Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925

Question about when I searched on Google.

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.

---

Today on Google, i typed in a search for Julian Knight. The first search was for the article, but at the end, it had the term - "melbourne" attached to it. This image. Its a bug but why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.19.88 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not affiliated with Google, so we really can't tell you about anything that happens on their end. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was just able to repeat this. Even if it's not necessarily on our end, it's certainly odd. If it's actually an error there's usually a feedback button somewhere we can hit to report it. Anyway, I suspect it has something to do with Wikidata entries for the articles on the two subjects: Julian Knight and Hoddle Street massacre. What is interesting is that Julian Knight (politician) has no location next to it in the Google results. I'd be interested if this is repeatable with any other topics. I can't think of any test searches at the moment, though. Anyway this isn't an ANI issue, but it's something that probably should be escalated somewhere. Even if it's not a bug, it would be helpful to know why Google is displaying that since it would be helpful in editing biography articles and Wikidata entries in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming - resumed

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 previous March 18, 2016, report by EvergreenFir at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming. Result was this range block by KrakatoaKatie. Range block has expired and editor has resumed as

• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:A436:4913:F485:8B73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:D40D:855F:88D3:4EF1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:2852:2934:DF4C:711F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

basically same edits as before. Request that the range block be reinstated and extended. It appears that his editor is the only one using this /64 IPv6 range so there will be no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's the same range. An admin should be around to re-apply the block soon. You can also report this to AIV and include the range so that it can be handled by someone there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did just that. A lot of admins are uncomfortable doing range blocks even with IPv6s where most of the /64 ranges are the same person. ANI may flush out admins who are willing to range block but don't see transient AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Administrators: The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that a link to the previous block log was posted with the range already calculated. Haha, sorry. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• A longer history of the abuse can be found here. This range doesn't have much (any?) block collateral damage from what I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• An IPv6 /64 subnet is almost never shared but it's always good to check. :) In this instance, it's obvious that there is only the one user. As they have continued where they left off and as this has been going on for so long, I have blocked the /64 range for three months for disruptive editing.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User "contributions" from user:2001:569:79B7:F000:213:2FF:FEB2:CF4C

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 in question basically went on a racist temper-tantrum before being blocked. All of his edits have been removed except one Could one of you wipe the slate clean? HalfShadow 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. But in the future it is best to email oversight or contact an admin privately rather than calling attention to the problem on a high visibility page such as this. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant you're from Canada and you called that racist? You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet !!! _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

When a template is repeatedly removed

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Predict_1990&diff=723349111&oldid=723340669

• Two questions: is the source, a blog, reliable?

Bredehoft, John E. (2010-02-22). "Jim Morrison's Grave (the Steve Taylor song) and Kurt Cobain". Empoprise-MU. Retrieved 2016-05-31. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Should the tag be removed or restored with impunity? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The URL in the reference citation (here) is returning a blogspot page that says that nothing exists here. So I'd say that it's definitely unreliable from my perspective. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Try this: http://empoprise-mu.blogspot.com/2010/02/jim-morrisons-grave-steve-taylor-song.html --evrik ^(talk)

"Is the empoprise-mu.blogspot.com blog a reliable source for describing "Jim Morrison's Grave" as "a reflection on the cult of personality""? Don't think so, but there's bound to be a better source floating around such as an Allmusic review. "Should the tag be removed or restored with impunity?" No, not only is edit-warring over an "unreliable source" tag not exempt from WP:3RR, it's a silly thing to get in a lather about. Go and discuss it on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Take it to the talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jumping on the "agree" bus. Work it out between you two and shake hands on an appropriate action plan. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Violetnese redux

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.

---

• (We might wait 15 minutes or so before archiving closed discussions). Someone who knows what they're doing should probably nominated File:Violetnese New.jpg for deletion as having no encyclopedic value. I'm about to nom her other picture on Commons, but the procedure here is too complicated for me. BMK (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• IAR deleted under WP:G6. Since Violetnese shows that she's posted the same photo to what appears to be every site on the internet, it's not like we're deleting her only copy or depriving someone who has a potential use for it of being able to find it. ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Product username and promotional userpage

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

---

Hi, unfortunately I'm showing up here as my effort to solve this on user:Beck's talk page got no reply, while the user contiued editing. As far as I understand our policies there are the following issues:

• The username "Beck's" is the product and company name of Beck's Brewery and of the beer brand "Beck's". I think this doesn't comply with WP:Username#Promotional names. (While they have edited the Beck's Brewery's article several times in 2008, but meanwhile refrained from it.)
• The huge (font-size:290px) and CI-colored and styled (caps, bold) "BECK's" logo on their userpage is an obvious reference to & promotion for the product and company (see c:Category:Beck’s and de:File:BECKS LOGO.svg). I think this doesn't comply with WP:!#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion nor WP:User pages. So does the user's signature ("BECK's"), also using the brand's colour and bold caps.

In my understanding it would be appropriate to ask the user to change their username and signature and to change or delete their userpage. What do you think? --Trofobi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) The username policy forbids names which "unambiguously" represent product or company names. "Beck's" is not unambiguous. Google search

(2) The green "Beck's" letter on the user's page looks nothing at all like the Beck's logo you reference. The only thing they seem to have in color is the color green and the letters BECKS and an apostrophe.

(3) Even the Beck's logo was very similar to the lettering on user Beck's page, such a logo would not be copyrightable, as it doesn't reach the threshhold of originality

(4) If the user was editing Beck's Brewery, or even beer articles in general, you might have the germ of a complaint, but I don't see a single edit in that area in the editor's contributions

(5) If I were User:Beck's, and you came to my talk page with such a ridiculous complaint, I'd be sorely tempted to ignore you as well, and to delete your comment

(6) In short, this is a problem of your own making, spun by your own imagination, and there is really nothing for admins to do in regard to it, in my opinion. I would suggest you drop it, go about editing the encyclopedia, and stop creating problems where none exist. BMK (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of problems where none exist, just wait until someone innocently asks, "Gee, are you sure Beck's can't sue Wikipedia about this?", and gets a swift block from The NLT Bulwark of Anti-Intimidators. EEng 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the substance of the complaint is that this account supposedly edited the beer company article 8 years ago? That's it? Astounding. No administrator action required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, besides, Becks is good beer! (j/k) The user doesn't appear to be editing the Becks article , nor any other beer article, so they may be calling themselves "Becks" in honor of their favorite beer. Further, they're not especially new. I agree that no admin action is needed here. KoshVorlon 11:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Another range block requested for an LTA vandal

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

---

I've got another requested range block for a prolific LTA vandal. Yes, I'm tired of dealing with this, too. Previous range block discussions occurred here and here. There are more details at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, including a list of active range blocks and more evidence.

The requested range is 2602:30A:2C95:8C0::/64. You can see that all the edits from this range follow the established patterns of the vandal: the composer is usually changed to James Horner, Liam Neeson is usually added to the cast list, and the same articles – usually animated children's films – are repeatedly targeted. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are no constructive edits from this range to date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't understand IPv6 as well as I'd like, can I AGF that you know what you're talking about and I'm not about to block an entire continent?--v/r - TP 06:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

TParis - Let me check the range. One sec... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Checks out. The range of these IPv6 addresses is 2602:30a:2c95:8c0::/64 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah, blocked.--v/r - TP 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Are they targeting anything specifically or are these target of opportunity vandals? HalfShadow 06:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the LTA report (which it isn't oddly enough) it seems they specifically target celebrities. More specifically Actors/Actresses and Films. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap; well that's not as helpful as I'd hoped. I was hoping it'd be something more narrow than that. 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Yeah, it should be safe. You can see the range contribs here if you've got the range contribs gadget enabled in your prefs (under Gadgets→Advanced→Allow /16...). The activity on this /64 block consists entirely of 15 IP addresses who have done nothing but vandalize cartoons. According to the WHOIS data, this is a small chunk of a regional AT&T Wireless provider. But if you don't feel comfortable, that's alright; I'm sure someone will be around shortly. Yes, the LTA report is in my user space, but if people want to complain about that, I'll move it to WP:LTA. The targets are animated children's films and BLPs, in which hoax credits are added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm perfectly willing to AGF here. I imagine if I've goof'd up that I'd just get a slap on the wrist and won't do it again.--v/r - TP 06:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrators bypassing SPI to pursue a vendetta

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

---

In these edits Elockid (talk · contribs) reverts two editors - 86.191.126.192 (talk · contribs) in Norwich [6] and 78.145.23.96 (talk · contribs) in London. The Norwich editor has been reverted five times. No administrator should be blocking geographically distant editors as socks of the same master without giving both of them an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion. As a London editor (along with ten million other people) I have been blocked on numerous occasions and never once been given the opportunity to make representations [7]. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no obligation to notify any account that they are the subject of a SPI for "an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion". SPI isn't AN/I, where parties must be notified. Doc talk 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The SPI page has a section for the "accused" and "third parties" to give evidence. Why should they be prevented from doing so? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to notify any accused party of a SPI. Period. Doc talk 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to prevent any person giving evidence in an SPI case, and if that happens a reasonable inference is that the administrator is pursuing a vendetta, which is the subject of this thread. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reasonable inference. You're a blocked editor, wasting our time. Thanks fer stoppin' by! Doc talk 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is why I removed the user's first report here earlier... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Smallbones in violation of ArbCom warning

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

---

On Jimmy Wales' Talk page, @Smallbones: has engaged in numerous defamatory falsehoods against an editor, which are delineated here. ArbCom, with an 8-0-1 ruling, has warned Smallbones not to engage in needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. Yet he's doing it once again. At what point is a stop put to him? - 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's establish some facts, such as "Who are you when you're not editing as an IP?" BMK (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• You also need to inform a user when you file an AN/I complaint. I have done so, but next time you log on and want to file an AN/I complaint try to remember to notify the user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You were banned in October 2006, and aside from a three month unblock in 2009 (and a 1 day unblock in 2007) remained blocked throughout (unjustly in my opinion, but the fact of the block isn't in question). Yes, technically "more than 10 years" is a falsehood, but "nine years five months in total" is near enough that it isn't worth fighting over. There are serious issues with Wikipedia which need addressing, but "some people on a talkpage which has always been frequented by melodramatic goofballs are acting like melodramatic goofballs" is not a cause worth fighting over. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure math errors (which I make too) necessarily qualify as "needlessly defammatory falsehoods" as per that ruling. Having said that, the comments do seem to perhaps be excessive. The exact phrasing of the warning to Smallbones says further misconduct may (emphasis added) result in sanctions. I guess the question here is whether the comments are sufficient to invoke sanctions of a kind Smallbones was warned he might face in the future. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that, given the nature of the page in question, the answer might be "No," although, under the circumstances, I suppose it might be possible that he be given some form of "final warning" and told that any further similar comments in the future will result in sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant link: Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation —Goldenshimmer|ze/zer|😹|T|✝️|C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Meat puppetry at Faanya Rose / Talk:Faanya Rose

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 a recently created article, Faanya Rose, there have been incidents of different users (and one IP, FWIW...) who have contested the article deletion. The following accounts and their roles within the editing of the article are:

• Lynda Roy (talk · contribs) - Original article creator
• Alive2Dive (talk · contribs) - Other account whose only edit (at the moment...) is contesting the article deletion.
• 173.78.238.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - An IP who somehow got involved
• 71.243.250.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - An IP who somehow got involved

Thanks. Vensco (T | C) 02:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now I'm seeing a {{sockpuppet|Winterysteppe|confirmed}} template on User:Lynda Roy's talk-page, would WP:SPI be preferable for this...? Vensco (T | C) 03:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

They placed it themselves. This is bizarre. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Vensco (T | C) 03:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that they clicked on User:Etimena's signature link and that led them to the sockpuppetry template. They didn't understand the template, and copied it to their page. That's all it was.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

--This is as said above new editor confusion about sock puppetry from Etimena's post on my talk page for speedy deletion. Just read policy. Apologies all. Lynda Roy (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

that is, I didn't understand why a user marked as a sock puppet was allowed to mark my article for speedy delete Lynda Roy (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lynda Roy: Hi! It appears that User:Etimena wasn't blocked as a sock puppet when they nominated your page for speedy deletion. They nominated your page for deletion at 12.14UTC on 20 May 2016, and weren't blocked as a sockpuppet until 23.59UTC the same day. I hope this helps! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be much easier if sockpuppets owned up as esily as that! _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: Thanks Goldenshimmer. Appreciate the coaching. Hard to be new, and absorb everything. Lynda Roy (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Lynda Roy: it appears that several brand new accounts have been created just recently for the sole purpose of arguing against deletion of the article that you created, which nobody else has edited at all. We consider this highly suspicious behaviour. It is against our multiple accounts policy to operate more than one account to imitate false support on the site, including editing while logged out for this purpose so as to appear anonymous. Editors who violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Please disclose any other accounts that you have used, and only use this account from now on. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector:I do apologize for the support of friends and colleagues who are anxious for the Faanya Rose article to remain. Their loyalty to this project, of posting a well-researched piece about the first woman to be president of the Explorers Club is getting me into trouble with a new community I wish to remain in, in good standing. Alive2Dive is an explorer. Not sure about those IP's, but probably someone who helped in my research. laceyflint is an archivist who advised on sources for me. If there are others, I cannot see them. None of these are sock puppets. If anything they are caught up in my passion for wanting to be a historian on Wikipedia. If this causes me to be banned or blocked I understand. Love Wikipedia! Want it to be available and reliable for all. Lynda Roy (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing here, I don't think this matter is of any huge concern, but since Lynda Roy has supposedly read and understood WP:SOCK + WP:MEAT, I'm hoping that this behavior won't happen in the future. As a matter of fact, I do end up seeing these situations quite often with new articles, and all of the users involved end up blocked (usually a check-user block) for abusing multiple accounts. Lynda Roy, with that said though, you do not have to be in control of all the accounts involved in order for them to be considered socks. If you have friends and/or colleagues who are all contesting the article's deletion on your behalf, this is considered meat puppetry, and is also in violation of Wikipedia policy. Though, you seem to be civil and honest with the community, which is one of the best ways to handle a situation like this, and it also seems as if this was out of good faith. Whether the other involved accounts/IP's do have correlation with you or not, just know that any sort of behavior regarding new accounts/IP's editing and/or contesting a new article's deletion is seen as extremely suspicious on Wikipedia, as said by Ivanvector as it is seen as dishonest, deceiving and downright malicious, which is considered as bad-faith editing/socking. (Although this specific case seems to be out of good faith and a general misunderstanding of the policies). Regards, Vensco (T | C) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Lynda Roy, glad to be of help. :) I'm not an administrator, so I'm not in a position to make any decisions, but in my opinion since you seem to want to contribute positively to Wikipedia, there isn't any reason to block you at this time. To avoid further drama, I suggest that you familiarise yourself thoroughly with the contents of the following policies:

• Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry (this is the one you fell afoul of)
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

I hope this helps out, and I wish you the best of luck in a pleasurable and productive experience at Wikipedia! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Indentation fixed Goldenshimmer (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

Also all, including the article creator, feel free to comment here: [8]. Vensco (T | C) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I posted an ANI notice template at User:TJH2018's talkpage, as they were one of the initial article deletion nominees. (That was not indef-sock blocked). Vensco (T | C) 17:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I seem to be encountering a lot of articles like this lately. It seems as though we may need to clarify the WP:COI notice. Everything seems to be taken care of. I'm quite late to the party...TJH2018talk 21:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you all for these comments and advices. Good to know that so many good people are watchful and keeping Wikipedia the valued asset it is. I have lots to learn, and welcome the opportunity to do so. Cordially, Lynda Roy (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR

• Pizzaandchips11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. After the first edit was made, I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored. After the second edit he was informed that one more edit would result in a report for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are links to the edits: [9] [10] [11] [12]

Hey Weweremarshall, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since you are a relatively new user, there's a few things I want to point out to you. When you initiate a discussion with a user on the administrators' noticeboard, we ask that you leave a talk page message to let the user know about the conversation. That way they can have the opportunity to respond. Also, we have a dedicated page to report edit warring. Finally, it's a minor point, but we consider the two edits on May 29th to be one "revert" under the 3 revert rule. So the user has come close but hasn't crossed it yet. That being said, I do agree that there is some edit warring going on here and the user should engage in discussion with editors before making another revert. @Pizzaandchips11: Could you do that? Otherwise, I would have to agree with Weweremarshall that a block would be appropriate. Mike V • Talk 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN3 or WP:AIV; not here in either case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Mike V, I am a little new here, especially to reporting people. I did however, leave a notice on the users talk page. I will make a note of the other things you pointed out, thank you very much for the assistance! The user in question has a tendency to completely ignore other users as most of his edits include no summary and most of the notices left on his talk page go unanswered. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well, _Muffled ^Pocketed. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyker120- Compromised account?

On my talk page, Spyker120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed that "his little brother" made some bad edits to various spelling bee pages. Feinoha ^Talk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the same acount (whichever editor!) made similar edits last June. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Probably shouldn't be considered "compromised" in the "block the account because we can't know who's using it" sense because the claim just isn't credible for one. And even if true there's no indication that it's compromised versus just left logged in on a family-use computer. If the account's making inappropriate edits and the editor refuses to address the issue, then we probably have recourse on that basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER... if the behavior continues, block is warranted. User is responsible for actions taken on account, even if by a sibling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning

When I clear the sandbox, a bot just insert a secound one, Any comments on that? KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd... I've removed the second one and let the bot operator know about this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inserts a second what now? I'm confused. Do you have a diff? I'm on mobile at the moment, but I'll be happy to take a look if I can... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OP was talking about this edit from the bot. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in a xbox one editing here via Microsoft Edge where I cant copy paste diffs. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Made it over the pass! Still gonna be on mobile for awhile (excuse my delayed slow poke replies). Sounds awful, CitiesGamer66. Lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Both edits were within the same minute. Could it have been an edit conflict where the bot saw the header needed replaced and added it, and CG66 did it roughly the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it did not cause edit conflict for me. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... I saw something similar happen back in March, except it was on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and happened after cyberbot I had reinserted the sandbox header template. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect it was simply a coincidence. One of the functions of Lowercase sigmabot is to replace the sandbox header when it is removed and both KGirlTrucker87 and Lowercase sigmabot did that at almost the same moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, people would contact the bot operator or not even complain at all when a non-harmful infrequent error on a non-critical page that regularly receives much worse edits was made, instead of immediately reporting to ANI. Times seem to have changed.

The sandbot does not keep logs, as its task is trivial and only limited to a set of relatively unimportant pages. So my best guess would be that for some unknown reason the bot failed to retrieve the list of templates on the sandbox from the API for some reason or another. In situations such as these, it is designed to add the sandbox header anyway, as it has.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pizzaandchips11, Violation of 3RR

• Pizzaandchips11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. After the first edit was made, I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored. After the second edit he was informed that one more edit would result in a report for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are links to the edits: [13] [14] [15] [16]

Hey Weweremarshall, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since you are a relatively new user, there's a few things I want to point out to you. When you initiate a discussion with a user on the administrators' noticeboard, we ask that you leave a talk page message to let the user know about the conversation. That way they can have the opportunity to respond. Also, we have a dedicated page to report edit warring. Finally, it's a minor point, but we consider the two edits on May 29th to be one "revert" under the 3 revert rule. So the user has come close but hasn't crossed it yet. That being said, I do agree that there is some edit warring going on here and the user should engage in discussion with editors before making another revert. @Pizzaandchips11: Could you do that? Otherwise, I would have to agree with Weweremarshall that a block would be appropriate. Mike V • Talk 18:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN3 or WP:AIV; not here in either case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Mike V, I am a little new here, especially to reporting people. I did however, leave a notice on the users talk page. I will make a note of the other things you pointed out, thank you very much for the assistance! The user in question has a tendency to completely ignore other users as most of his edits include no summary and most of the notices left on his talk page go unanswered. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well, _Muffled ^Pocketed. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Spyker120- Compromised account?

On my talk page, Spyker120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed that "his little brother" made some bad edits to various spelling bee pages. Feinoha ^Talk 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the same acount (whichever editor!) made similar edits last June. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Probably shouldn't be considered "compromised" in the "block the account because we can't know who's using it" sense because the claim just isn't credible for one. And even if true there's no indication that it's compromised versus just left logged in on a family-use computer. If the account's making inappropriate edits and the editor refuses to address the issue, then we probably have recourse on that basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER... if the behavior continues, block is warranted. User is responsible for actions taken on account, even if by a sibling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot is malfunctioning

When I clear the sandbox, a bot just insert a secound one, Any comments on that? KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd... I've removed the second one and let the bot operator know about this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inserts a second what now? I'm confused. Do you have a diff? I'm on mobile at the moment, but I'll be happy to take a look if I can... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OP was talking about this edit from the bot. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in a xbox one editing here via Microsoft Edge where I cant copy paste diffs. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Made it over the pass! Still gonna be on mobile for awhile (excuse my delayed slow poke replies). Sounds awful, CitiesGamer66. Lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Both edits were within the same minute. Could it have been an edit conflict where the bot saw the header needed replaced and added it, and CG66 did it roughly the same time? —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it did not cause edit conflict for me. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... I saw something similar happen back in March, except it was on Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and happened after cyberbot I had reinserted the sandbox header template. CabbagePotato (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect it was simply a coincidence. One of the functions of Lowercase sigmabot is to replace the sandbox header when it is removed and both KGirlTrucker87 and Lowercase sigmabot did that at almost the same moment. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Years ago, people would contact the bot operator or not even complain at all when a non-harmful infrequent error on a non-critical page that regularly receives much worse edits was made, instead of immediately reporting to ANI. Times seem to have changed.

The sandbot does not keep logs, as its task is trivial and only limited to a set of relatively unimportant pages. So my best guess would be that for some unknown reason the bot failed to retrieve the list of templates on the sandbox from the API for some reason or another. In situations such as these, it is designed to add the sandbox header anyway, as it has.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hello, User:Bbb23 has recently blocked the accounts of User:Ranyaa.a, User:Sshalhout, User:Nrmeen404, User:Hadeel1005, and User:Alaimusleh as sockpuppets of User:Ranyaa.a. They are in fact all collaborating for a classroom assignment for a microbiology course. I've notified User:Bbb23 on his/her talkpage, but am reposting here in due to the time sensitivity of the issue. Can someone please restore their accounts so they can resume? Best Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this hardly is an appropriate venue for class assignments. Could you change the curriculum so that it's not presented through Wikipedia? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Another administrator may not unblock these accounts. Only I or another CheckUser is permitted to do so. Fjmustak is not a course instructor. Nor are they an experienced editor based on the account's stats (I don't know what they did before creating an account). There was no transparency to this "classroom assignment". There were no posts on the various user pages indicating that they were participating in an exercise, the scope of that exercise, or the duration of the exercise. I still don't know any of these things. Meanwhile, they have wasted valuable community resources needlessly and been disruptive, even if not intentionally, in doing so. I see no basis for unblocking the accounts at this point, although I welcome additional input on the issue. Classroom exercises, course instruction, etc., is a procedural quagmire that often presents problems at SPI when those procedures aren't followed, and that's even when the activity is more legitimate than it is here. Speaking of procedure, Fjmustak failed to notify me of this thread as required. I'm here because I did receive the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Bbb23. I did send you a message on your talk page. I was not sure what the best venue for reversing an indefinite block was (If moving this discussion back to your talk page is preferable, please let me know), and really hope this can be resolved before the end of the semester (next week). In any case, these students may have added large blocks of content that was reverted, but they are certainly not the same person, and whatever their transgression is, sockpuppetry is not one. I had asked them to rewrite their content so that it is not such blatant copyright violation. I apologize for taking up your time, and certainly hope they can resume their assignment as soon as possible. Best regards --Fjmustak (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The message you left on Bb's talk page was insufficient. You merely asked him the same question as what you are asking others here. You are required to tell him you are talking about him: this was not done. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, you left a message on my Talk page but mentioned nothing about ANI. How many students are there? What's your involvement? Are some of them using the same computer? What is the purpose of this assignment?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Again User:Bbb23, I apologize for not following procedure on notifying you about this ANI. I am the coordinator for the Wikipedia Education Program in Palestine (meta:User:Fjmustak. Currently, Birzeit University is the only university participating. This is the second semester in the program. The language of instruction in sciences is English, but the mother tongue of most students is Arabic. This semester there are four sections of a Microbiology course participating (about 70 students). Their assignment is to write a Wikipedia article about a microbiology topic (selected by their two professors). Most of the students edited in Arabic, while ten chose to write in English, including the five editing the article on minimum inhibitory concentration. Due to the main language being Arabic, the course page (which unfortunately does not support multi-project courses) is hosted on the Arabic Wikipedia (here), where the students are listed. The five students working on the MIC article that were blocked may have very well worked on the same computer, or at the very least in the same computer lab. I had encouraged them to each add their own contributions so that 1) they can learn how to edit Wikipedia, and 2) so that they could get credit for their work. For the upcoming semesters, I will make sure that students editing in the English Wikipedia clearly mark their user pages, and will warn them specifically about sockpuppetry. I hope I answered your questions. Regards, --Fjmustak (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fjmustak: Thanks, much more helpful information. I have one more question. Then I have a set of conditions for you and the students (through you) to agree to, and I should be able to unblock. Of the six accounts I blocked, I'm assuming that Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) and Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) are truly the same person. Is that correct? If so, which one should be unblocked because there's no sense in a student having two. The conditions. Before the students do any more substantive editing at en-wiki, they have to post messages on their user pages about what they're doing and how long it will last and mention you as the coordinator. You also have to post a message on your user page that you are the coordinator, what's going on, the duration of the assignment, and the accounts of the five students. If we can agree on all that, I will let them back loose on Wikipedia. Hopefully, you or someone else will monitor their edits to make sure any disruption is transient and corrected quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Bbb23:. Alaimusleh (talk · contribs · count) is in fact the same as Alaimusleh95 (talk · contribs · count) (no idea why she created two, I will also make sure to remind them not to do that)... Alaimusleh is the one that should be unblocked. As for the conditions, I'm on it. I'll add info to my userpage about the course (I hope the explanation I gave here is sufficient). I will also ask all the students editing in English to add information to their user pages before making any more edits. Cheers --Fjmustak (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. The comments below, particularly the one by BrownHairedGirl, would add more procedural hurdles for you. I'm not condoning your not doing those things, but from my limited point of view as a checker and blocker of socks, I just need enough transparency so I know what's going on without having to dig. Therefore, I'm going to unblock as I promised, but you may wish to think about the procedural requirements for the future, and I can't promise that action won't be taken against you if you fail to do so. You appear to be a very reasonable and civil person, which I personally value. Your English is better than some native speakers I know. Best of luck to you, and let me know if you need more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, Bbb23, I did not intend to add procedural hurdles in the path of an unblock, and am surprised that my comments appeared that way. I just wanted to point to the existing guidance written about this type of activity, because it provides helpful explanations of the pitfalls and did not appear to have been linked so far.
I am glad that you feel able to unblock Fjmustak's students, since it does seem that everyone has acted in good faith and Fjmustak has been very civil and straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm glad we're all in agreement, and the link is useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 and BrownHairedGirl, Thank you both (and everyone else involved) for turning this misunderstanding into a learning experience, while keeping the discourse civil. Procedures are important, and I've actually started to put together a handbook for next semester, and will definitely incorporate more of the suggestions in BrownHairedGirl's link. I think the main source of misunderstanding is that the course page is in Arabic, and it is much easier to manage students in a "small" Wikipedia, than in the English Wikipedia where procedures do matter. Thanks again. --Fjmustak (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• That was a good block, BBB. User:Nil Einne posted at WP:ED incidents page here to help this get worked out; i had gone to do the same thing. Also pinging User:Ian (Wiki Ed) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Fjmustak: I suggest reading Wikipedia:Student assignments, if you have not already done so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Such projects should be done as a draft, not in article mainspace. Just my opinion. Jeh (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that 100% percent. Or in the instructor's sandbox. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I saw this via the post on ENB; I really don't have much to add. It got me thinking about course pages - while there wasn't one on en, I noticed that there appears to have been one on ar. I wonder whether there might be some way to more easily provide cross-wiki notifications about courses. (Double signing since I've often posted here with my main account} Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed), WMF is working on internationalizing the Wiki Ed dashboard, which I cannot wait to use, since it's supposed to allow cross-project assignments. Fingers crossed. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fjmustak - Yes, I know; I was wondering if this is something that is part of the plan for the Dashboard. (I need to find out.) Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd stuff at Musahiban

Could someone please take a look T the edit I just reverted and the IP edit at my talk page? Article needs rebuilding but from trainable sources. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Good revert. Threats by another IP (sock/meat puppet). I suggest blocking both (or at least the latter) per WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (if you do not understand that threats are not done, you're blatantly incompetent). Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. There seems to be a lot of IP-hopping going on, here and WP:NPOV seems an unfamiliar concept. Kleuske (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mohammadzai has been edited by Doug's IP editor, and appears entirely unsourced. Just sayin' -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to name me.

