.96.249.228 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Our" article? You might want to read WP:OWN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Miss Earth has been getting low grade vandalism b IPs who think its bias toward Filipinos. It is all under control though. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 11 December 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.

Accusations of 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.

---

EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I attempted to add a link to Workplace bullying in the CIVILITY policy. EEng reverted with the comment, "I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you." He has since made several accusations of bullying, some of which could be interpreted as being made in jest [369] [370] [371]. Is this acceptable? Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page I think you are right that you have falsely accused EEng of bullying, and no, I do not think it is acceptable. I recommend you dial down the rhetoric a few notches. HTH. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy: "I think you are right" that "you have falsely accused EEng of bullying" doesn't make sense to me, based up on the OP's statements. Do you mean "I think EEng is right"? Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Knopfler: "When you point your finger 'cause your plans fell through, you've got three more fingers pointing back at you." Burninthruthesky's description fitted xyr own editing much better than that of EEng, so I replied accordingly. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Quite disappointed in EEng, He usually scores a ten on the irony meter, not just a weak and measly 8 and a half. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

While still an underestimate I appreciate that you are, at least, not making the scurrilous implication found in another editor's comments recently [372]. EEng (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Burninthruthesky My edit summary in reverting your addition of the link was not, as you imply, a dismissive

I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you.

but rather

Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here.Please explain on Talk how it clarifies the policy. (And I'd appreciate it if you don't try to claim I'm bullying you)

By misrepresenting what I wrote you are engaging in bullying tactic #9, "Starting destructive rumors or gossip"; #10 "Encouraging people to turn against the person being tormented"; and (presumably) #22, "Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person". And this time I'm not kidding.

EEng (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: I apologize for the lack of clarity in my message above. I did not intend to imply that the section I quoted was the entire edit summary.

I am not seeking to have you "oust"ed. I have asked whether it is acceptable to make accusations of bullying in the manner that you have. I am not 'kidding', and I haven't been at any point in our discussion at CIVILITY. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was kidding (though making a completely serious point in doing so) in the diffs you posted in opening this thread, and since you obviously know that‍—‌you even said so‍—‌what in the world are we doing here? You've been posting to my talk page and shopping this around [373] and it's getting tiresome. EEng (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I said your messages "could be interpreted as being made in jest". When I read the first one, I took it at face value, as you will see in my response. It was only after your later response, and visiting your talk page, I realized you may not have meant it literally. I told you on your talk page that I didn't appreciate it [374]. You later responded, what sarcasm?. When you accused me again this morning, I was shocked, and decided I would rather leave the discussion than continue. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked, "What sarcasm?" because it wasn't sarcasm. It was irony. There's a real and (especially in this context) important difference. I expected you'd follow up, and then I'd make sure you understood that. Please take to heart the comments made by others to this thread. Even if you think I'm being sarcastic, or bullying you, or whatever‍—‌which I'm not‍—‌the right response is to ignore it and continue commenting on the actual subject of the discussion. Bullies and trolls feed on their victims' cries of protest. While it wasn't my intention (I frankly wouldn't have dared hope it) this episode vividly illustrates many editors' concerns about defining an expanding list of behaviors as "bullying". EEng (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did follow up, but then decided I'd rather drop it. I guess I will have to do the same here because the discussion is so full of double-entendre it's making my head hurt. Bye. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. It's hard to judge, EEng, if you're really a sarcastic bully or just an ironic victim. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To combat my anemia my doctor told me to get more irony in my diet [375] so it's undoubtedly the latter. EEng (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

the right response is to ignore it and continue commenting on the actual subject of the discussion. Sound advice. I have asked you to stop making jokes at my expense. That is the subject of this discussion. Please stop. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God! A joke about using irony to combat anemia is at your expense? How??? But really, someone needs to put this discussion out of its misery. EEng (talk) 10:13, 11 December 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.

Legal threat (and COI disclosure after 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.

---

I believe this edit should receive prompt attention. Thanks. LjL (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) LjL I've placed the legal threat warning on their talk page, just so they have a chance to understand the likely future block. Other than that, it's a pretty darn clear WP:NLT violation -- samtar ^whisper 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been at least another two self-proclaimed English Democrats members who have made legal threats against Wikipedia editors for editing the article about their party. They consistently fail to understand both WP:COI and WP:NLT. LjL (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked that account until such a time as they have retracted the legal threat. HighInBC 16:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: Just so you are aware of this unpleasant development. Keri (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe that, after three such incidents (I believe Snowded was the target of previous legal threats), something more permanent should be done about members of this party attempting to edit related articles on Wikipedia, especially now that (by virtue of posting on their blog) they have made it clear that they are in fact party members, and not just pretending to be, which could have been a possibility. LjL (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I celebrated the link on twitter as I think the nonsense speaks for itself. But yes its not the first time and we have a whole series of these type of problems on various right wing sites. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 10 December 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.

Removing CSD tag

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

---

Resolved

Mlpearc (open channel) 18:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@RivetHeadCulture: keeps removing CSD tag at Common Language (band) without discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because you are trolling. Just another try to remove me from Wikipedia. I'm working here since 2003. Believe me. You will not win. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware it was a game. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be a simple trout then, since if you've been here since 2003, you'd know you can't remove a CSD template from an article you created. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, you need to stop removing the CSD template. You're on the cusp of a 3RR violation, one more revert will lead to a block. Use the talk page to dispute the deletion as instructed in the template.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was beaten to it, but I was going to remove the CSD tag, as there is a plausible claim the band could meet WP:MUSIC with the releases on the Blast First label. This would be better served at AfD I think. RickKJr (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the CSD tag. The article has a source and mentions multiple albums from various record companies. It may pass but any further dispute would require AFD. Nevertheless, RivetHeadCulture should not have edit warred over the tagging and instead made the same point at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply corrupt. It all started after User:Binksternet removed reliable sources from an article. I told him to stop. He didn't answer. After that, two other guys, one of them an "administrator", started to "harass" me... Now, one of them tries to destroy one of my articles. This has nothing to do with constructive work. It's corrupt and destructive. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:55, 10 December 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.

Attempted outing at Michael J. Yaremchuk AFD

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

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk, User:Kashmiri has posted a COI accusation against the article creator, identifying them by name and employer. The article creator has not not identified himself on-wiki. Whatever the merits of the COI allegation, per WP:OUTING, this sort of post was not appropriate; accusations identifying the editor by name/employer should be transmitted privately, not posted publicly. Revdel is called for, and the poster should at least be strongly cautioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate redacting personal name by HW, it was my mistake to include it. However, I do insist that in case a PR agency appears to edit their clients' articles, knowing the agency's name is allowed and indeed indispensable to establish COI with certainty. Here, I only asked whether the single-purpose account is associated with a given PR agency.