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 same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [17] [18] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [19] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [20]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:

• You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[21]
• You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[22]

Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can drop the stick, they should be blocked for harassment. As it stands however, 94.119.64.0/24 has an oversight block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: 87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It was more 'Not Proven.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my request to have all attempts to try and guess my identity redacted by someone with oversight privileges. No one should suffer this sort of harassment. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Voidwalker, this [23] is an example of the countless sort of cruel and baseless edit summary insults which forced me to use my IP to edit instead of my Username. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to guess your real-life identity, but I do want to know your WP identity. Are you YuHuw or not? Yes or no, please. If no, please explain this edit [24]. EEng 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This talk page section probably puts that connection in context. Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir, I am YuHuw. YuHuw (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And you have self-identified as YuHuw in the links I and Blackmane have given. You should be editing as YuHuw, and if someone's giving you a hard time, that will be dealt with. This has nothing to do with your anonymity. EEng 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to me that if wiki-abusers are claiming all sorts of IP addresses as me then the only way I can prove that I am not UK based is to edit from my regular IP. When I edit as YuHuw they try to guess my name and you can see from the redactions on my own talk page they have been pretty abusive to me there too. I do not know how many real life people they are but at least I would like someone to redact the places where they have tried to name me please. I understand it is my right according to wiki outing policies isn't it? After that I would like my own edits which reveal personal info about me (e.g. my IP edits) to be courtesy blanked and I will return to editing as YuHuw not to be tricked again by such people. This is all I am asking. If the harassment still continues after that I hope thew same measures will be taken to protect my identity from those obsessive compulsive trolls. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry that I mistakenly thought that this edit by an IP editor was an edit by you. Please accept my apology. I wish you would only edit logged-in as User:YuHuw. When you edit as an IP people get you confused with another editor who edits in the same area as you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It is easy to say sorry, it is not easy to clean up the fall-out of your **FIVE MONTHS** bad-mouthing. BUT in light of your apology I am certain that you will have no objection to having all of your edit summaries and talk page comments which try to portray me as someone else (or as based outside Israel when you knew from the beginning where I am) such as these ones [25] [26] redacted. Let's not forget Toddy1 that you used [27] as a base to WP:CANVASS calling me Kaz countless times so that people who have had no interaction with me before whatsoever were influenced by your badmouthing me. You set out from the start in discussion with your employer (I am not saying money exchanged hands but this is clear employment) from the outset only had one objective and that was to convince everyone that I am someone I am not. Nevertheless, if you are indeed willing to DROP THE STICK and go for a NEW START along with having your comments redacted then I am very happy to accept your apology. I do not bare grudges and have been willing to start over with you countless times. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Provided you have no active sanctions, then WP:CLEANSTART is an option. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART would be an excellent idea to apply to all those who have been abusing WP as a by harassing me. Meanwhile my request to have those edits by people who have been trying to name or identify me in some way all redacted please. I am asking this in line with WP:OUTING. I can not speak for those accounts who have been harassing me, but if I understand what you mean by sanctions then I can confirm that I personally have never had any sanctions against me. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When someone who has an account deliberately chooses to edit as an anonymous IP editor, then he/she must take some responsibility for the consequences. It looks like sock-puppetry. I accept that User:YuHuw did not mean it as sock-puppetry. It has helped that he/she has made clear which IPs were him/her. If you edit as an IP editor, people will wonder which user you are. And some of the time, they will get it wrong.

I advise against a WP:CLEANSTART. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish between YuHuw's edits and Kaz' edits. I honestly thought they were the same person. However, there has been a sock puppet investigation, which cleared YuHuw, and established that they are apparently different people. If all the edits by the Israeli IPs that we believe to have been by YuHuw were by YuHuw, and none of the very similar UK IP edits were by YuHuw, one has to wonder who that person was.

YuHuw, please carry on editing - but please do so logged in as YuHuw, so we know it is you, not Kaz. And stop calling me a "meat puppet".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated above that you knew from the start I am not that UK based editor but tried everything in your power to portay me as him. You say one has to wonder who those non Israeli IPs were but perhaps some of them were from your team. You have not been cleared of meatpuppetry yet. Your continued stepping in to help the accusef only adds to the substantial evidence against you. As demonstrated above, you and your team (especially the person you always step in to fight for including here) continued to attempt to portray me as that editor until long after I started editing exclusively with my IP which is my right by the way and is easy to identify me as I always make clear this is me YuHuw. I am well within my rights to edit as YuHuw exposing my IP and will continue to do so until the redactions begin.

I will try again to get back to the topic of my complaint. Although, naturally, Toddy1 thinks this ANI complaint is about him as always whenever the complaint is about Неполканов. I would like to bring attention back to the topic of this complaint which is this edit where User:Неполканов tries to name me. I would like it redacted please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Where in that diff is there any sign of them naming, well, anyone? Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

THE VERY FIRST WORD!!! YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If there is no one here competent enough to deal with this, is there a place to post to get the attention of genuine/real administrators who deal with WP:OUTING swiftly and effectively. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:YuHuw#Accusations. User:Liz who posted the message there, is an admin.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1's comment ^ is completely irrelevant. The association between my IP and YuHuw ID has never been hidden, see [28] long before the most recent WP:OUTING attempt which should under wiki guidelines have been redacted as soon as I requested it a dozen days ago. Even if I had only ever been editing with an anon IP and had no user account, attempted-outing is still attempted-outing and should be dealt with as all other outing attempts are dealt with whether the attempt is accurate or not. I am requesting Oversight admin to redact this edit in line with the WP:OUTING policy without any further delay please. YuHuw (talk) 87.69.184.128 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." For help requesting oversight, see WP:Requests_for_oversight. Or read the pink box at the top of this page when editing. Mysticdan (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have written but I don't think that email address is working and the irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-revdel link is dead too. Since I do not know any administrators I can ask privately I am asking any other administrator to delete the revisions (including those pertaining to it in this ANI request) in the meantime. YuHuw (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw can check the list of admins in wp and ping as many active ones as possible because outing is serious business that should be deleted with outers banned for months, if not indefiniteFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You just appeared 5 days ago and tried to create a Request for Admin. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't stray off topic. You can talk to FAMASFREENODE about your concerns about him on his wall not here.

FAMASFREENODE if you have any idea about pinging oversighters please ping them all. The fact that these outing incidents have not been dealt with by any oversight team now for more than half a month severely undermines the notion that there are serious admins watching this board or even the oversight inbox. the WP:OUTING policy is clear, but the supposed avenues provided are also apparently dead. YuHuw 87.69.184.128 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

William L. Uanna

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 with declared conflict of interest (son of subject) is edit-warring over original research/trivia/puffery in article in William L. Uanna. See [31] [32] [33]. We've been down this road before both here at ANi and on article talk page, going back literally years, and editor is deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-land. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the edit logs and I believe I have a reasonably clear picture. This user, as noble as their intentions may be, is not relenting and insisting on imparting their own intimate knowledge. As they have good intentions but won't heed, I propose a topic ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts within the past hour, which may or may not put this editor in breach of 3RR. Five reverts in the past 24 hours. This editor has been granted a great deal of slack because the editors on that page uniformly admire the subject and are intrigued by this editor's claimed personal history. But he has taken that as a green light for carte blanche. Last year he was pushing some kind of conspiracy theory concerning his dad's death. now it's puffery plucked from an FOI request. It's not ending and the "pretty please abide by Wikipedia rules" phase is behind us. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. This isn't meant as a comment on the topic ban idea; please continue to offer opinions on that suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Let it be clear that my proposition of having a topic ban is what I consider to not only be the most ideal solution, but the minimum in this case. I don't want to see them indefinitely or extensively blocked, (at least not yet), but I feel as though it is prudent to prevent them from touching this topic until they have time to get a hold of themselves. They could use the restriction to focus on learning about and improving other Wikipedia content. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The block was purely for edit-warring, not for COI editing or anything like that. Given the existence of this discussion, it would be disruptive if any admin issued a short-term block on such grounds without heeding the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Would this be a good case for COIN to take up? It seems like they'd be better quipped than ANI, since COI-related POV seems to be the issue here.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the problem is disruptive and POV editing by an SPA, so the COI guideline, while applicable, is secondary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted some comments on the earlier ANI thread. I think you guys are being too bitey. I oppose the topic ban for now. We haven't engaged CIC7 all that constructively earlier or now, so we still have room to do so. COIN seems like overkill. Figureofnine also is edit warring in my opinion, reverting 3x in less than a day[34][35][36] and seems to be wp:owning the article to some extent over its history. Figureofnine, could you ease up a bit? CIC7 seems to have some good resources to bring to the article, and we should accomodate him to the extent we can, working with him to fix issues with his contributions that are incompatible with our approach to content. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Bitey"? You've got to be kidding. CIC7 has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have. He has been editing Wikipedia for six years. His sole and entire focus has been to edit the article on the man he says his father (I believe him, though it is not verifiable), which in the main is the addition of original research, conspiracy theories, and, most recently, material that is both original research and outright puffery. He knows the rules, he doesn't give a damn and never has. He has been treated with the utmost courtesy and knows perfectly well what WP:OR is because it has been pointed out to him multiple times. In the most recent situation I raised the issue on the talk page and he ignored it. The other editors on that page are not trying to add negative content; on the contrary, we are all interested in the Manhattan Project and rather admire Uanna and have worked to build it up to GA status. He has been given extra-gentle consideration because of his claimed family connection but enough is enough.

I favor a topic ban for now but only as it applies to the article itself, not to the article talk page. It's his behavior in the article proper that is objectionable. Lastly I agree with the IP that there is an WP:OWN situation. CIC7 created the article and has dominated the editing of it. The last two of his five reverts yesterday were reinstatement of unsourced trivia removed by another editor[37][38]] including "One piece of advice his mother gave his new bride Bonnie shortly after they were married in 1948 was 'Keep him out of the sun, he turns black.' " I think that after six years this editor is aware that such material is not acceptable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's late here and I can't stay long right now, but I'd be interested in seeing some diffs of CIC7 being treated with the utmost courtesy, especially by yourself. Hawkeye7 made some constructive suggestions on CIC7's user talk page, and Jytdog left a note about COI that looked like copypasta but was at least polite. But the remarks I've seen directed to him from you looked at best pretty brusque. He has contributed a lot of content to the article, some parts of which had problems and got reverted, but other parts of which are perfectly good and are in the article. So the article has benefited from his participation, which speaks in his favor. Yes he's been around for a number of years without yet having gotten the hang of editing neutrally, but he has a total of 180 edits which is definitely still in the newbie phase. So I think this can be handled more gracefully than what's been going on here on ANI so far. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We can handle it "gracefully" by invoking WP:COI, enforcing it, and keeping him off the article and on the talk page. Simple, despite your efforts to complicate it. Done here. Over and out. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Favor site ban. Clearly here to rectify the great wrong that was done to his father at some point in the past, including murder (according to some mumbo jumbo posted on his talk page). The problem with a topic ban is that he'll go back to working his magic at John F. Kennedy or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Editor is refreshingly free of anything resembling clue, as evidenced by his appealing a ban on editing the article that I don't believe has been imposed. Yes you can make nice with him and drop him love notes and he'll continue to keep on keeping on. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the problem with the first Kennedy diff above (I didn't check the second one). It looks like it restored some reasonable content about a well documented issue at the time (whether Kennedy's Catholicism would divide his loyalty between the Church and the US). It mentioned a speech that Kennedy intended to give at the Dallas Trade Mart, and quoted from a civil rights announcement. Those could have used citations--is that the issue? It took about 2 seconds to verify each with web searches[39][40] so I don't see it as a basis for banning.

  Does Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) have anything to say about this? Hawkeye7 has made substantial contributions to the Uanna article so I'd assign more weight to their view than to the others in figuring out what to do about this. Figureofnine has made a number of edits to the Uanna article, but they're all reversions, tagging, and a few minor copyedits as far as I can tell (if I missed something, I'd appreciate diffs). Coretheapple has made around 7k edits in article space to over 2000 articles, but almost all of those edits are reverts, and zero of the edits are to the Uanna article. So this seems emblematic of the bureaucracy that's given Wikipedia a bad name in recent years.

  If CIC7 is causing hardship to other people writing the article, I'd like to hear that from the writers themselves, i.e. those who have added substantial informative text rather than only reverting or rearranging, before going forward with a ban. CIC7's editing is far from perfect, but he has obviously contributed more value to the article than Figureofnine or Coretheapple, so if we're going to ban anyone we might be better off choosing the latter two. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since your own contribs are hidden by your editing logged out, it's hard for me to determine the extent to which you may have edited this article yourself, apart from this[41] less than constructive edit restoring crap to the article, and with an inaccurate edit summary as the ANI was two years ago. What is the user name that you utilize when not trolling the drama boards? Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As part of my push to get the Manhattan Project, I made edits to the William L. Uanna to shepherd it through the GA process. CIC7 has made twice as many changes as I have, but between us, we have contributed 95% of the text of the article. I think the article is in pretty good shape. CIC7 has been a good collaborator, and has always responded helpfully and collaboratively to my requests, mainly for sources to back up claims in the article. I have had hassles with athletes editing their own articles, but not from CIC7. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, readers have a right to expect that articles not be written in collaboration with the subject or their offspring; I note that the original GA nom failed because of OR and also that this editor has edit-warred to keep OR and puffery in the article, which you made no effort to remove, over an extended period of time this week. I see that he was blocked for that. I note too also that his efforts to place a reference to his father being murdered, sourced to a fictional film and without a shred of evidence beyond that, also did not bother you one bit.[42]

I just looked at the sourcing of that article. Significant parts of the article are sourced to primary source documentation uploaded to Commons by "CIC777" which I assume is the same as this editor. The "sources to back up his claims" appears to be material he personally obtained and "published" on Commons. Looks like WP:PRIMARY has been flushed down the toilet in this article alongside WP:COI. I could not disagree more that an article relying for extensive text on self-published documentation, provided by a COI editor, is in "pretty good shape." The article reads like a memorial to this rather marginal figure, and given that his son is a principal author I am not surprised. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The article passed GA, so that's evidence that other editors do consider it to be in good shape. You sound like you want to eviscerate it anyway. Maybe you should find another hobby. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it means that one editor considers it in good shape. That is the weakness in the GA process. Why do you continually make false statements? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, thanks for the post. I'm satisfied from it that CIC7 doesn't need a ban. I also see that you've been working with him on his talk page, helping him navigate Wikipedia's editing machinations etc. Are you ok with continuing to do that? If yes, that helps too.

Regarding the movie end credit, I posted in the previous ANI (yeah, August 2014 rather than last year, big whoop) why I supported using it. There's no overpowering policy basis for either including or excluding it being mandatory, so it's a matter of editorial judgment, on which reasonable people can disagree. I myself see it as an informative contribution, good to include per NPOV (with reduced WEIGHT compared to the official explanation of Uanna's death), communicating that there's an alternative claim out there that has gotten some traction. As a reader, I'm skeptical of the claim, but I appreciate being informed of its existence.

I can understand someone else weighing the subtleties differently and deciding "nah", but the wikilawyering and confrontation that I see from Figureofnine (and now CTA) are what I described earlier as WP:OWN. In any case, CTA removed it again calling it "garbage".[43] I think that's excessive and shows a lack of objectivity on CTA's part.

CTA's whole approach to this comes across as monstrously belligerent to me. I'd support administrative intervention against him if he doesn't stop that. WP:CIVIL and collegiality are supposed to still be a thing. I'll be away from editing for the next few days but will see if I can find out whether Thomas and Morgan-Witt's book (the one the movie is based on) says anything about William Uanna's eventual fate.

FWIW, I don't think I edited the article before. I supported including the movie credit but someone else (probably CIC7) put it in. Bye for now. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN? The subject's son created the article and [44] is responsible for four out of ten edits to the article on his dad. Hawkeye7 has another 23% of edits. Figureofnine 10%. No other editors on the page to speak of. I've added two tags and made one edit. Your continual false statements are disruptive, so please stop. Yes, this article passed GA despite violating site policies on sourcing. If I had a nickel for every time that happened I could probably start my own Wikipedia. This article should have been speedily failed, since the majority of footnotes go to documents uploaded to Commons, and I've commenced a community reassessment. Mr. 50, judging from how you have tenaciously disrupted a simple COI situation with false statements, personal attacks and trolling I assume that the user name you're not disclosing has quite the colorful history. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:CIC7

I think it's time to impose a topic ban on CIC7 (talk · contribs).

I have no previous involvement in this, but it is clear from the evidence set out above that:

• CIC7 has a WP:COI wrt to the article William L. Uanna [45]
• CIC7 is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, by publishing original research in relation to his father [46]
• CIC7 has been warned repeatedly about WP:NOR, WP:COI and other relevant policies, by editors who have explained the constraints and offered suggestions on how to publish the information in ways that could be used in Wikipedia
• This was the subject of an ANI discussion in August 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#William_L._Uanna
• Many editors appreciate CIC7's intesrest in the topic and have tried to help CIC7 to contribute constructively
• Despite these long-standing warnings, CIC7 has been edit-warring in May 2016 to insert unsourced original research into the article wrt which he has a COI: [47], [48], [49]

So I propose the following: CIC7 is indefinitely topic-banned from editing the article William L. Uanna and related topics, narrowly construed. CIC7 is encouraged to use the talk pages of those articles, and other discussion pages, to proposed changes which are based on reliable sources.

I hope that this will prevent CIC7 from continuing to edit in breach of policy, but will encourage CIC7 to help other editors to improve and expand the article(s) relating to the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WithdrawnPer my comments below[50] in response to Jytdog, I am withdrawing my proposal for a topic ban, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7 doesn't uphold the assurances[51][52] which zie has given to Jytdog.

• Support provided it's clearly understood that edits like this are encompassed by the topic ban. Not sure it is, as drafted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: my intention was that edits like that should be clearly covered by the ban, because if we only ban from the one article then content about William L. Uanna could be splatted across a whole range of articles. What I didn't want to do was to ban CIC7 from for example editing an article about somewhere his father lived to add content unrelated to his father. I hope that it is clear enough that adding such material such as that in your example to any another article would fall within the narrow construction of "related", but I am open to any suggestions for alternative wording to make things clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Understood. Perhaps "narrowly construed" can go. I'm just looking ahead to the future, as compliance is unlikely. This editor seems intent on his quest, which is why I advocated a site ban. In my experience such editors can be a terrible drain on the project, and you see aspects of that in the mucked-up discussion above and in the COI editor's comments below. I've commenced a community reassessment of the unwarranted GA status of this article, but it really needs to be gutted and properly sourced. I see no constructive contributions by the COI editor on the talk page, which he has used mainly to push his OR, and no effort to provide reliable secondary sources. A Google Books search shows at least two books discussing Uanna. Neither is even mentioned in the article, presumably because one of them, in a footnote, dismisses his son's conspiracy theory. This is the book, plenty of stuff on Uanna[53], published by the Naval Institute Press, some quite complimentary, but not a word on it in the article but plenty of tangential OR uploaded to Commons by the COI editor. That is what happens when editors rely upon COI editors for sourcing, and it belies Hawkeye7's comments as to what great shape the article is in and what a wonderful contributor the COI editor has been. Yes, wonderful if you ignore a COI's edidtor's agenda and are indifferent to the quality of an article's sources. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think it is completely unfair to accuse me of not using a book that was not even published at the time I upgraded the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Huh?
I didn't mention you, either directly or indirectly, let alone accuse you of anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He was responding to me. Hawkeye7, you have acknowledged that there are multiple books, some quite old, dealing with his notable service on the Manhattan Project, none of which are utilized in the article due to overreliance on a COI editor with a fringe agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to request some outside arbitration here. I have acknowledged my COI. But many of the things that were taken out of William L. Uanna are verifiable through newspaper articles or FOI documents. They are not just my memories or those of my relatives. CIC7 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think what I want is mediation not arbitration. CIC7 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

CIC7, you can request dispute resolution on this page. Bishonen | talk 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

• Support. Wikipedia is not a Web publisher. CIC7 needs to look into one of the inexpensive services offered by Google. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now First, let me say that I agree that CIC7's behavior has been unacceptable and that he has been unresponsive to templates and requests in the past. My sense is that his attention has now been focused by this thread and the TBAN proposal, and by his 24 hour edit warring block.

Sometimes people do respond when you get their attention. I opened a discussion with him about COI, and he has acknowledged his COI, and he has promised to stop directly editing the article and instead propose changes on the Talk page. I've also given him advice about how to participate on the Talk page.

I recommend that this be closed, and if CIC7 turns out to be unrelenting/disruptive on the Talk page or goes back to directly editing the article, that this be re-opened and a series of escalating blocks be given. But let him try now that he is talking and appears to have the beginnings of an understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedia editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: congrats on engaging CIC7 in dialogue, and in the progress you have made, especially in getting a commitment[54] from CIC7 to stop editing the article, and start proposing changes on the talk page.
It's also clear from that discussion that CIC7 has a very limited understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so it's great that you have helped out with a very comprehensive set of explanations. I see that CIC7 has also agreed to follow those guidelines[55].
Given all that progress, I agree that a topic ban is inappropriate at this stage ... so I will withdraw my TBAN proposal, on the understanding that this will be re-opened if CIC7's assurances are not upheld. --User:BrownHairedGirl, 09:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a workable outcome. However, I think that input would be desirable from @Figureofnine:, who commenced this discussion, has had to bear the brunt of this particular editor, and was forced out of this discussion by a particularly aggressive IP troll. Coretheapple (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

However, I'm not seeing any recent contributions by FON so it may be pointless to keep this open. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: forgot to ping you. Adding pings doesn't work. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Coretheapple. I had actually spotted your comment, but it was kind of you to add the ping just in case.

It would be nice to hear from Figureofnine before this discussion closes, but I don't think any further comment would make much difference now. FON made a good case above, but since nobody else is now supporting a topic ban of CIC7 at this stage, I doubt that further comment from FON would alter the outcome.

AFAICS, there is consensus at this point to give CIC7 some WP:ROPE, and let CIC7 decide how to use it. I can see that CIC7 has a lot of learning to do wrt to en.wp policies and principles, but I hope that there will be a serious effort to learn and act on them. If CIC7 ends up back here again, I reckon that sanctions would happen quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem unfortunate that these kinds of discussions are even necessary at all, since our guideline is quite clear that COI editors are not supposed to be editing the article, much less edit-warring over it, much less editing warring over puffery and OR. I think this article seems to suffer in general from a lack of eyes on the content, which is how we got to this point. P.S. am signing your comment above, BrownHairedGirl, hope you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: if all editors consistently upheld Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then there probably would be no need for ANI or any of the other dramaboards. But we live in an imperfect world, so these things happen, and we have ways of dealing with them.

I hope that CIC7 is able to follow through on the assurances given here, and that the discussion will have drawn more eyes to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Puffmuffin for disruptive editing on Quetta

Reporting User:Puffmuffin for disruptive editing on Quetta after repeatedly asking him to engage in discussion at Talk:Quetta#Languages. He is intent on removing scholarly sourced information, adding unsourced and poorly sourced information mostly sourced to blogs and websites. Requesting a block for Puffmuffin for disruptive editing and his recent revert should be reverted because that is the wrong version and page should be fully protected. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown wants to have me banned because he wants to make the Quetta page article only the way he sees it fit. He persistently removes valid sources and replaces them with dead and fake sourced edits to make the demographic section the way he wants it to be. He then reports any user who oppose his invalid edits. He even abused me in Pashto language using Roman characters so that the moderators won't notice. That is the reason he wants to have the page protected.Puffmuffin (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Puffmuffin: - it would help us if you a) signed your posts; b) indented your posts; and c) provided us with diffs for allegations of abuse. If you do this, particularly the diffs, you have a better chance of such allegations being investigated. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: - how about we just lock the Quetta article at the WP:WRONGVERSION? Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots (talk) If you have to lock the page please first investigate the intentions of User:SheriffIsInTown. Puffmuffin (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Locking the page is done to prevent further disruption. It does not particularly matter which version it is locked at, as long as BLP and COPYVIO are not violated. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, Mjroots, the page should not be locked at wrong version, we should not let POV pushing and unsourced content stay in the article. Since, I opened this thread, we have also received the opinion of some more editors at talk and it seems there is a consensus against Puffmuffin. Mistakenly, Puffmuffin also have accepted to socking using IP addresses while accusing me of abusing him in Pashto, that IP who wrote something in Pashto is not me and I don't know what it means but he has accepted the IP who was complaining about abuse in summary lines was him. He should be blocked for socking, it will save me trouble of opening an SPI. I will soon add related diffs. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: Confirming that the page is locked at the right version but please take socking and disruptive editing of Puffmuffin into consideration and block him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked I DO see an I.P editor asking SheriffIsInTown why they abused them in Pashto in an edit summary here there is some text at the end which is NOT English and I'm not able to decipher it. The poster in this case is NOT SheriffIsInTown, it's another I.P. This might be the swearing in Pashto Puffmuffin's talking about. KoshVorlon 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I presume the phrase "Sta roray ghayam" is meant. Google translate does not identify it as Pashto. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Pashto, but that transliterates to "ستة روري غيم". The last word of that translates to "fuck" in English: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%BA%D9%88%D9%88%D9%84#Pashto forgot to sign Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%BA%D9%8A%D9%85.) "روري" is a way of writing the name "Rory", apparently (Google Translate says so, and Web search appears to confirm). "ستة" means "there", "whatever", or "suggest" among other meanings, according to Google Translate. forgot to sign AGAIN. #brilliant #fail Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Yes the page should be locked at the right version. He just removed three references I added earlier to the demographic section of the Quetta page. Again if you have to lock the page investigate and know the intentions of User:SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that he's using multiple IDs.Puffmuffin (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I had tried reasoning with Puffmuffin. Then even tried explaining him (more like spoon feeding), but both attempts yield nothing. Rather he exactly did what he was doing earlier. He's surely not here to build WP. He did not even bother reading the new changes that were made, which were infact inline with his own argument! The guy just does not read before hitting the 'undo' button!

The guy also thinks that the sun revolves around him, and hence everybody on WP (both IPs and registered users) are here to counter him. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TripWire is another ID for the User:SheriffIsInTown He's using multiple IDs to mislead others. They both use the term "Dude" quite often it cannot be a coincidence. Both are removing the same three sources I add to the demographics section of the Quetta page. Please lock the page at the right version. DONOT be mislead. Puffmuffin (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots:

Re:Sun. Told ya!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: You claimed that the page was fully protected but it was not. Puffmuffin is continuing to edit-war with another editor now.
• @Puffmuffin: The Wikipedia community will soon know who have been editing using multiple IDs since May 2007 and also disrupted Wikipedia using IP addresses of one you accepted in your previous comment. If you have doubts about my ability then see User:SheriffIsInTown#Successful sock-puppet investigations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have pinged a few Pashto speaking users to see if they'll come and assist. KoshVorlon 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Zarghun11: The phrase in Pashto is related to personal abuse,one of the harsh abuse use by pathan, meaning to fucking someone.Zarghun11 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand this might have been something very bad which was hurled at his IP address by another IP address but he is implicating that i was the person behind that IP which is not true but in doing so he has accepted that the IP (182.183.128.230) which complained about the abuse was him and also the IP (119.160.119.118) towards whom the abuse was hurled was him too. Blaming me for that abuse might be coming from his recognition of abusing me previously using an IP address (182.183.183.191). The summary was revdelled. It started something like that "SheriffIsInTown, you son of a.....", i am not writing what was next because i do not want to abuse myself. Notice the similarities in the IP addresses, 182.183.183.191 is based at same location if you check WHOIS as is 182.183.128.230, his accepted sock. Although, i do not appreciate and condone the abuse which was hurled at him but considering his past abuse history, he was given a dose of his own medicine by that IP. I would also request admins to concentrate more on his disruption and accepted socking because once the page protection is over, he is going to start disruption and edit-warring again despite the consensus which has developed against him, his sources are rejected by Dennis Brown here at ANI, by Kautilya3 and TripWire at Talk:Quetta and the response about my source was affirmative by both Kautilya3 and TripWire. We have so far no inclination by Puffmuffin that he will accept that consensus so if not blocked despite all these violations, he is going to continue further with his violations and disruptions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

At no stage did I ever claim the article was locked. That remains an option. As it's bedtime here in the UK, I'll leave this for those operating in UTC-5 to UTC-9 to deal with, if they'd be so kind . Will look in tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, that was frustrating but did prove a point. Puffmuffin, one of the links you provided was a scamware virus thing. Locked up my browser when I went to the "contact us" page, but I'm an IT guy so it was just inconvenient to shut down all the instances of Chrome to shut up that "you are infected" canned voice. Someone please go add historypak.com to the global blacklist here and under no circumstances go there. The other sources you added, lonelyplanet.com (fails WP:RS) and blogs.tribune.com.pk (borderline, except she isn't listed as staff, so you have to assume is a frequent guest contributor, so not so reliable). Puffmuffin, you are new here so I'm trying to cut you a little slack. I'm not saying everyone else is perfectly innocent, but you added some real garbage there, the kind that hurts the encyclopedia. The first rule of editing is improve the encyclopedia, not hurt it. You all need to go to the talk page and use that, discuss, etc. It is full protected for a week. I went back to what I thought was a recent but safe version (didn't really read, so I have no preferred version), which is surely the wrong version, but that's the breaks. You need to listen more Puffmuffin, win others over with your good ideas, not by brute force, and read WP:RS and learn the difference between a good source and "some website that just says what I want it to say". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: doesn't look fully protected to me [56]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Should be now, and I've removed all instances of that domain on enwp and reported to the blacklist myself. Thanks for the heads up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: Puffmuffin is not a new editor, he is editing since May 2007, have used many IPs to do his disruption over those years, uses his account only to continue his disruption once pages are protected. Rest for the SPI when I am ready for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Toreeva making repeated personal attacks / harassment.