At the same time please convince me that this is not a WP:REVENGE ANI report from HW (see a report filed by me ealier today above). kashmiri ^TALK 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's just plain feeble. You filed a retaliatory, and entirely spurious, ANI report against me, after I declined one of your way-out-of policy speedy noms. Then you took the same article to AFD and committed a flagrant, unmistakeable OUTING violation. You should have known that any responsible editor would have taken action against you. Your response, casting aspersions on me, just demonstrates a lack of good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been problems with your mass removal of CSD tags, see comments in the ANI report above. Please note that mine was only a COI question about a WP:SPA based on information freely available on the internet, and your branding it as "outing" was quite an overstretching. Your continuous utter disregard to other editors' views continues to be a problem, and complaints on your Talk page unfortunately keep growing despite ANI. kashmiri ^TALK 12:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting simple facts. Every uninvolved editor found nothing wrong with the tag removals, and you were warned by an experienced admin over the OUTING violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted the edit and contacted the oversight team. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that in cases like this, don't draw additional attention to the inappropriate information by posting here. Just quietly blank it from wherever it's posted (or revdel if you're an admin), and send a diff to [email protected]. EEng (talk) 21:10, 10 December 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.

SurfRI

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 user SurfRI has been engaging in an extreme edit war at Newton Public Schools. It took a full page protection to stop him. I tried to report him on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring via Twinkle, but the UI seems to be broken, so I couldn't report him. He has never been blocked, although receiving multiple warnings.

[ EnigmaLord515 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ]

Since they haven't edit warred further since the page protection but has instead taken it to the talk page, there's no real recourse for admin action. Also, they haven't edited in the past 4 days so there's any action now would be punitive. Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, EnigmaLord515, you didn't notify SurfRI about this discussion, as you are required to do. At any rate, although s/he hasn't edited in five days, s/he does seem to be cooperating on the article's talk page, so I'll close this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 11 December 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.

Legal threat from 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.

---

I request intervention regarding this legal threat from an IP editor. The threat comes after I undid the IP's malformed edit to the Veronica Lake article earlier today. Thanks in advance for all help and advice, SteveStrummer (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A classic unambiguous WP:NLT violation. BMK (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP user should be blocked, but the IP user's claims should be checked for veracity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 beat me to it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:28, 11 December 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.

Continuous Vandalism in Articles of WP:Hong Kong

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.

---

[IP User 221.126.237.2] has been vandalising articles through these days. I highly recommend the blocking of such users. Details are provided in his talk page. Thank you. Alvin 08:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Talk

• Alvin, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Please see the note in the closure comment.

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 war

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.

---

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a protracted edit war ongoing at that article between NobleHumanBeing and Doc9871 which makes it impossible to edit that article constructively. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see. NobleHumanBeing is a SPA sock of a blocked user trying to insert a bunch of crap in a BLP. I am reverting that sock. If that's edit-warring, then I guess I messed up. Doc talk 18:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AN/3#User:NobleHumanBeing reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Your name is mentioned there as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This strikes me as highly suspicious. GAB^Hello! 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doc9871 and Cwobeel: Is it worth looking into whether BeautifulEncyclopedist is possibly related? GAB^Hello! 21:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's related. Blocked by Favonian. GAB^Hello! 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by user NobleHumanBeing

NobleHumanBeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a legal threat: I will take this to the Supreme Court. He is also edit-warring at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please see also the report at 3RRN. Dr. K. 18:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What a shock. Likely yet another sock of... Doc talk 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Blocked per WP:NLT by Jayron32. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well at least it's a noble threat. EEng (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll bet blocking them was a real noble gas, man. BMK (talk) 02:23, 12 December 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.

Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

• BalCoder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since Aug.16 a new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been disrupting the proportional representation (PR) article for politically partisan reasons. He displays all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS except cite-tagging. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve WP but to help the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). I am the only person protecting the PR article, I don't see a way out except to get the user blocked, so I come back to WP:ANI.

Story so far: I have tried talk page discussion, WP:BRD, not reverting to encourage cooperation, a WP:ANI incident to block him which attracted no admin response, a request for help at WP:WikiProject Politics which also brought no response (it appears to be moribund). The article has twice been protected to encourage cooperation. After the ANI failure my only recourse was reverting but we were both blocked once for edit warring. Others encouraged me to try WP:DRN, which I did twice, here and here, both attempts failing because Ontario, although agreeing to both mediations, failed to cooperate.

Political bias: Apart from PR, almost all Ontario's edits have concerned Canadian politics, obviously in connection with the Oct.19th Canadian federal election, and obviously in support of the Conservative Party of Canada (e.g.here, here, here). In the PR article he puffs FPTP and diminishes the various PR systems, particularly MMP. MMP is the official policy of the New Democratic Party, and reform of the electoral system to a more proportional one is a policy of the new Liberal government. The CPC wants to retain FPTP. Ontario has also misleadingly changed a number of other electoral system articles with crude copy/paste from the PR article, as well as a template:

• Mixed-member proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Semi-proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Closed list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Open list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The basic dispute: Ontario insists that mixed member proportional representation (MMP) is not PR but "mixed", and has mutilated the article's structure in consequence. MMP is both mixed and proportional, as its name implies. That it is "usually considered PR", as the lead says, is uncontentious, has unimpeachable sources, and has not been challenged since being introduced on Dec.11, 2014 (diff) (in those eleven months, though the article receives ca.1000 hits/day, the only changes to the MMP section have been some commas and the words "Scotland and Wales".) Although I have referred him seven times to these sources, and they were the subject of both DRN incidents, he has yet to justify his removal of the statement. He allows only that MMP is semi-proportional for which he produces thirteen (!) sources, none of which supports his contention. His only arguments are some specific MMP elections which did not produce proportional results, one of which, Hungary, is already mentioned in the article as an example of gerrymandering.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

Tendentious

Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.

His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.

He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".

Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.

Verifiability

He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!

Does not engage in consensus building

Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.

Ignores community input

There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.

Exhaust the patience of productive editors

This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.

Failure to 'get the point'

One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

Ontario should be permanently blocked from all electoral system articles. --BalCoder (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is a content dispute

I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.

To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.

BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.

Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Dude. 166.176.59.110 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?

I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.

Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.

From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.

I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

There are currently two disputes: a conduct dispute and a content dispute. In terms of conduct, User:BalCoder has repeatedly used uncivil language such as calling me an unscrupulous liar on 27 Sep 2015. Comparatively, I have, in good faith, used 'adaptive edits' in order to build consensus whereas BalCoder has merely mass reverted content based on the author alone. Furthermore, I have contacted other editors who have previously contributed to the article in order to build consensus and have input their suggestions/points of view several times through adaptive edits. Moreover, BalCoder has accused me of being politically motivated, and holding an anti-MMP stance. This accusation is quite shocking as I am personally in favour of MMP, as it is a compromise between the other two voting systems families. In fact, I voted for MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. I do feel, however, WP editors have a responsibility to compare the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems fairly. For this reason, I have attempted to ensure fair and neutral language is used throughout the article, while BalCoder has used severe language ripe with biased tones in his/her edits.