Here- Saying her (autobiographical) article was "deleted by Joseph2302, who looks following me everywhere.... he deleted [my Teahouse request] request also, and banning me from his Talkpage- the latter he explained was due to her repeated self-promotion on his TP. This was on top of her complaint that he deleted her drawings, and her decision that the Teahouse did not know what they are talking about. The problem for her is that her WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is under an AfD here; the editor continued there, saying "please stop harassing me and follow everywhere demanding the deletion of the article and 5 drawings... I don't know you, your motives, but your action is definitely not in a good faith, and does not make the good face for the Wikipedia." The problem for WP is that such an incollegiate attitude- up to and including harasment of other users- amounts to disruption.

Suggest editor- 'spoken with'- for a final time. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't look like the editor has been active in the last 15 hours, so they may have given up? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering they've been here since March with a single-purpose, I doubt they'll go away that easily, Samtar. The problem is they are not listening to advice, and are determined to bombard multiple editors with persistent questions about the same thing (myself, Theroadislong and Ymblanter have all been victim to this). As for their claims I've harassed them, I gave up on this article/draft over a month ago, and only got reinvolved after seeing they were annoying Theroadislong the same way they were annoying me (persistent argumentative behaviour, and total insistence that they must be notable). Their images had no licence when I nominated them for deletion, and their drafts & articles have been deleted by multiple administrators. The comments against me on Talk:Natalia Toreeva and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva (combined with the hatted rant on there as well), show they're not going to stop, and they're not going to contribute positively to anything else but their autobiography. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A fair point Joseph2302, perhaps wishful thinking? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I was one of the editors along with User:Ymblanter who edited the concerned article and tried to engage with her (see here). (For reference, I got involved via this post at COIN). After a while I got a bit annoyed as Toreeva was not able to understand my point about notability even after explaining multiple times. Which is why I referred her to the Teahouse for another opinion. Later I gave up on the article. (I was never personally attacked by her though).

My suggestion here would be to leave it and let the AfD run its course. Whatever is decided in the AfD will have to be accepted by everyone. That solves the problem --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:NYBCchimps

Can someone take a look at their edits? 2600:1008:B014:26F3:798B:E3D9:A7F4:A661 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Give us a hint.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to notify them. 2600:1008:B014:26F3:798B:E3D9:A7F4:A661 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done the notification, I believe the IP is suggesting that there's some advocacy reg the chimpanzees used for research by the New York Blood Center. —SpacemanSpiff 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And since the OP here has seemingly not edited anything that NYBCchimps (talk · contribs) has worked on, it's reasonable to suppose he logged out to avoid scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would she log out to report her own account? I mean it's possible but... seems odd. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Logging out to report another account, and not wanting to be identified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

BaseballBugs frequently casts aspersions on IP editors It's problematic behaviour that goes against one of the 5 pillars and some policies, but despite repeated advice (sometimes at ANI) thye've never taken the hint to just leave IP editors alone. DanBCDanBC (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It would certainly be more helpful to the AN/I process if you could refrain from making off-the-cuff bad faith comments with no evidence.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If the given IP spoke for himself instead of you attempting to speak for him, I would have more faith in the given IP. As it stands currently, I don't find either you or the given IP to be sincere or trustworthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. DanBCDanBC's complaint remains untrue. But because he made that complaint, it's interesting to note on his user page that he says he "used to IP edit from 82.132.192.0/18. I'm currently using an account because those IPs are rangeblocked. I didn't do any of the vandalism that caused that IP range to be blocked." OK, fine. But some proof of that user page assertion would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the unnecessary digression above, nor my apparent un-trustworthiness and insincerity, User:NYBCchimps does appear to be a single-purpose account with a rather specific point-of-view they would like inserted in a number of related articles. That being said, they have not edited since other editors explained on their talk page why the edits were being reverted. I don't think further action is warranted unless the edit-warring flares up again.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Article editor marks all edits minor and ignores talk

User:Article editor ignores all the many complaints on his talk page, including several requests to stop marking all his edits "minor". Can some admin do something to coerce here? See User talk:Article editor#Edits_marked "minor". Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Note The editor has been doing this since 2006. 3,562 of his 3,613 are supposedly 'minor.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And his talk page has over 100 sections, mostly complaints that he has ignored. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see what the outcome of this is. Help:Minor edit stresses that edits shouldn't be marked minor indiscriminately and there's a user warning {{uw-minor}} regarding inappropriate minor edits, but is there any recourse beyond that? This isn't the first editor I've seen that marks all their edits as minor. AFAIK, there's no longer a setting on the English Wikipedia to automatically mark all edits minor, so these editors must be checking the box manually despite being told not to. clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Tangentially related to this is T26313, which removed the "mark all edits as minor by default" preference wayyyyyy back in 2010. It looks like Article editor is using a script to cause the same effect (User:Article editor/vector.js). While I'm not aware of a clear policy forbidding this, it seems clear that if this is considered abusive an admin may edit AE's vector.js to remove the script and inform him that if he re-adds it, he may be sanctioned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue of non-communication is perhaps more troubling. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixing his .js file seems like a good thing to start with. It's unlikely that he knows or cares about that, since he hasn't touched it since 2011. Just do it. Communication issues can be dealt with later if at all. Dicklyon (talk)

• I suggest a 24-hour block to call their attention to the fact that communication with other editors is not optional in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that the editor should be blocked until they agree to mark only indisputably minor edits as "minor", and blocked again if they falsely mark any future edit that way. This is a disruptive form of evasion of scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the script and left a note to not restore the script due to it being abused. Not sure what authority I have to do so, to be honest, but I'm claiming it based on this discussion and WP:IAR, and the desire to not have to block him. Let's see what happens next. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • • • Great alternative, Dennis Brown. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking all edits as minor falls under 'disruptive editing' as it effectively removes the edits from oversight (as a lot of people have hide minor edits checked). Persistant refusal to stop doing so in the past has resulted in blocks *after* the situation has been explained to the editor and they keep doing it. In this case since the user is not actually communicating at all, you might need to end up blocking just to get their attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No admin has done the obvious yet, which indicates either (1) they don't care and/or (2) they're all on holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Bugs, there's also possibility #3: that admins are watching, are not on holiday, and do care, and have already warned AE to engage with ANI[57] ... but that these admins note that Article editor (talk · contribs) has not edited since that warning post was made, and is prepared to give that editor a chance to demonstrate good intent before using a trigger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe this is the first time in 10 years that he's been warned to not mark all his edits as "minor". As for not editing since the most recent warning, maybe he's on holiday, this being Memorial Day weekend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Its also a Bank holiday weekend in the UK so 3 day weekend. Lots of people go away/make plans. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
            • The thing is that this is not a drive-by, it's an editor who's been here 10 years. So I must assume that the first time he edits again with a non-minor edit tagged as minor, they'll block. Either that, or come up on him from behind and issue a "stern" warning. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Still, a block isn't the first choice. I think my boldly deleting that script and leaving him the message I did is sufficient for now. And yes, I'm hopeful he will just get the hint and stop doing it. Blocks aren't universal problem solvers, as you very well know. We warn first, unless the action is so bad it requires an emergency brake. This isn't that kind of situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                • To add, I'm wondering if the bulk of others using that script are doing so properly, or if the primary reason is like the above, making it a MFD concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • When questioned about it recently, his response was "calm down". Not a lot of good faith in that response. The question is, how important is the matter of marking non-minor edits as minor? I don't weed minor edits in my watchlist, so to me it's of no importance. But for some, it would be. And continual refusal to abide by consensus amounts to disruption. If he's warned repeatedly but doesn't get blocked, then he has no incentive to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • You do know that I deleted that script from his *.js page? That is the first time I've done that to an editor. What he does next will tell us what faith he acts in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                      • So he would have to purposely select "minor edit"? It will be interesting to see if he does that... and to see if anyone does anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
                    • Is there any way to remove the "minor" flag from all of a user's past edits? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm betting that others will watch, and they will ping me if he continues, although we want to see 30 or 40 edits before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good call pulling the script, Dennis. As to additional measures, I agree that removing the script is good enough for now, and wait for AE to make the next move. What would be worth checking is running a search of all editors' scripts for similar code and seeing if there are other editors misusing the minor edit flag who might need to be similarly addressed. Fortunately AE has made few enough edits that just looking over what's happened in the last year shouldn't take too long. And I'm sure someone's already doing that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that pulling the script was a good call. Nice third way move. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Who cares if he marks all of his edits as minor? Do we also block people for not using edit summaries? I'm really failing to see the harm here. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • quite a few bots ignore edits marked as minor, and quite a few people exclude them when watching articles. Marking edits as 'minor' when they are not is a tactic used to prevent scrutiny of edits (its mentioned in WP:Vandalism) and can be disruptive. The problem is you dont know until you go check. As for edit summaries - yes people have been blocked in the past (Admittedly very rarely) for not using edit summaries or using obviously deceptive ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • So are there serious problems with the user's edits then? You're suggesting that marking all edits as minor could be a bad thing, but it seems to me that the only bad thing would be the contents of the edits themselves (and by that, I mean actual actions which cause damage to the encyclopedia), but no evidence is given here that that is the case. ANI really has a good track record recently; first trying to ban an editor from NPP and AFD despite remarkable accuracy ratings, and now this. I can see why they call it the dramaboard... Does nobody here have anything better to do? Ajraddatz (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Well thats rather the point, they could be but no one will know, the only way to find out would be to go and check them all. Feel free to volunteer to do that, generally everyone else would rather people did not lie about about changing content and marking it minor. Its clear what marking edits as minor is to be used for. If you use it inappropriately expect to have some pushback. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Generally in the western world, the burden of proof is on the people accusing someone of wrongdoing. And your claim that some bots and editors don't check is pretty dubious; if this guy had wide-spread patterns of disruptive editing, marking edits as minor isn't going to do anything to hide that. But by all means, continue to lynch someone for absolutely no reason because he doesn't want to follow whatever norm we have about tagging edits. Or accusing him of lying by tagging his edits? Really? In the mean time, I've remembered why this page usually isn't on my watchlist and I'm going to fix that situation. Have a good one, and good luck righting this incredible wrong here. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
          • You might want to keep in mind this editor has a history of socking and editing disruptively not linked to marking edits as minor. Or did you not actually look at their history before? Also fortunately since marking edits as minor that are not minor edits is wrong by wikipedia standards, their contribution list serves as evidence enough. But feel free to keep riding that high horse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I can read a talk page. But none of that seems to have been hidden by his nefarious use of minor edits. This seems like a witch-hunt brought up by an editor with a history of sending templates and other warnings to this guy's talk page, in many cases rather than fixing the mistakes himself or attempting some sort of civil conversation. Though my distance vision might be a bit clouded from the height, as you say. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a longstanding consensus that use of the minor edit flag to mark non-minor edits as minor is disruptive. That's why we removed the preference to mark all edits as minor by default. I'm honestly presuming the whole reason that option existed in the first place was to prevent early, primitive bots from disrupting watchlists before the bot flag existed. This is a problem regardless of this editor's history, and one which Dennis Brown has probably resolved by disabling his script that simulates the old preference. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's now on ice indefinitely (maybe this time permanently compare with the other indef's he's received in the past) for reasons that don't even have to do with the "minor edits" issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's well through the thin ice now; Indef'd by Fences and windows. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This editor had repeatedly breached their 2013 unblock condition to not move articles without discussion. They made "technical requests" for capitalisation changes on a number of articles that had previous RM debates to the contrary. My block was about that narrow issue. I saw on their talk there was a AN/I about the minor edit issue but assumed (my bad) it was resolved as the script was removed. Fences&Windows 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs et al.: I should like to point out the four warnings I made over the course of the past year about abusing minor edits at User Talk:Article editor#March 2015. While it explains a lot that their vector.js was automatically marking edits as minor, I believe at this point that the user should be given a sanction against any use of minor edits in the future, and that this be part of their unblock conditions. Ibadibam (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We never know how he reacts to the removal of the script, since he's indef blocked for other reasons now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

VANDAL ALERT

Sorted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Therexbanner IS AN IDIOT FOR REVERTING MY EDITS AND HE VANDALIZED CLIMATE PAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE BLOCK THAT IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:1486:97A3:6029:349B (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jaypeeboyadizas22 removing AfD templates

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:Jaypeeboyadizas22 has continued to remove the AfD template from Swinging the Kundiman despite being reverted by two other editors and receiving a final warning. In addition to this they have also removed notability tags from the page in the past. Opencooper (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding on to this, the user in question has been around since 2010, and has been warned countless times to cease this type of behavior. Some sort of block/ban may be in order here... Vensco (T | C) 00:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked them indefinitely, not infinitely, in hopes of them responding to these and other concerns. It seems that in five years they still haven't learned to properly upload files, begging the question of WP:CIR. This current behavior is just disruptive, and combined with what appear to be fan-driven edits, it suggests that they are not here to improve the project. Jaypeeboyadizas22, when you can explain, on your talk page, that we are wrong about you, that you will make an effort to abide by our policies and guidelines, you can be unblocked. Until then, editors are wasting too much time picking up after you. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WLP on Alex Tan

Reference the edit history of Alex Tan. Previously an IP editor was adding unsourced writeups and removing sourced writeups. When I left a note to the IP's page about WP:CITE and WP:BLP, a new account Sgwatcher (talk · contribs) was created which continued the same behavior. When I put forth that we need to be able to verify whatever changes had been made on the page need to be verified, SGWatcher self-outed himself as the subject of the article. Even assuming its really him, I have repeatedly mentioned the need for verified sources but editor seems to be in a case of WP:IDHT.

Editor seems unwilling to take any feedback. I guess this edit reply from him sums up his thoughts on the matter.

The resolution is simple: Remove the page or we do this forever :)[58]

More eyes on this is appreciated. Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And now, add personal attacks to the list. [59] Zhanzhao (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a 24-hour block for edit warring to insert completely unsourced material even while this report is open. Sgwatcher had previously blanked this section twice, so they certainly know about it. I've said I'll unblock for them to take part in this discussion providing they agree not to edit Alex Tan or related articles until these concerns here are resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

(I should add that I have not looked at the other issues and will not be able to, and this is just an action to stop the immediate ongoing warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC))

• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs) is trying to help at the editor's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) is also trying to help (despite being the one suffering the personal attacks - a nice way to respond, Zhanzhao, for which you have my thanks). The 24 hour block seems unlikely to be lifted with Sgwatcher apparently still adamant that they will not follow Wikipedia's policies (though he's still in a pretty angry mood right now - hopefully that will improve). I'm watching the progress at both Alex Tan and at User talk:Sgwatcher and will take any further admin action that might be needed (unless someone else gets there first). So, I think we've done all that is needed for now and this section can probably be closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He's threatening to sock now. Might want to keep this open just in case.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"We do this forever"... why does this strike me as familiar? Oh, because 66.102.157.201 (the subject in the ANI thread right above this one) said the exact same thing (proof: 1, 2) and within 24 hours of one another... Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That's actually not the full quote. "Remove the page or we do this forever" is the quote that is repeated. Interesting, but the IP clearly cut-and-pasted the "NOTHERE, BATTLEFIELD, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTGETTINGIT, NPA" thing from BMK, so the other phrase seems less suspicious to me. Doc talk 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, Doc9871. Thanks for the input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, just block Sgwatcher per WP:DUCK once 66's ban goes through, since there's no chance of it not passing at this point.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

They're not the same person. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, oh. Maybe he really does have a phalanx of grad students. EEng 18:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hehe. Worldwide too... US, Singapore, Australia! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Poirot Holmes

Can someone help me. I am dealing with an apparent good faith editor (see [60]), but could be a vandal, whose ramblings I do not understand and I don't want to be unprofessional. For example, I get messages like this from him/her:

How can I promote something by indicating that it is a copy and probably shameful one at that???

sir, Sent u message on ur talkpage. CRITICISM not commercialism! Please go thru mu mail & ask for any proof u like!

I have advised the editor to desist from editing until he/she acquires the faculties to do so. Quis separabit? 20:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Appears they want to shame(?) an author for using the same title for their novel that was the title of a Christie short story in The Hound of Death... or something like that. But your removal of the link seems correct. I've followed the article page... You're assuming good faith, but I don't see much room for it at this point. Their edits are disruptive and appear to have negative intent re: the author of the linked book. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @EvergreenFir for your explanation. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com! I want to point out your responses here and here. If you want to assume good faith, don't make threats to block someone and then speak to them as if they are trolls or idiots. Making threats to block someone in an angered fashion (which your response appears to be doing when you follow-up with "get it?") will incentivize bad faith editors to continue what they're doing (and even more so), since your responses will be essentially feeding him. Or, it will bite someone who really didn't understand. And going off on someone in all capital letters will further do the same -- it makes you appear as if you are angry, and (again) will either further chase away someone who was simply new, or will feed the troll even more. If you need more help and coaching with communication with this user, please leave a message on my talk page. That's my specialty, and I'll be happy to help you out :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Oshwah. I was getting stressed out so I withdrew from the field of battle. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob's been here ten years pal, but I'm sure he appreciates the offer _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - LOL, I wasn't offering him help thinking that the guy was a n00b! Even experienced editors occasionally need some help with DR and communication. He asked for help, so I offered help :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note. If he or she is a good-faith editor, hopefully it will help. If he or she is trolling, this should become apparent soon enough. Let's see what happens next. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Newyorkbrad. Quis separabit? 12:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin

A relatively new user named MugiMafin has tried to change the definition in the article "Japanese idol" several times already. That's almost the only thing he does on Wikipedia since last September.

• September 19
• April 17
• April 27
• May 25 (This time he just placed a tag, but still...)
• May 28
• May 31

Read the ongoing discussion on the talk page

• "Talk:Japanese idol#There's more than just the "cute teenage girl" kind of idol".

As you will see, he didn't find support for the changes he wanted to implement, that's probably why he acts like that. (Actually, I did find his ideas reasonable, but just read the discussion. It seems like he doesn't really want to work on the article, at all. The first thing that he does when he comes back lately is change the definition.)

I will now ping OpenFuture and Nihonjoe (who have participated in the discussion on the "Japanese idol" talk page.)

Also read this. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive314#User:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: Declined). (He reported me the next day I placed the first warning tag on his user page.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As you will see if you read the discussion, I have in fact found support for my changes, quoted and explained the relevant parts from the source in the talk section and took all of Moscow Connection's concerns into consideration with my last edit. See this for some more information: [61] MugiMafin (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN. Why are coming back and doing the same thing over and over?
(I've wasted enough time on this already. Now I just hope the article will have a couple of months of peace.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the AN3 report, I'm not seeing any 3RR violations, but someone may still see edit warring due to the overall length of time that both of you may have been going back-and-fourth on the article. I'm going to look at both of your edits made to the article and come back with what I find. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The source provided in the article... I'm not seeing where it explicitly defines what an "idol" is. Moscow Connection, MugiMafin: Can one of you two provide me the quote that is being used to support the content in the article so I can find it in the source? The following text appears to be what is in dispute: "The first new music performers were accomplished singer-songwriters, rather than 'manufactured stars' such as idols (Aoyagi 1999)", which appears to be what Moscow Connection is referring to when he reverts MugiMafin's changes (such as here). Can you confirm this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was here all the time: [62].

reference quotes from sources by Moscow Connection

(Book 1.) Hiroshi Aoyagi. Islands of eight million smiles: idol performance and symbolic production in contemporary Japan. Harvard University Asia Center, 2005 Since the late 1960s a ubiquitous feature of popular culture in Japan has been the "idol," an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model and exploited by the entertainment, fashion, cosmetic, and publishing industries to market trendy products. This book offers ethnographic case studies regarding the symbolic qualities of idols and how these qualities relate to the conceptualization of selfhood among adolescents in Japan and elsewhere in East Asia. The author explores how the idol-manufacturing industry absorbs young people into its system of production, molds them into marketable personalities, commercializes their images, and contributes to the construction of ideal images of the adolescent self. This dissertation focuses on the production and development of a conspicuous, widespread culture phenomenon in contemporary Japan, which is characterized by numerous young, mediapromoted personalities, or pop-idols, who are groomed for public consumption. The research, based on eighteen months of in-depth fieldwork in the Japanese entertainment industry, aims to contribute to the understanding of the allegorical role played by pop-idols in the creation of youth culture. Pop-idols are analyzed as personified symbols that function as vehicles of cultural production. The principal issues suggested in this research include: the criteria of popidol production; the ways in which pop-idols are produced; the perceptions of pop-idol performances by producers, performers, and consumers; the ways in which idol personalities are differentiated from each other; the ways in which pop-idol performances are distinguished from other styles or genres; and the social, cultural, political, economic, and historical roots as well as consequences of pop-idols' popularity. These issues are explored through the examination of female pop-idols. The single, most important function of pop-idols is to represent young people's fashions, customs, and lifestyles. To this end, the pop-idol industry generates a variety of styles that can provide the young audience with pathways toward appropriate adulthood. They do this within their power structure as well as their commercial interest to capitalize on adolescence - which in Japan is considered the period in which individuals are expected to explore themselves in the adult social world. The stylized promotion, practiced differently by promotion agencies that strive to merchandise pop-idol images and win public recognition, constitutes a field of symbolic contestation. The stage is thus set for an investigation of the strategies, techniques, and processes of adolescent identity formation as reified in the construction of idol personalities. This dissertation offers a contextualized account of dialogue that occurs between capitalism, particular rhetoric of self-making, and the lifestyle of consumers, mediated by pop-idols and their manufacturing agencies that function together as the cultural apparatus. The analysis developed in this dissertation hopes to provide theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of celebrities in other social, cultural, and historical settings. Kawaiko-chan, or "cute girls and boys," has become a synonym for idols in Japanese, representing carefully crafted public personae that try to appeal to viewers' compassion. (Book 2.) William W. Kelly. Fanning the Flames: Fans and Consumer Culture in Contemporary Japan. SUNY Press. 2012. The first new music performers were accomplished singer-songwriters, rather than “manufactured stars” such as idols (Aoyagi 1999). (Book 3.) Timothy J. Craig. Japan Pop: Inside the World of Japanese Popular Culture. Routledge. 2015. Going throught a difficult period of of physical and emotional development themselves, adolescent fans can easily empathize with idols who are embarking on their own growth journey: from inexperienced debutantes to experienced public figures and performers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Book 4.) Historical Dictionary of Postwar Japan A final musical genre is an idoru or "idol," largely a product of Japanese merchandising. Idol refers to the cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product. Talent agencies promote such starlets in advertising, music, television dramas, and performance tours. (Book 5.) Japan at the Millennium: Joining Past and Future Until the early 1990s, the most common feature embodied by pop idols to enhance the sense of companionship was cuteness. Kawaiko-chan, or "cute boys and boys," became a synonym for pop idols in 1970s and 1980s (Figure 7.2). ... according to Kuroyanagi Tetsuko, ..., people adore cute idols for their sweetness, which evokes the sense that "they should be protected carefully" ... --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC) And the book MugiMafin used as a source for his latest changes. He says it is the most up-to-date. But it again says idols are cute or cute-something. {Book 6.} Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture Idol performance has demonstrated new turns since I introduced its symbolic significance to the world, and changed in ways I would have never expected: instances are the growing popularity of Japanese pop idols alongside cutesy phenomena, manga and anime, as well as centers of “Cool Japan,” such as Shibuya and Akihabara, among European and American audiences in a form that may be called neo-Orientalism; the influx of Korean idols, such as BoA, Jinki, Kara, and Shōjo Jidai, into Japan’s pop idol scene; the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations alongside emergent hybrid buzzwords, such as erokawa (sexy-cutesy), kirekawa (classy-cutesy), and kawakakoii (cutesy-trendy)