In terms of content, User:BalCoder has renamed the subtitle 'Mixed or Hybrid' from the WP article on 11 Dec 14 to the seldom used term 'Two-tier systems'. I reverted this change. This user has deliberately misrepresented the truth by acting like his/her subtitle is the original version in order to establish a false incumbency. The premise of his/her arguments is that he/she is "protecting what was there before" is blatantly false. In truth, it is the other way around. Additionally, BalCoder removed the entire, and extremely well sourced section, 'PR systems in the broader family of voting systems'. This user has mislead others to believe I created this section- I did not! This section of the article was present prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information into an easy-to-understand table.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

This table primarily comes from the Electoral Reform Society of the UK. However, the classification of electoral systems into these three groups: PR systems, Mixed member systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems is universally used around the world by academic scholars, journalists, and electoral reform advocacy groups alike from a wide variety of political persuasions. For this reason, I provided examples from around the world to demonstrate that this classification is global. So, in addition to the aforementioned British example from an electoral reform advocacy group, I provided an example from a major Canadian magazine(Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine), and from an Italian (Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca) University professor. This quite blatantly disproved BalCoder's wild accusation that I am somehow exclusively using Canadian sources.

In terms of the accusation that I have not worked to reach consensus or that I have not provided sources which list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, consider the following:

As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

"Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

Therefore, I believe User:BalCoder should be banned from the WP article based on both uncivil conduct, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts. The content of the proportional representation article can be resolved by other editors who have demonstrated good faith such as User:Reallavergne and Øln. Thank you for your time.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

---

So, the editors here plus FreeKnowledgeCreator have been edit-warring again over the page, see the article revision history. May I propose several solutions? I am aware that I am at least partially involved, if not fully by this point.

1. Topic-ban Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (per oblique request by filing party, BalCoder')
2. Topic-ban BalCoder (per request by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd)
3. Topic-ban both editors, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder (per WP:BOOMERANG)
4. Indef. fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users: Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk) (new request; this will require the users to either work co-operatively or not have the article corrected by using edit requests to Admins.)

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For starters, calling someone a "new user" in the first sentence is attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad", which makes me sour (and absolutely contrary to what the community and foundation has been doing). Judging on the discussion itself, all I see is a wall of text, lots of policies and their abbreviations thrown around, and lots of diffs being tucked inside the wall of text that blends in with article links and policies pages. Talk page was working fine until BalCoder decides to send it to ANI. I suggest to send this back to the talk page where it is most suitable to this type of discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited: It is remarkable how people jump to unwarrented conclusions. To say I am attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad" is purest fantasy. I called Ontario a "new user" because right from the off her edits were politically partisan. Her very first edit (which I linked to above under "Political bias") is to "Tom Mulcair", a Canadian political leader, and consists of the one word "Abortion". (As a Canadian environmentalist you are particularly well placed to judge how political the second edit linked to there is; vandalism? I don't think so). I am painting the accurate picture that Ontario is here for politically partisan reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. And that you can say "Talk page was working fine..." beggars belief. No-one who has contributed to the TP discussion would subscribe to that. They are saying take it topic by topic, which is what I have been saying since I proposed BRD on Aug.24, but Ontario has yet to start that discussion. And it's my fault?

I am offended by the ad hominem attacks. To be clear, I included the subtitle abortion on the Tom Mulcair's WP page as the section of text (which I neither wrote, nor edited) was on the topic of abortion. The previous subtitle was Women's rights. In order to preserve Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, this subtitle had to be changed. Wikipedia has a clear policy on article titles, and subtitles. This minor edit was not politically motivated.

In terms of the talk page I have consistently been willing to discuss issues one at a time. I have gone as far as to seek other editors to act as mediators, and in particular those who have made previous contributions to the article. Currently, User:Bgwhite, an admin, is acting as a mediator.

MPP is a 'Mixed Electoral System'. According to 'Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences' by Federico Ferrara, "An electoral system is "mixed" if more than one formula is employed to distribute legislative seats." User:Reallavergne has accurately pointed out that Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM), also known as parallel voting does not issue PR seats in a compensatory manor, and is therefore always semi-proportional. However, MMP can also be semi-proportional if insufficient/no compensatory seats are awarded to compensate for the Overhang seats, if the FPTP seats greatly outnumber the List-PR seats, complicated coalition rules distort the seat count, and/or if minimum thresholds deny smaller parties List-PR seats. Although the extremely rare exception of MMP in New Zealand yielded proportional results, MMP in Romania, Hungary, and Italy has been semi-proportional. In the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (a staggering 70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (only 30% of the Legislature). This is another example of semi-proportional MMP. Regardless of the results of specific elections, MMP is considered a 'Mixed System' as it combines both PR and FPTP methods to distribute legislative seats.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is like an earlier comment above from User:Willondon, that some statements of mine raise "red flags", although they are guileless statements of objective fact. If I say I am "the only person protecting the PR article" it is because if I didn't revert Ontario's work the proportional representation article would rejoin the mass of decayed political articles (like the Mixed-member proportional representation article which Ontario changed with a crudely erroneous copy/paste on Sep 7 and which has yet to be corrected/reverted). --BalCoder (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that stops new users from editing political pages. Established editors could also be POV-pushers, which means you absolutely don't need to mention whether someone is new or not (nobody would say you're a 4-year veteran involving in the dispute). To me, that alone is biting a newcomer and sets the tone for the rest of the discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users

Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk)

Content removal / BLP violations by IslamicrevialistmMujahid

This editor has been serially removed sourced content from several Islam-related articles, often about people, sometimes replacing it with different (contradicting?) content, and other times with nothing in particular. This was consistently left unexplained by any edit summary or talk page rationale.

Examples: Ibn Arabi Sunni Islam Ghazan Fatima Meer Omar Nasiri Essop Pahad Ahmed Kathrada (these last four are re-classifications of people as "former" Muslims based on their political stances, nevermind the "Religion: Communism" change in the last one).

Another editor started a discussion with them and then we talked at length about proper sourcing, but today I already found more edits of the identical type: Muwahhid Muslim Abubakar Gumi (this last removed a valid category and added a non-existent one instead). There is also this edit on Saudis, on which I have no clear opinion.

They clearly aren't "getting it". LjL (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the original complainant, and I suppose that not all their edits were BLP-concerns, as at least one person 'former'ed is dead. But it drew my attention as the articles mentioned one as a hajji and the another as having "boycotted Salman Rushdie" as a blasphemer. Numerous changes of 'Sunni' to 'Sufi', 'Wahabi' to 'Salafist', 'Salafist' (and others) to 'Kharijite', apparently a progression to more pejorative terms (certainly that last one), and all the while deleting refs and adding/changing to unrefd assertions.

They've hit 340 articles in 556 edits. Creating such worthy categories as Category:Canadian former Shia Muslims and Category:Gabonese former Christians (latter one twice). Very fine categorising and characterisation of people into mortal sinners with various terms. In checking 50+ recent edits I was amazed at the count of other editors having to revert/repair most of those edits. Some were not reverted only, I believe, because the average editor is not qualified to accurately argue what makes someone a 'foo-ist' vs. a 'baz-ist'.