Also note that I many times proposed that he could add all the additional information about how idols had changed somewhere lower in the article. But he just kept coming back and changing the first sentence. (Yes, he added one small paragraph, but he didn't even reference it. I said he should reference it, but he still didn't.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Moscow Connection - Oh, perfect. Thank you. I started going through the edits made in the article first, and started reading through the sources. Apparently, I should have started with the talk page discussion; else I wouldn't have wasted your time having to have you show (again) the references you're referring to. Sorry about that, by the way... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think your book sources and quotes seem just fine. They offer different perspectives with what is considered an "idol" in this culture, and your version of the article references them. I see that from the talk page discussion that (after some arm-twisting from Moscow Connection), MugiMafin finally provided a book (here), but there seems to be disagreements by MugiMafin with the use of some of the wording from this source (which was followed by back-and-fourth reverting). The issue I think we may be having is the fact that people have different views on what they define as "an idol", as well as what or who they idolize. What is wrong with providing both of your viewpoints? Where the article says "an idol can be defined like this, while others believe that it's also like that"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first paragraph of the "ambiguity of the term" section? That actually has a reference. Also, the problem with the article certainly isn't that it doesn't have enough paragraphs. The problem is that a lot of the existing paragraphs aren't properly sourced or the result of misinterpretations or a bad selection of sources (as is the case with the definition the way I see it). So instead of adding more paragraphs to the article I prefer improving the existing ones, from top to bottom. MugiMafin (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Yes, since this section appears to be where you two had this dispute at. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, we had a dispute about the very first sentence of the whole article.
But yes, I would like MugiMafin to reference the only paragraph he added to the article, and it is the first paragraph of the "Ambiguity" section. Cause, you see, he said that the article was bad and unsourced and how his aim was to improve it, but look at the source he added, does it say what the paragraph says?
Quote:
Although idols are often defined as something like "young manufactured stars/starlets", there are idols who push the boundaries of such a definition, like members of the groups SMAP and Arashi, who range in age from around 30 to over 40.^[63]" --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Exactly which sources in the article are a "bad selection"? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say any of the sources were bad in their entirety, just in respect to being the foundation for a definition of what Japanese idols are today. The Aoyagi quotes from 1999 (Book 2) and 2005 (Book 1) are questionable because in 2012 Aoyagi said that idols changed in ways he would have never expected when he wrote those first books on them. The Book 4 quote says idols are always female, which isn't true, and the Book 5 quote actually starts its definition with "until the early 1990s", implying it shouldn't be used for a modern definition. The Book 3 quote is fine though. MugiMafin (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There are three or so quotes above that actually give a definition: "an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model", "manufactured stars" and "cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product". They are used. Everything else can be added as a separate paragraph. Why not add another paragraph to the lead section? I've already suggested to do it several times, but you keep changing the first sentence.
(By the way, I do think the article doesn't have enough paragraphs. If I had time to spend on it, I would add much more.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My take on the whole situation is that MugiMafin wants to toss out all refs he considers too old, in favor of the one new ref he likes better, and he is edit warring to try to do that. That just doesn't fly. All of them can be used, and wording can be put into the article noting the alleged slight change in definition over the years (I don't see it as a change so much as a slight broadening of the term). He has demonstrated a disregard for the policies and guidelines by engaging in the discussion while simultaneously trying to force the definition to go his preferred way (as demonstrated by the edits at the top of this section). He needs to learn to play better with others or he will get blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe! You obviously know more about this situation and dispute than I do (I'm still "catching up"... haha). But I agree with your suggestion to talk about the change in the variation of the definition over the years. Like I said above, the definition is different with everyone; multiple aspects of what defines "an idol" are obviously going to pop up. Also, I appreciate the information regarding MugiMafin's rejection of references due to their age. The article should not replace the definition of an idol with "the best one", but instead should cover all of the definitions with equality and fairness. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the old refs staying at all actually, but I thought we should draw a new, less restrictive, definition from them. Not just because of my one source, but more importantly because there's counter-examples for all three attributes of the current definition: "young", "manufactured" and "star/starlet". The counter-example for "young" is already mentioned in the "ambiguity of the term" section, while counter-examples for "manufactured" and "star/starlet" come in the form of self-produced net idols as mentioned in the last source of the article's source list, archived here [64]. I would have actually been fine with just including a word like "typically" in the definition to account for these cases, as I told Moscow Connection a few times, but he didn't even accept that. I actually really like Oshwah's idea of providing more than one definition in the introduction though, and it would be nice if we could get Moscow Connection to accept that. MugiMafin (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You can find counter examples for every definition in the world.
2. The current definition defines the common case and is directly supported by the three sources that can actually qualify as definitions ("an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model", "manufactured stars" and "cute, girl-next-door singers who are designed, controlled, and marketed just like any other product. Talent agencies promote such starlets in advertising, music, television dramas, and performance tours.").
3. The result of what you do is so ambiguious that it can be used for almost every pop star in the world. What is the point of a definition then? A reader will come from articles like "Babymetal", "AKB48", "Morning Musume", "Cute", "Arashi" and what will he read? That idol is a person? The current definition, on the other hand, works very well. (All counter examples can be discussed in a separate section. I suggested you to add an "Ambiguity" section, you did it, now write it. What's the problem, really? Why change the first sentence?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Net idols" are "net idols", they are not the common sense of the word "idol". (By the way, they are already discussed in the "Net and virtual idols" section. Which is unsourced. Why don't you add references? And can mention them in the "Ambiguity" section.) --Moscow Connection -Moscow Connection (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the only counter example that you have provided so far is not even a counter example. Two pop groups that started as kids and now they are older? So what? I think they are young. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be fine with using more than one definition in the introduction though, as Oshwah suggested? MugiMafin (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be used as a second definition. But, if you remember, since the very beginning of our discussion I've been suggesting that instead of changing the first sentence you could add a note about counter examples as a additional paragraph. (In the beginning I said it could be a second paragraph and I waited that you would add it, but you changed the first sentence again instead.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and I think another definition can be added as a fourth paragraph in the lead section. How exactly do you want it to look? How can you integrate it into the lead section so that it doesn't look out of place? Can you propose an exact wording? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I already mentioned this as my preferred source for a definition on the talk page a few days ago: "Such is the power of “idols,” a word used in Japan to refer to highly produced and promoted singers, models, and media personalities. Idols can be male or female, and tend to be young, or present themselves as such". It's from Book 6 too. To use Oshwah's example from above, the final version could look like this: "an idol can be defined as a young manufactured star/starlet marketed as someone to be admired for their cuteness, while others say the word is used to refer to highly produced and promoted singers, models, and media personalities who can be male or female and tend to be young or present themselves as such". Can I use it like this in the article? MugiMafin (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Too many words, too repetitive and complicated, "while others say" doesn't fit with "can be defined", the second half is a copy-paste from the source.
Do you have another version?
Really, why don't you want to add another definition as a separate paragraph? Why the first sentence again? Why should there be two definitions in a row? Looking at this version, I don't think something like this will work. It's unreadable and uncomprehensible by a human. (Really, I can get the first half, I can get the second half, but I can't get the two combined.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to hear Oshwah's thought on my proposal before I make any other ones, because so far you rejected all of my around 10 suggestions, and not always for legitimate reasons. The reasons you gave this time don't sound particularly legitimate to me either, and I doubt it would be different next time, so instead of endlessly continuing this game of proposal and total rejection, I'd like to listen to what others have to say first. Also, since your objections seem to mostly be concerned with how the sentence sounds, you could propose one yourself that keeps my semantic content while sounding like you want it to sound. I don't know what sounds good to you and what doesn't, so you have to help me out here. MugiMafin (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What really needs to happen is updating the article itself first, and then determining what goes in the lead. The lead should be a brief summary of the content in the article, so unless something is already mentioned in the article outside of the lead, it shouldn't be in the lead. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's something I'm planning on doing too. But even now the first paragraph of the "ambiguity of the term" section[65] already explains what's wrong with the definition in the lead. So if we want the lead to reflect the article, the least we should do with the definition is turn the "an idol is a young manufactured star/starlet" part into something like ""idol" is a term typically used to refer to young manufactured stars/starlets". Wouldn't you agree? That's all the compromise I'm asking for really. MugiMafin (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Is a term typically used" — Yes, I would agree. And I would also agree to add "classy" or something like this (from the source you've been citing lately [66]) if it is made clear that cuteness is the common feature and everything else is optional and that idols are still cute. I would prefer it to be added as a second paragraph, but if you really, really want it, as a second sentence or even as an addition to the opening sentence. (By the way, I don't like the word "usually" in the current expression "usually cute". I think it could be changed to something like "common", and then it can be added that idols have changed towards more [something here]. But the definition should stay short and clear.) I hope Nihonjoe as a native speaker of English will help.
(By the way, I must say that I liked your idea of starting with "is a certain type of entertainment personality". But then you dropped it and never returned to it again.) (Sorry, by the way. I'm not sure I've seen this comment of yours before.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think both of you need to make a concerted effort to work out consensus on the talk page. Do not discuss each others' behaviors. Clearly define what changes you propose, and include references to back up the proposed changes. Be open to compromise. We often don't get everything we want, but if everyone is reasonably happy with the outcome, that is what we aim for. I don't see any reason for this thread to remain open as there is nothing for admins to do in this case (at the moment). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. There's no guarantee the new discussion will turn out better than the one we've been having until now, but it can't hurt to give it a try. MugiMafin (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick question about personal attacks in headers

The editor named Al-Andalusi made this edit to an article Talk page, naming me in the header and personally attacking me. I changed the header to a neutral wording and informed the editor of WP:TALKNEW, which prohibits naming editors in headers and attacking editors in headers. Now he's edit-warring with me to keep the problematic header. Can an admin tell me if I'm misunderstanding the guideline? (Full disclosure: The same editor is presently reverting every edit I make on the article, too, and I'm very close to reporting him/her, so this seemingly silly concern is just part of a much bigger issue.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, since this user has a history of edit warring. Please make a report about this user's other actions, since perhaps they'll warrant additional sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the neutral section heading. Also changed 604800 seconds on the block notice to one week. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Umm...all due respect Nyttend, but I'm gonna take issue with the block (disclosure: uninvolved until about ten minutes ago). It doesn't appear that anyone actually crossed 3RR, and a history of issues is not itself sufficient for a block. Furthermore, OP has lengthy block log of their own.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is a thinly veiled content dispute. I have a hard time believing that OP is ANI level offended because someone called them right wing or used their name in a header. It seems instead that both editors used most of day reverting each other instead of talking, and when Andalusi finally went to talk (which OP should have done to begin with), OP started another edit war on talk over a triviality and immediately ran to ANI.

Sorry, but borderline wikilawyering over TALKNEW and the mildest of incivilities does not justify a block that conveniently allows OP to avoid actually having a content discussion which should have started a while ago. I have addressed other content related issues on the page's talk, which is where all of this should have stayed. TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input here, and on the article Talk page, Timothyjosephwood. I find merit in your comments about possibly problematic content in the article (i.e.; "right-wing" characterizations), none of which was added by me, and in your admonition to Al-Andalusi about his inappropriate Talk page headers and personal attacks. I fail to see the merit in your assertion that there was any kind of "Wikilawyering" going on, or in your description of accusations of prejudice and racism against myself (and not an administrator) are merely "mildest of incivilities". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Further, OP is in serious BOOMERANG territory with an edit like this, which is fundamentally a continuation of the edit war, but with an edit summary of "+wikilinks" (because they apparently added nearly 700 bytes of purely brackets). TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my edit or the edit summary. I opened an edit screen - added two wikilinks to the 2 "Alans" in that section, after researching the correct disambiguated names - then clicked "Save page". The fact that the other editor introduced a full revert in the meantime was unknown to me, and didn't cause an edit conflict, and certainly wasn't intentionally part of a revert war. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: You're talking about WP:3RR which is a bright line rule for edit warring. But the edit warring policy stands on its own without 3RR and it says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions....Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks." The definition of an edit war doesn't mention how many reverts over what period of time. 3RR is just one standard bright line that we can use to, essentially, make an easy decision. But edit warring itself can be a more subjective consideration of many factors including but not limited to the number of edits in a certain time period.--v/r - TP 23:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Yes, I am familiar with 3RR, and I am familiar with the fact that both editors engaged in edit warring on both the article and the talk. If you're going to ban one, then ban them both and let them cool off. Banning one for something both did when they both should have been talking only rewards the first person to get their feelings hurt and run to ANI.TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't do cooling off blocks and we don't block one person just because we blocked another. This isn't the fairness noticeboard. Administrators are supposed to look at the situation and use discretion to end the disruption. Nyttend determined that one of them was being more disruptive than the other and acted within his discretion. This has nothing to do with who got to ANI first.--v/r - TP 23:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Again, I'm sorry to disagree, but when an editor is blocked 41 seconds after their ANI notification, I have a hard time believing the blocking admin had time to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the report. Honestly, I fully expected an uninvolved contest of the block to result in an unblock from Nyttend at least for the purpose of discussion. I still think that's appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 00:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy is firm: headers must be neutral. Edit-warring doesn't have to cross the 3RR line to be block-worthy; when you edit-war to enforce the inclusion of a non-neutral header, a quicker block is warranted, and when you already have a recent history of blocks for edit-warring, there's no reason to be lenient for the sake of "this person perhaps didn't know the policy". Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Both were edit warring. Both hit three reverts on the talk. As pointed out above in the edit conflict, OP was using a deceptive summary to purposefully hide their warring on the article. Both should have gone to talk and actually talked, and OP chose to be obstinate over a minor point to avoid conversation.

Again, sorry, but the "must be neutral" argument fails WP:COMMON in this case. It wasn't a heading calling them a Nazi; it was a heading using their name, and more so, to identify and address an edit. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OP was using a deceptive summary to purposefully hide their warring on the article

Incorrect (and a ridiculous assumption of bad faith). How exactly can an edit summary hide edit warring? And as explained above, there was no deception. This may be a shocker to you, but every edit displays the change in bytes, and each can be individually inspected. Anyone responsible for policing edit wars can see there were two editors involved in that exchange, regardless of edit summary content.

OP chose to be obstinate over a minor point to avoid conversation

Oh, please. I had addressed each of the editor's concerns on the Talk page and was patiently awaiting a response. Care to amend? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You were not patiently awaiting a response, you were edit warring on the talk as if whether or not your name appeared in a header was a matter of life or death. You should have gone to talk after you reverted the first time. You should have awaited response before edit warring on the talk. You should have not reverted two or three pages worth of edits on a contentious article and then mocked the other editor for "'blanket revert' (whatever that is)" in the most condescending tone possible.

There were indeed two editors involved in that exchange, and that's exactly my point. You need the same treatment the other does, whether its two bans or two people learning to carry on a conversation like adults on the talk. TimothyJosephWood

The warring was between a policy-compliant header and one that was strongly at variance with policy. I'm not about to sanction someone for enforcing policy. Moreover, WP:WIAPA says that unsubstantiated accusations of personal behavior, made without solid evidence, are considered personal attacks. I suggest that you stop with those unsubstantiated accusations against Xenophrenic, because a block isn't far away. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. So I have offered a dissent, on a subject that I was not involved in until being brought to it through my bored perusing of ANI. I addressed the involved admin per WP:GBU, and (apparently naively) expected the admin to reexamine their decision at least temporarily pending consensus, and instead they have threatened to block me? I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, that was the entire original point of my contribution: to offer a third uninvolved opinion.

The "offender" in this case was banned 41 seconds after being notified that there was an ANI concerning them. I'm sorry, but there's no way you appropriately investigated this situation in that time frame.I understand your permissions outweigh mine, but your opinion in as much as it determines consensus does not. Both users were wrong, both users were edit warring, and some attempt at consensus should be at least attempted when a ban is contested by a third party.

RfC or DR should have been a preface to all of this. You should have recognized a content dispute and directed them there but you didn't. I stand by my accusations of personal behavior and I stand by my suggestion that you should be open to uninvolved discussion of the issue and a stay of your decision pending discussion. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Can we ratchet back the hyperbole, misrepresentation and exaggeration, just a little, please? Yes, I was patiently awaiting a response - for exactly 60 minutes. I had responded to Al-Andalusi's concerns, and asked clarifying questions of my own - and I waited. Al-Andalusi gets kudos for initiating the discussion (as the editor with the concerns), after which I refrained from editing the article further. He/she, however, continued to edit the article, while I waited for a response. He/she could find the time to visit the Talk page to repeatedly insert policy-violating headers (which I of course reverted), but he couldn't be bothered to discuss the content concerns - while I waited. You say I shouldn't have "reverted two or three pages worth of edits", and I agree - that's why I didn't. My edits barely amounted to 600 bytes, and I was careful to preserve most of the other editor's edits, while improving some and undoing a couple (when they were not supported by the cited sources). Let me guess, you are going to call that a "blanket revert" (whatever that is)? After searching Talk pages across Wikipedia for the meaning of the term "blanket revert", it is apparent that only one editor has been doing "blanket reverts" during this exchange, and it wasn't me. I understand that you said on the Talk page I'm not going to take the time to read..., but I implore you to find the time to actually examine the edits you are criticizing. And after your "like adults" comment, I'll withhold comment on your accusations about "the most condescending tone possible". It would probably be a good idea to double-check the time stamp on the notification of this ANI discussion, and the block at least 30 minutes later.