They were immediately and repeatedly approached since beginning to edit (June 2014) to: use RS, not mass add categories without refs, stop section blanking, use edit summaries, marking BLP changes as minor, etc. All these behaviours however continue.

They justify their actions by 'fatwas' supporting their position. Additionally claiming non-Islamic texts/refs must be discounted. Without of course ever mentioning any refs/texts/graffiti. Completely unverifiable edits.

This is someone editing solely guided by a personal agenda, supported by selected sectarian opinions and never-specified texts/tracts. Unquestionable and unreferenceable truths make for bad editors. This is one of them. Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I said at least one person was dead, so maybe WP:BLP doesn't apply to her article? But if a dead person is falsely claimed not to have been a Muslim, does that not directly impinge upon her son Rashid's reputation? Does the BLP concern extend to children/relatives? Shenme (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Serious misunderstanding of WP:BLP and proposed topic ban

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

---

User:Dravecky (an admin evidently) demonstrates a shockingly bad understanding of what reliable sources are and how to put together an appropriate BLP, Some examples where they are the primary author to illustrate:

• Rebecca Anderson where personal details include all her minor city level pageants and "Anderson is a native of Oregon City, Oregon, and a 2009 graduate of Oregon City High School.[2] While at OCHS, she participated in the drama program for four years and was a member of the school's dance team for two years.[3] Her father is Ted Anderson, a wholesale nursery operator and licensed tax consultant.[4][5] As of 2015, mother Shari Anderson is the elected County Treasurer of Clackamas County, Oregon, an office she has held since 1999.[4][6] Anderson has one younger sister, Malea, who is also an occasional pageant competitor.[2]

• Although I cite privacy policy on otherwise low profile individuals [376] and identity thrift identity theft [377] s/he quickly reinserts [378] personal data in contravention of WP:DOB. User:Polequant takes it out [379] and s/he restores it all again [380]
• Same pattern here [381] restoring trimmed intricate detail 3RR without even allowing part of other editor's edits. Calls following WP:NPF and WP:DOB "editing in bad faith." He deliberately reverted a bot [382] dating two tags, but did not provide sources.
• Is called out for BLP issues by another editor here [383]
• Wrote statements that someone did not qualify/attend a pageant sourced to lists of girls who did. How is NOT competing in an event notable? When challenged [384] they refactor my comments and blow it off., mocking me as the Time Person of the Year 2006. [385].
• As creator and primary contributor uses 39 sources, including ones that make no mention of the subject to shore up an Bio. It looks impressive and well sourced until you dig into the sources Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead Really bad ones include [386], a facebook post [387] and a linked in profile [388] plus a number of sources that do not even name check the subject.
• Describes these low quality sources and minutia detail as [389] "These cut-and-paste nominations are overreaching, dismissive of the humans involved, and strangely personal to the nominator for some reason. That the article is thoroughly-cited, carefully assembled from many reliable sources, is how biographies of living persons should be built. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)"
• Makes claims about good sourcing and GNG that prove unconvincing to other editors because the vote goes strongly to delete, and many of the articles are later individually AfD'd and deleted. Many are stub article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie
• Is committed to keeping anything pageant related without doing any checking. Between 10:20 [390] and :20:47 [391] slams out 15 keep votes in 27 minutes which is not enough time to barely navigate between the AfDs without looking at the articles, quality of the sources, or anything.
• Maintains a lot of Miss America stuff in User:Dravecky/sandbox suggesting bias
• Seeks to have me topic banned for sending to AfD what it turns out are his creations. Calls the junk sources "dozens of reliable sources"

In summary, this editor has an inappropriate understanding of proper sourcing and what information is properly included in a BLP. This is a long term problem, brushed off whenever anyone questions their edits on BLPs. Therefore a topic ban seems like a reasonable solution to protect the project. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What's "identity thrift"? EEng (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Identity theft which is a big risk when parent's names (especially maiden name), birthday, sibling names, middle name, school info etc all become available to the world for no good reason. Legacypac (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• To address one specific point you raise, "not competing in an event" can certainly be notable in certain circumstances; if she would ordinarily have been expected to compete in a particular pageant but failed to turn up, that could easily be worthy of mention. As one specific example, the most noteworthy thing about the 1984 Olympics was how many nations refused to enter. ‑ Iridescent 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Skipping a pageant by not entering, or failing to qualify for a the state pageant is the issue - see Nichole_Mead#Early_pageants end of first and second paragraphs for two examples that are pure OR (check sourcing). Not like 1984 Olympics which was a diplomatic thing involving many countries. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, I love the work you do around here, but it looks like this is being handled at the appropriate Afd's and talk pages. I don't anticipate any consensus for immediate action arising from these disputes. While I enjoy admin bashing as a competitive sport as much as the next editor, there doesn't seem to be much substance to this dispute other than a clash of styles. Therefore, I would recommend closure at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 11 December 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.

New user creating tons of unnecessary redirects

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

---

It's More Fun to Compute (talk · contribs).

This user created his account yesterday, but has already made over 100 new redirects, most of which is completely unnecessary. I do not know what to do, so I am bringing it here before it gets out of hand.

To Michael Jordan, he created the following redirects:

This goes on with other articles, too. Nymf (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Neelix sock? Just get this account to give up his Adminship cause we already established creating useless redirects is not a reason for a BLOCK. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who that person is. However, I must ask why there is a template for redirect from misspelling template if there is no intention to use it where appropriate? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warn user to stop and then Block (indefinitely) and WP:DENY if they don't. This is just the latest form of trolling. Nip it in the bud. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the Camelcase isn't necessary, but could you please explain what is wrong with Micheal Jeffrey Jordan? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately you've come along at a pretty bad time in relation to odd redirects - misspellings can be handled by the Mediawiki software, as when you search for a misspelt article, it will suggest the correct one. Adding redirects for every possible misspelling, while cheap, is a bit disruptive and ultimately pointless. I'd recommend stopping, and focus a bit more on content :) -- samtar ^whisper 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam, even extreme cases [392], is not blockable we learned. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, this is not an appropriate place to bring up how Neelix was dealt with. You know very well that who is and is not blockable depends on circumstance. You coming here citing precedence like we are a court of law will only confuse the new user. If you want to discuss this my talk page is open. Fun to computer please ignore the above comment, it is wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. HighInBC 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We all know new users don't start by rapid creating dozens of stupid redirects, so confusion by "new user" Fun to computer is unlikely. Inconsistently however is confusing to lots of editors :) Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot create any new redirects? I'm don't want to be blocked. - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, at the current time. As you might gather, there has recently been a bit of tiff (trying for British understatement here) about mass redirects for inane spellings, and tempers are short. The kwetching from certain editors above notwithstanding, you may even get blocked if you overdo it right now. Go improve content rather than duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already! :) -- Elmidae 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• He's a sock of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs), and a case has already been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Whenever an admin gets around to it, just block him and G5 his redirects. Not much else needs to be discussed here... -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are nuking the redirects by "It's More Fun to Compute", can we nuke the ones by the other recently blocked sock A window cleaner me (talk · contribs) at the same time? There's about 150 categories/redirects on that user as well. Nymf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The new user & the IP 108.71.133.201 are the same individual, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll let the SPI run its course regarding the socking claim (seems likely to me), but I've blocked User:It's More Fun to Compute indefinitely, because while this thread is going on, they are continuing to create stupid redirects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even forgetting the socking, creating redirects for every possible misspelling one can think of seems like overkill. I've created a few redirects where I can never remember the proper spelling. But this is excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• CU confirmed the named account at SPI; I mass-deleted all his contributions and rolled back a few dozen of his other edits before I ran out of time to do WP stuff today. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of all this, is there a policy page or guideline we can point people to to remind them that it's more than unnecessary to go around creating redirects just to (as Elmidae nicely put it) "duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE lists all the reasons to create redirects, so that might be what you're looking for... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see no harm in the preponderance of those redirects being created, and would not have deleted them. pbp 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Since mass-creation of redirects is the latest form of trolling and/or inappropriate behavior, and since in the past month we've so far had at least five or six editors called up on ANI for creating thousands or tens of thousands of redirects, I propose that mass-creation of redirects be added to WP:DE as disruptive editing and a blockable offense. That way, we have a policy onhand that we can point to and enforce rather than having to have this same ANI discussion over and over and over and over again (not to mention all the hundreds of man-hours it takes to undo the damage each time). I don't think this trend is going to go away, so we need to nip it in the bud and codify a policy/guideline about it. And by that I do not mean WP:RPURPOSE; I mean a specific stricture against mass-redirect creation. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Mass redirect creation may be unhelpful, but;

The most productive thing to do with a redirect, as long as it's name isn't actually harmful, is to ignore it, saving time during which you can foil some actual trolls.

What is the "damage", apart from people voluntarily sorting through redirects? If they were left, it would make no difference.

Please do not post false accusations in response to this, anybody. I did mass create redirects, which was unhelpful, but I am not a troll, vandal, spammer or any of the other slurs used towards me on October 31. Thank you. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the fifth bulk redirect case in the last month. I agree that this should be considered disruptive editing. Redirects for misspellings are just junk. That's what modern search engines are for. John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the "damage" this causes? The "disk space" argument is also a lie, as the entire of enwiki can be fitted onto a single memory stick, as I have heard myself from a WMF employee. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, you were one of the five users brought up at ANI for mass-redirects in the past six weeks. You had created 16,516 redirects. So your opinion on this matter is moot at best, self-serving and defensive or even troll-inciting at worst. Kindly have the decency to recuse yourself from this and other mass-redirect discussions. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree - add it to the list of disruptive behaviors and ban for it (or just have the user hand in his mop). Bad redirects make search harder. They spread misspellings into the wild of the internet because Wikipedia is seen as authoritative. It takes a lot of time to clean up and as we see with Neelix redirects, some are astonishingly misleading. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, How does a redirect from a misspelling, which leads to the article, make searching harder? I don't mean to be repetitive, I just don't understand what all this is about. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:55, 11 December 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.

Revision of Campbell Newman Entry

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 concerns the wikipedia page / biography of Campbell Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman

I have attempted to include relevant sourced and contextual information in this wikipedia page, which has been reverted three times without explanation. The last editor which reverted the entry I've attempted to make threatened me with an editing ban, but did not offer any explanation of why the information was not relevant.

Please review this entry, the revision history, and the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campbell_Newman&diff=694762692&oldid=694744810

The information I am attempting to include is as follows :

On October 24th, 2014, according to reports, Newman threatened to have police shoot live bullets at protesters at the upcoming G20 summit in Brisbane. At the time, Newman said "It’s like when you have guests at your house. If your kids start misbehaving then you discipline them, . . . Only this time it will be with a high-powered sniper bullet to the brain, instead of a rubber hose to the back of the legs." http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/premier-newman-orders-g20-cops-to-shoot-on-sight/

This information is sourced and relevant to the section on Newman's term of office, as he was not re-elected in the following election (probably due to a drop in popularity for acts similar to this).

I find it odd that an editor would deliberately censor this information which seems to me highly relevant when one looks at the other kinds of information in that section of the wikipedia entry on Newman.

Please respond or mediate or intervene in this dispute. I will not undo this censorship, but it seems to me that censorship of relevant information is exactly what wikipedia editors should not do.

-end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.253.202 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the point where all involved editors should move to the article's talk page and discuss their reasons for inclusion or reverting. I note that no attempt has been made to discuss the issue at all, not even by using informative edit summaries. State your case on the talk page and develop consensus. FWIW, to me this seems worth including; at the very least the reverting editors need to state some reason.-- Elmidae 12:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The source cited is The Betoota Advocate, a satirical newspaper. I've blocked this obvious troll. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:47, 11 December 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.

Ban overturned

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

---

I was banned from creating articles for a period of one year. My articles were stated to have poor grammar and the sort. I would like to have this ban overturned for a period of 2 weeks so I can place a number of articles into mainspace. I was told that I could appeal to BASC, the problem with this is that it says that this is inactive. I could wait out the year but I don't see the point in that I will simply retire afterwards. I want to finish what I started and move on. The quicker the better. Thanks. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

References

@CrazyAces489 create the articles in your sandbox and ping the banning admin to the said article whe you are done. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat Many are done, not all. A free period might work well for me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I put them in subpages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Erica_Mena CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG specifically said that you're allowed to go through AfC. Why don't you do that? Then, once you've shown that you can responsibly create articles, ask here for the ban to be lifted. If you've already done this, then maybe you could link to the accepted articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:01, 12 December 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 socks removing important content from the lede

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, whos socking around through numerous other static IP's on the same page,[393][394][395] is removing important summarized sourced content (thats stated in the body) from the lede. He has received a warning, but ignored it. He has used WP:BATTLEGROUND commentary through edit summaries as well. Kindly requesting for semi-protection of the page or any other action, please. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the edit histories, this is an IP hopper, and editing is indeed disruptive (at least those edits I looked at). In this situation, I believe the best way to proceed is to use WP:RFPP for the affected articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action Ymblanter. Will do that in the future. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:53, 12 December 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.

85.210.182.11 "spamming" user talk pages

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

---

This editor was blocked for (egregious) edit warring. They have refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the block (see also this tweak to their unblock request).

Shortly after being unblocked, they proceeded to complain on four user talk page about their block: MaxSem's KrakatoaKatie's Eteethan's and mine. I think some of these even fall afoul of WP:NPA, and in any case, I don't find it appropriate to go and annoy every user who somehow took part in the edit warring report against them (note that a few people are involved parly because they blanked the report against them twice).

LjL (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them for one week for harassment--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 12 December 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.

Bourkeparrot

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.

---

Bourkeparrot (talk · contribs) was warned regarding his edits to Andrew Wakefield. He removed the warnings and left this lovely note, if someone wants to take a look and deal with him. APK whisper in my ear 14:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear tendentious editing. GAB^Hello! 15:06, 12 December 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.

Copyright violations despite warnings

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.

---

WaterIsland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has during the past couple of months been uploading logos of Greek banks. They have been marking them as own work, CC-BY-SA even though that clearly cannot be the case. Some may be simple enough to be public domain but I have tagged most of them conservatively with fair-use tags. On their talk page (section: Copyright) I left two messages: first an explanation, then after more of the same behaviour a warning. Now after that they have uploaded bank logos again, still claiming own work (see their upload log and file page histories).. They are clearly either incompetent to understand the problem, haven't bothered to change their actions or have trouble understanding English. In any case, they can't be trusted not to upload copyvios. Incidentally, other editors have repeatedly warned them for sourcing problems, even going up to level 4 warnings. In my opinion a block is in order. BethNaught (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No user talk page edits (out of 833) so far as well. MER-C 21:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

And for that matter, no article talk page edits except for page moves. BethNaught (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with a block for the copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. BethNaught (talk) 22:29, 12 December 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.

86.165.204.68

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 user 86.165.204.68 is harnessing more than 10 users and many IP address talk pages even after the warning. Contribution can be seen here [396] Ayub407^talk 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Spencer^T♦C 17:22, 12 December 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.

81.109.239.66

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.

---

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

The article "The Open Championship" begins as follows:

<!--Please do not change the following sentence without discussing the proposed change on the talk page first!-->'''The Open Championship''', or simply '''The Open''' (often referred to as the '''British Open'''),

Despite the warning, this IP (and occasionally others) have persisted in adding the word "incorrectly" to make it read as follows: (often incorrectly referred to as the '''British Open''').

On November 24, I requested semi-protection for this article. Samsara semi-protected it for 2 weeks ([397]). The semi-protection template was removed this morning, and the same anon has already twice re-added the word. As the contribs links shows, this IP has done almost nothing else. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - page reprotected. Next time please take such an issue to WP:RFPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 13 December 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 civility issues on the part of WP:SPI-related 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.

---

I want to draw attention to the discussion about this template for deletion. To me, whether the template is kept or deleted is far from a big deal, but I'm very astonished by the reactions by some "keepers" (apparently, administrators involved with WP:SPI).

Please see in particular this and this diffs.

Nominations for deletion are a Wikipedia process, and I find it very inappropriate, especially on the part of an administrator, that nominating a template for deletion out of a legitimate (if relatively trivial) concern would be seen as "messing with" templates, and surely telling a nominator to "mind your own business" falls quite short of WP:CIVIL.

Do people who are into administrative activities like WP:SPI get a free pass on Wikipedia, or what?!

LjL (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering how frequently that template is used at WP:SPI, the nominator really should have brought it up at WT:SPI first. There's also no good reason to delete, according to WP:TFD#REASONS. The comments by others are bordering on incivil, but ultimately little different than what would be seen at an AfD where the nominator clearly didn't read WP:BEFORE. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not just imagining there may be civility issues here at least. Given the somewhat high-profile nature of the editors who made these comments, I cannot but wonder why they couldn't have simply pointed out the things you just did rather than attacking the nominator in such a way. I find it worrying when it transpires that someone may think they can just "boss around" others. LjL (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't really follow. You're offended by comments like "mind your business"? I mean, I can understand not liking hearing it, but I'd hardly start an ANI case on it... Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My being offended has nothing to do with anything. WP:CIVIL, however, does, and I brought it here because 1) it's not just any editor saying this on a random talk page, but a somewhat higher-profile individual, and 2) when I complained about it directly on the talk page, I was met with a reiteration of the "mind your own business" line by an editor in a similar position. There would have been no need to escalate otherwise, but I do believe there is a need to hold editors in special positions under community scrutiny, and here was as appropriate a place as I could think of. LjL (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If "mind your business" is falling short of being civil then what is "Mind your attitude"? If it were uncivil then this would be your boomerang. My response followed yours so I could safely surmise that you wouldn't have found that to be uncivil. I'm sure that you don't mean to come across as a hypocrite, right? The nom has been a part of or mentioned in 23 sock cases; you have filed one. The template is a part of the checkuser/SPI team toolset and unless you are part of that team then nomming it for deletion or !voting to remove comes across as something that Randy would do.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mind your attitude" simply means what it says on the tin: check that your attitude is appropriate. "Mind your own business", on the other hand, tells a Wikipedian that some part of the project is somehow off-limit to them. I'm curious, is your idea about deletion nominations that, for instance, I can only nominate a given article for deletion if I've worked on that article before? LjL (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But what do you want to get out of this? An official "be nice" sanction? I don't see this going anywhere other than a few hours/days of bickering, followed by someone closing the discussion with something to the capacity of "This isn't going anywhere. Let's all try to be nice to one another." I mean, if that's what you're driving for, great, but you could have done about that much by yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, that's for sure! An administrator pointing out that those comments were not really too civil (since we do have a policy about being that), and it would have been easy to express concerns about the nomination while being civil, would be a desirable outcome in my book. You may call it "not going anywhere", but I don't think it's the same thing as me telling them the same in private and being told again to mind my own business in turn. LjL (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Of course my initial reaction was blunt, bordering on rude. There's no need for me to try to hide or minimize that fact. I was simply responding in kind -- I do find it quite rude to nominate a template for deletion when said template is used actively as part of a coordinated effort by volunteers to try to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, when the nominator has made no efforts whatsoever to discuss or enquire about said template (that I can see)... I mean, everybody would've been more than happy to provide any answers or explanations required, and we would've even been thankful that other people care about SPI at all!! If you can't stand to see a bit of blunt straight-talk, well my friend, you're in for one hell of a ride -- you'll find far worse than my snark around these parts. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's true, there's much worse, but it doesn't always come from the pulpit. From my point of view, the reason provided for nominating the template is, how can I put it... "sane". It might not match chapter 3 number 5 of the criteria for deletion guidelines, but in and of itself, I don't find it surprising that someone would say in perfectly good faith "this word doesn't exist, we should replace it with one that does" - and the fact of doing that by proposing deletion is not necessarily a big deal, because just like people can ask to "merge" in WP:AFDs, people can just opine that the wording should be changed in the WP:TFD. In any case, it's not so much about the specific event, but about the message it may send to other onlookers that "your nominations are not welcome in our circle". LjL (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But doesn't starting an AN/I thread, especially while the discussion is still active, have a chilling effect upon speech?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean speech at the WP:TFD? I'm pretty sure everyone involved (and those who aren't) can continue taking part in it without any fear at least as long as they're civil as they're always expected to be. LjL (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on this because I too have been worried for sometime that SPI is run in such a way that there is no community oversight, and whenever anything is suggested by someone outside the SPI crew it's generally dismissed out of hand (or worse) – though to me this is much less about "civility" than about broader concerns. Now, on the matter at hand, I've always thought "Posslikely" was more silly than clever, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. But, as I said, I'm commenting here because I feel the issue is broader than just this instance. SPI generally feels like a "black box" which issues results outside of any community purview. I find it worse than ArbCom in that way. I have a feeling that one of these days this situation is going to come back and bite us because of how it's been handled (apparently, for a while...). My $0.02 (for whatever their worth). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of the Wiki-Page for To Sir With Love (film)

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

---

This is to inform Wikipedia Administration that one of its pages has been severely vandalized.

The page in question is To_Sir,_with_Love

This particular page is supposed to be about the 1967 motion picture starring Sidney Poitier, Judy Geeson and Lulu. Instead, it currently show some kind of apparent political message, along with overtly pornographic images.

In searching through the past edit history, I have found that the most recent legitimate revision occurred on July 13, 2015.

I did not attempt to restore the page myself for fear that the perpetrator might vandalize and/or hijack my own personal Wikipedia account.

I will leave it up to Wikipedia's admins to correct the page, and perhaps also give it some measure of protection

Thank you -- Fgf2007 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This is presumably the template vandalism discussed in the sections above. I've done a null edit on the To Sir With Love article to flush the cache, so (at least for signed-in users) it should be fixed. Anon visitors may still see the vandalism for a bit. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanx-A-Lot -- Your fix worked Fgf2007 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 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.

More socking from Supdiop

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 just blocked yet another sock of Supdiop: 183.83.231.107. Apparently, he has been socking ever since he was blocked (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supdiop and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supdiop and is always asking for last chances (see the lower sections of his talk page, since I can't list them all here). As recently as 6 December, he promised in a private conversation with User:Anna Frodesiak not to sock again. I will let the community decide what to do about this. Biblioworm 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Supdiop has exhausted the patience of the community a long time ago with his childish and/or trolling behaviour , multiple fake RfAs, and spamming the email of no end of admins. The only solution here is to ignore all future communications and get a CU to do a range block. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. We've been getting trolled all along and DENY needs to be applied wholesale from now on.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban and deny recognition. He is unwilling to stop wasting the community's time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support site ban with no appeal. It's clear to everyone who has been observing his and his multitude of socks' behavior that Supdiop has been on a trolling mission, possibly from the time he started editing on Wikipedia. Site ban, CU, rangeblock what can be blocked, and quickly block and WP:DENY any and all further trollery. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC); edited (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"with no appeal" WP:NOTPENAL, appealing should still be allowed because who knows that Supdiop could change. Slim-to-none chance of happening, I know, but a continued pattern of abuse is not a reason to disallow appealing as that would be more punitive than prevenative. I still support this site ban, and I'm not saying your vote is wrong, just that you're taking it a little too far. --TL22 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Actually, WP:NOTPENAL is an essay, not policy. Otherwise, I agree with you. Standard offer exists for a reason. Admittedly, WP:SO is also an essay. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 04:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC) (Added commentary at 04:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC))

• Support site ban Enough. Katie^talk 00:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Supdiop is apparently unable to refrain from socking even when there's a slim chance of returning to his original account. clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, I've been following this for a while and it's clear that this is needed. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Apparently Supdiop has only gone worser ever since this. No other solutions, from warnings to blocks, were effective. Of course, this solution will likely not become effective either, but this is the last straw. --TL22 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Everything I've seen about this situation has been so disruptive that I see no other remedy. Mkdw^talk 01:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support of site ban forever and ever with no appeal, and perform periodic more-lenient-than-usual CheckUsers on Indian IPs. Vandal, social engineer. The IPs geolocate to India. I am inclined to believe that Supdiop may be a possible sock of CosmicEmperor. Esquivalience ^t 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC) - Edited: Writing style is different; sentence length + letters per word doesn't match.

CosmicEmperor is in Kolkatta; Sudiopop is in Hyderabad. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "with no appeal" See my reply at Softlavender's vote above. Also, no, Supdiop is not a sock of CE. Plus, CheckUser is not for fishing, so performing periodic CheckUsers would be inappropiate. --TL22 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarified, and I am approaching 100% certain that Supdiop is just going to continue submitting time-wasting appeals. Esquivalience ^t 03:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

However, nowhere on the banning policy states that a user's ability to appeal their ban may be revoked, therefore that cannot be done. --TL22 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Unless the banning policy says you can't revoke a banned user's ability to appeal, then the community is most certainly empowered to impose that sanction. I, personally, wouldn't recommend it, as it totally removes the possibility of the growth and reform of the editor, and would probably only encourage unchecked socking, but there's no reason it can't be imposed. BMK (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree; I won't pile on below, but it is clear to me that revoking his right to appeal after sufficient time is not necessary at this stage. If he can truly step away for a year or two (six months no longer feels like enough, I think), I don't see why we can't give him a second chance. — Earwig ^talk 04:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Net negative to the project. BMK (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Deny, and range block (they are all frm the same area). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, but looking at his cross-wiki activity a global lock may be a reasonable measure in the future. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, as per BMK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support community ban with standard offer Even though Supdiop flips back and forth between being disruptive and apologetic, it's very clear by now that he isn't here to edit constructively. The standard offer is there for editors like Supdiop in case they get better; he might not, admittedly. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 03:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Although I have attempted to defend him in the past on IRC, it is clear that encyclopedia-building is not Supdiop's main purpose of staying on WP.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will edit normally if you unblock me. Please don't ban me. Please give me a chance. I will really use that opportunity to help wikipedia. My goal was not to disrupt wikipedia by creating two Fake RFAs, I did that for other reasons I told on my talk page. Please see my good work I've done in my past, I made 8000 edits, only 20 to 30 edits to my RFA pages. All other edits were good and beneficial to Wikipedia. I am socking to ask to help wikipedia. I will not do that if you unblock me. - 183.83.227.237 (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, so that's why you put an insulting "barnstar" named after a sexual predator on the talk pages of editors who had voted for your banning, because you wanted to show that you weren't disruptive, and could be an asset to Wikipedia if only you were unblocked!! Interesting logic, that. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar, as it helped to confirm that my !vote to ban you was the correct one. You are either a troll or completely pathetic. In the spirit of WP:DENY, this is the last time I will acknowledge your person or your actions BMK (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Wrong sockmaster. BMK (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Block. Esquivalience t 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Yet another sock. See User talk:183.83.229.180 BMK (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban This post by another IP sock of Supdiop shows that they just dont WP:LISTEN, MarnetteD|Talk 04:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think that an ISP abuse report would be appropriate; e-mail of Beam Telecom dba ACT Fibernet is [email protected] if anyone has time. Esquivalience ^t 04:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban This situation is getting ridiculous. BethNaught (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban – unfortunately, this is the only viable solution at this point. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:48, 13 December 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.

Kriyananda 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.

---

Another editor and myself have been trying to reach consensus for wording of two sentences but are unable to. Plus this new editor is accusing me of stalking - not sure why. [[398]] We need someone to read the Dismissal section regarding two sentences and help us resolve the issue. He wants to use the word claim and I am ok with disclose, wrote, reveal. If a company fired someone and shared why later, the word claim is not a valid verb in my view - it implies that they don't know the reason they fired which is ludricrous. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red Rose 13, wrong forum. Please take this issue to WP:DRN. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: You must inform an editor if you bring a case to this ANI noticeboard. This time I have done it for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to the area that requests a third opinion. thanks for your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 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.

German admin deletes everything that doesnt correspond to his political opinion, his german sites are contrary to english ones and express extreme right arguments

I have published 3 books about Room 40. I have put them into the bibliography of the englisch and german wiki years ago. Now a german admin User:Otberg deleted these and any other of my contributions systematically (see RMS Lusitania) from all german sites. His justification: everything is unscientific.

I send him links, where my books were cited. I told him, that they were for years on the wiki and are still in the english one.

He argued, that the german wiki is more scientific than the english wiki ....

Now he started to delete systematically everything I have ever contributed from to the english wiki. Damnatio memoriae - for me this is vandalism.

As I can see in the history of Otberg, he constantly has problems with other peoples opinion, specially if this relates to german history. I can only assume, that he disliked from a personal political standpoint (extrem-rightism) my latest thesis to the Lusitania case. His german Lusitania site points to arguments, which are contrary to the ones in the english page, i.e. that the sinking of Lusitania was justified because she was no passenger ship, but an axiliary cruiser. This was and still is the argument of the german extreme right.

Has the german Lusitania wiki page fallen in the hands of extreme rightists censors and am I the helpless(?) victim of thought control?

best regards, AchimKoerver

@AchimKoerver: On English Wikipedia, you are required to post a notification to a user's talk page when you raise an issue about them at this noticeboard. I have done that for you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, on the Room 40 article, the two 'references' removed were not actually referencing anything - none of the prose in the article were sourced to them. They may have value in as part of a further reading section. Any Milhist types still lurking around who want to take a look at Otbergs recent edits? My eyebrows tend to raise when someone removes a reference to a published work with 'original research'. Granted the editor above is the author, but if its a published by a reputable (non vanity) publisher, then it hardly qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I thought the same, but I can't find any info on the publisher. They appear to be quite obscure. As for accusations that the editor is trying to scrub articles to align with their extreme views, I personally don't see any evidence of this, just the usual editorial quibbling, but I didn't look very hard. AchimKoerver, can you link to any specific edits that expose this behaviour? I'll also post a note at WP:MILHIST, which is fairly active. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

These are definitely R/S. They are cited by several books from even a brief google books search. I'm a MILHIST member, and it looks to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have reverted with an ed summ. Suggest engaging this editor on T/P as next step if he reverts Irondome (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:5.170.212.254

WP:BRI

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:5.170.212.254 needs to be blocked. They do not have a single good edit, then, as I warned them, they modified my words [399]. I even blocked them myself, but immediately realized that was a bad call and unblocked. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Done. I've given them the 31 hour block. I'm tempted to make it a wee bit longer given that they tried to vandalize your comments on their userpage, but we can start with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Ymblanter: I would advise you not to overstep your boundaries and not abuse your power: you were very arrogant on your first warning to me and then you blocked me yourself: these actions will be reported unless you apologize and promise to be a bit more respectful in the future. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.208.202 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Block evasion detected.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Good job, you two geniouses, I will never be able to edit anything in wikipedia ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.45.79 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 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.

More vandalisms at St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong)

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:Rinirisma has vandalised articles in WP:Hong Kong again. Unfortunately, I have no rollback rights.

Affected Article: St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong)

With the frequent vandalisms on St. Joseph's College (Hong Kong) , I recommend semi-protecting the page.

There is a high chance that User Talk:Rinirisma is a sockmaster of IP User 221.126.237.2.

Thank you.

Alvin 13:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Alvin the Almighty

I've blocked the account and reverted the vandalism, both on this article and Diocesan Boys' School. The IP is currently blocked. I'll not semi-protect an article in such a state, though another admin might. I have watchlisted it. See Help:Reverting for instructions on how to cope without rollback. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

vandalism I can't seem to fix

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.

---

Would someone take a look at Atlanta_United_FC right now? I can't find the right version to revert to and it's terrible. Katie^talk 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning, it's a big shock pic! - Something weird is going on there... even if I try to open pretty old revisions, the shock pic is still there. Maybe it's embedded in something that's transcluded from the article? LjL (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, should have warned people about that but I was in a hurry. I don't get it but we better figure it out. Katie^talk 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

From your description I assume it is the same pic that I saw at Felix Magath. --Jaellee (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Katie. It was in the templates, and should be fixed now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: which template? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It was probably {{portalbar}}, which is used both in this article and in the one mentioned below. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That and {{WSJtopic}} - both are redirects. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, don't close this yet. I think I saw a shock pic at The Bronx High School of Science while I was editing it thirty minutes ago. That article doesn't use either of these templates, though. Well, the weird image is gone now but still... the image contained nothing that anyone under 18 should see. epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a political screed on Pioneer 11 earlier as well - this appears to have been related to the template vandalism issue as far as I can tell. These MAY take a little while to job-queue their way out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note for posterity here. For this kind of template vandalism, "related changes" (linked under the sidebar) is immensely useful. — Earwig ^talk 03:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

User Mangokeylime reported that there was a shock image on State Terrorism at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Likely the same one. How do we fix it? Crboyer (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note for the record: A user reached out because we were still getting complaints about this via OTRS since the cache was still visible for a lot of logged out users. We are running a cache clearing script (created for a similar attack a while back) as I type to try and fix that issue. Jalexander--WMF 07:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also an image at Tenerife-North_Airport and I don't know what to do with this and am a complete noob. Tricorder42 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Purged, that was a cache as well (from one of the earlier attacks today). There are a bunch of different tools that will help purge (the most common are the utc clock in the upper right hand corner of the screen which you can click on to purge or a little tab with a * that you can click on) but in general anyone can purge manually by adding ?action=purge to the end of the url (or if there is already a query string &action=purge). Jalexander--WMF 07:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really curious what this shock image, I looked at the templates and couldn't find recent vandalism. Has it been oversighted?—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: It's oversighted, and I think it was an image of someone's privates. Did anyone else see the same thing? epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Damn, I never get here in time to see the shock images. EEng (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)f

@EEng: A fan of the macabre, I see... epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, dangit, because I never get to see it. It's really unfair. I feel there should be some kind of user right for this -- you know, for users who need to see... special, secret, naughty things. Like Checkuser! EEng (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I also want to see it :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But Edgars2007, do you really want to see a wolly separated from the main body? Just saying, Epicgenius said "macabre" not 'explicit'; and of course EEng, you have too much material already without adding anything else. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're just jealous of my gorgeous museums. EEng (talk) 08:17, 14 December 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.