Tim, you are correct that it takes two to edit-war, and I'm sure many Admins find it easier to just whack all involved with the same hammer regardless of circumstance. I can't read Nyttend's mind, but I would hope that certain facts worked in my favor: One of us ceased editing the article once discussion started. One of us didn't accuse fellow editors of "activist" editing or allude to racism. One of us didn't edit-war to add policy-violating headers to Talk pages. But yeah, we were both in a content dispute. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Xenophrenic] Bear in mind that I've not looked at edits made to the article. I don't care how long has passed between notification and block: all that was needed was a quick check of the page history to find a few diffs, [67][68][69][70][71][72][73]. Those diffs quite obviously aren't a content dispute: it's disruption of the talk page. If you have a history of edit warring, you previously demonstrated your unwillingness to stop disruption, and if now you're edit-warred to force a policy violation to stay on the page, you're demonstrating that you haven't learnt from the past and won't be stopped by words. Nothing wrong if you have a history but have learnt from it, but edit-warring to establish policy violations is highly tendentious. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Imma go ahead and say sleep on it (which is what I intend to do) because half those diffs are just the war between the two users. No hard feelings. See you tomorrow I suppose.TimothyJosephWood 02:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend:, please review this thread again, and withdraw the "a block isn't far away" threat. It's really inappropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. I agree that admins aren't required to put up with personal attacks just because they are admins, but the threat comes off as a slap in the face of WP:ADMINACCT. Let someone else address Timothy if necessary.--v/r - TP 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. If you make unsubstantiated accusations about personal behavior, you are specifically going against the NPA policy. Continue to question my judgement in the block, if you wish, and I'll engage you on it (I disagree, but I have no objections), but the NPA policy demands that we clamp down hard on people who make attacks like yours on Xenophrenic. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think you should take a step back from this thread, you appear to be getting defensive and agitated. Especially since you appear to be confusing me with Timothy.--v/r - TP 01:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry man, but these are two people who don't know how to talk. That's the issue. Eliminating one of them doesn't solve the problem. I'm sorry , a million times, but I really see the disruption on the talk as a continuation of both users trying to avoid 3RR and yet still war. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• As Nyttend stated, OP here was attempting to enforce policy with regard to the talk page header. Few admins are going to sanction an editor for reverting what appears to be a clear violation of that policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break re: Al-Andalusi v. Xenophrenic

(Apologies in advance for length.)

Well, here I am, coffee in hand, so I'll try to say my peace and move on to productivity.

• Xenophrenic made a large reversion, a bad habit on contentious sections of contentious topics.
• They failed to go to talk and explain any rationale, or even what exactly was changed in such a large edit.
• They continued to not talk when they again reverted with no explanation.
• When Al-Andalusi did go to talk, Xenophrenic responded in a way guaranteed to escalate tensions by WP:WIKILAWYERING to prove a WP:POINT that they stood on the moral high ground:
  • Editing out "right wing", and
  • Taking terrible offense at their name being included in the header, not really an attack, both mild at best, and both something most not involved in a content dispute/edit war would ignore, and
  • Otherwise taking a flippant and condescending tone
• Both reached three revisions on the talk, and here we are, where Al-Andalusi was blocked due in part to their block history despite the fact that:
  • Both users were edit warring
  • Xenophrenic was behaving so as to obviously escalate the situation
• And none of this seemed to take into account a longer and more disruptive history by Xenophrenic:
  • Blocked seven times for edit warring and 1R violation
  • Returning to edit war on a page they were previously blocked over
  • Getting a final warning and avoiding a block due to page protection.
  • Another page protection due to warring
  • Another 3RR report that was apparently simply ignored
  • At least one additional stale 3RR report
  • Aaand at this point I'm just going to stop going through the eighty some odd times this user has been involved in notice boards because I think I've made the point.

TL;DR; At the end of the day both editors' behavior and disruptive history leave much to be desired, but the only thing that the current block has accomplished is to hand a victory in a content dispute to one side for nit-picking a policy that wasn't really hurting anything anyway, and being the first to run to ANI about their ostensibly hurt feelings.

Now, having written damned near a treatise on the issue:

• Propose either the ban be undone, both users strongly warned, and the talk mediated by someone (probably not me as I'm fairly involved at this point), or
• Propose WP:BOOMERANG for Xenophrenic for edit warring on both the article and the talk, when the onus was on them as the initial reverter to engage in discussion, as well as a general inability to ignore being called a doo-doo-head. If this is an issue of someone not having learned their lesson, it clearly applies to both editors. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both the block was within admin discression. The only thing I see going on here is the perpetuation of drama. The initial problem is over, {{unblock}} exists for a reason and the blocked editor can make use of it. Let it be. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both. In this specific instance, the block was justified. There's no room for a boomerang here, as OP was acting within policy to remove the talk page header. Your concern is that there was drama, and perhaps there was - but we didn't block for drama, we blocked for edit warring. And guess what? The edit warring has stopped. A block on Xenophrenic for a situation that is over? That'd be punitive, against policy - and in what way would that block improve the project? No, there's no real justification for it. As for the unblock - to the best of my knowledge, Al-Andalusi is not prevented from editing their own talk page. They can make a request that will be judged on the merits. So no basis for an unblock, either. There's nothing here to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit flippant to adopt a stance akin to "When there's an edit war, just block one or the other. Doesn't matter. War's over." Also, WP:TALKNEW is not an exception to 3RR, and per 3RR blocks are appropriate to encourage behavioral change. But apparently I'm the only person who takes issue with it. Oh well. TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So do you think a block here will change Xeno's behavior or end the edit war more than it has already ended? Be specific - in what way will a block improve the project? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea if it would change their behavior, I should hope so. The user hasn't learned not to edit war, they've just become more savvy at it. They haven't learned to follow policy and guidelines, they've learned to use them to their advantage. The message being sent is loud and clear:

"If you have a content dispute with another editor, don't waste your time trying to resolve it on talk. Instead, try to entice them into an edit war using an obscure barely applicable policy. But make sure your first at ANI, because they might not too deeply into the context or your own history if you're OP. Once they're gone, voila, no one can do anything to you regardless of how you acted, because the edit war is over, and no one seems to understand WP:BLOCKDETERRENT."

"Remember kids, if the spirit of the law were really more important than the letter, they would have written it down."TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Both (Non-administrator comment) the Administrator used their discretion. Discretion exists for a reason, the blocking administrator made a choice, one I agree with. The Uncivil comments are probably what lead the blocking administrator to issue the block. And to block the other editor now would violate wikipedia's blocking policy blocks are not punitive but are there to protect the community. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• The long posts by TimothyJosephWood miss the point—the first diff in the OP was this, and that shows one editor misusing an article talk page. It's not the greatest wikicrime, but a talk page section heading should address a content topic, and should not assert as fact that a named editor is doing something bad. Further, an article talk page is not the place to assert that a named editor has used a misleading edit summary or "disingenuously inserted uncited weasel words", or is a right-wing activist. If over-excited and under-informed, someone might post that, but the only reasonable response at ANI is to say that Al-Andalusi's comments were highly inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor continues to upload images as her own work when they are not

I am concerned about editor Andreea9703 (talk · contribs · logs), who has been warned previously ([74],[75],[76]) for uploading copyrighted images as her own. In the past few days she has uploaded File:Hanna.jpg.png (credited from Getty Images [77]), as well as a number of other (but not necessarily copyrighted?) images as her own. I don't know the rules on uploading screenshots and images from Twitter, but at the very least, the licensing is wrong for all of these. They are not her own work. File:Emily.jpg.png (actual source [78]), File:Nik.jpg.png (actual source [79]), File:Riley.jpg.png (source [80]), File:Hhanna.jpg.png (from [81]), File:Johanna.jpg.png (source?), File:Roger.jpg.png (source?), File:RM.jpg.png (source?), File:Freya.jpg.png (source?) . I'm not sure what to do about this, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. My apologies if I am in the wrong place. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All of these copyright violations need to be deleted. Blackmane (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that some of them have been nominated on commons. @Andreea9703: better have a good explanation for this else they should be indefinitely blocked straight away for copyright violations. Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't ambiguous licensing grounds for CSD? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry F9 Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

F3? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Their content edits have been problematic as well, at least as far back as January. They have already been blocked previously, but sadly it has obviously had no ameliorating effect. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 08:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I tagged their files on Commons as copyviod and npd. I also sent them a last warning for uploading copyvios. Pokéfan95 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jadcherla

(Moved from AN. BMK (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

I've added content with good and official references. But multiple IPs have ermoved and all have performed the same edit of adding back the previous content which do not have references and most of the content is WP:OR and WP:Unreferenced and also do not satisfy wiki rule of WP:NOTDIR. The differences are, edit1,edit2, edit3, edit4,edit5, edit6, edit7. Each time a different IP was used.--Vin09 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note But not over ten edits and five hours later. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User Talk page vandalism by IP and insufficient protection and blocks

• Widr (talk · contribs)
• 79.74.40.193 (talk · contribs)
• 79.74.58.179 (talk · contribs)

Beginning on April 4 2016[82], an IP has been making personal attacks on my talk page. If I revert them, he puts them up again. My page has been protected here[83], here[84], and here[85] . The IP has been blocked for NPAs on my talk page three times[86]. The third block was for a month but he hopped to another location before that block ended. Administrator Widr blocked today for only three days[87] in spite of the violating IP being blocked for a month right now and having violated the block.

I have asked for indefinite page protection but have been told no and that is why I am here. Blocks and temporary protection have been shown to be worthless and in three days as sure as the sun will rise, the IP will be back. A 3-day block today was a bad joke in light that the IP is currently blocked for a month for the exact same behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ummm... What would you consider an adequate solution? Permanent page protection? A rangeblock? Kleuske (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We do not usually protect user talk pages for anything much longer than a few days but in cases of long term abuse, we may protect for longer periods while creating an unprotected talk subpage so that unconfirmed editors can still communicate with you. You will not get notifications from that page. Drop me a line if you you would like to do this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unabated disruptive editing by IP jumper

• 174.29.69.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.212.34.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.208.1.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.212.48.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.29.1.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.29.184.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are more, but these are the most recent.

Editor is continuing unabated a pattern of disruptive editing to numerous articles, including several BLPs. The most frequent targets include, among many others, Jack Albertson (this one in particular), Idina Menzel, Irene Bedard, Evelyn Venable, Judith Barsi, Christine Cavanaugh, Miriam Margolyes, Susan Backlinie, Heather O'Rourke, Brittany Byrnes, Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers, and Suicide of Kelly Yeomans. Patterns include:

• Addition of "Cause of death ... [causing/leading to] death" to infobox: 1, 2, 3
• Addition of "Cremated" to "Resting place" in infobox: 1, 2, 3
• Changing parents having children to "she bore him": 1, 2, 3
• Conversely, addition of "born ... to [his/her] expecting parents": 1, 2, 3
• Addition of otherwise unencyclopedic days of the week: 1, 2, 3

This barely scratches the surface; most such edits have been done repeatedly from each IP. Also done repeatedly: addition of non-notable relatives to infoboxes, addition of unsourced data to BLPs, laundry lists of "notable works" in infoboxes, etc. (Edit: meantime, as this pattern continues, I would swear this guy is paid by the word. "[death_cause =] Suicide by shooting following a self-inflicted gunshot wound leading to death"? Seriously?)

This person is largely if not entirely responsible for a previous report.

70.212.34.16 already has been blocked twice, most recently for two weeks as of 24 May. I am requesting a three-month block to each of these IPs, with more possibly to come. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This IP-hopper does not respond to inquires, comments or reproofs, but continues with the same type of edits. If the editor behind the IPs had an account, an indef would not be out of line. BMK (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: 70.212.34.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked by @Coffee: May 23, 2016 for two weeks for "(persistent addition of unsourced content)" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As I note above. Thanks. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Potentially connected IP editors. The IP addresses above have also made similar edits to articles that were brought to ANI attention earlier in May. This is a long-term pattern using multiple IPs of wireless carriers. AldezD (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for your hard work on that report, which I linked above. If I'd thought about it, I'd've pinged you, sorry. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Admins: May we get action on this? The disruption of the encyclopedia continues. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, ATinySliver. Individually some of the edits seem quirky but innocuous, but the pattern of their editing is disruptive and bizarre at times. I have blocked as requested. I am sure they will hop on to new IPs, so we may need to semi-protect the most common target articles. Fences&Windows 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping, ATinySliver. Fences&Windows 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks, F&W. It is true that some of the user's edits are perfectly acceptable, while some that otherwise appear acceptable will introduce—repeatedly and aggressively—unsourced data to BLPs. The norm, as you note, is the "disruptive and bizarre" behavior. When this user hops again—and he will—more such blocks will undoubtedly be needed. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

He's back already. Please see your talk, F&W. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso and user:Epipelagic being uncivil in talk:Fish and user talk:Epipelagic

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.

---

Okay, just to background this first: I made a comma adjustment (added a serial comma) at Fish that Epipelagi reverted because he falsely thought it was against the MOS and proceeded to tell me that I was "wrong." I verified that the MOS says that those are fine, but just be consistent about it through the article. So I showed him that there were many serial commas in place there and I put a few others in place to make the article consistent. But then he edit-warred them back and I then put a warning on his talk page about that, and then he warred them back again and told me to write about it at the talk page. Well, my report about this is at the appropriate location here [88] at 3RR, so see that there. This right here is just for background about the other user involved, Ihardlythinkso. So here we go:

While making those comma-related edits and a few others, I made the supposed mistake (according to Ihardlythinkso, but I don't see any reason yet to dispute it) of changing links at Fish from the simple-pluralism-outside format ("[[example]]s") to the fully-a.k.a. format [[example|examples]]"), and then he/she reverted one of them, telling me that it went against WP-advocated format. Okay, fine. But why was only one reverted? Well, let me be a good guy by fixing the rest of them back. All right, so I did that. But then what do I get in the edit summaries and the talk page for being good and fixing those back (plus a few others that I caught)? Oh no, not neutrality, and certainly no praise either. Instead, I get yelled at for supposedly "editing incorrectly" and "disruptively"! But how is it so "disruptive" to put the stuff back the way they WANT it? What? Can they not make up their minds? My goodness, what is their problem?

So here's where the uncivility by Ihardlythinkso and Epipelagic comes in:

1. Epipelagic falsely calls my warning "trolling" on his his edit summaries. How is giving an edit-warring warning "trolling" if that is what he was doing, the same way as I got some warnings back when I was in IP mode?

2. Ihardlythinkso did the same thing.

3. Then ihardlythinkso also called me "insulting" and a "jerk" on Talk:Fish here: [89] just for reporting epipelagic and asking him on the talk page not to revert my changes that made the article consistent just like the MOS says to! And then calls my writings "shit." All right, so that makes him a hypocrite since he used those insults against me even though he complained against me for supposedly "insulting" epipe even though I wasn't.

4. Epipelagic reverts my edits again, implying that I'm "incompetent" by telling me to read WP:INCOMPETENCE.

So what will you do to these guys for being so uncivil to me even though I was doing the right thing? Wanna block them both for a while?

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose This filing be immediately closed; clearly a content dispute (Too Small a Fish to Fry is clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING). _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's NOT forum shopping. One report, this one, is for uncivility; the other is for edit-warring. One user was being uncivil without yet edit-warring. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No. You are attempting a two-pronged attack. I notice you have not notified those editors of this discussion; that is a fundamental requirement, and a major failing in your filing.... _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the one but not the other. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I did notify epi already, using the edit-warring warning that that report form says I should use. The "diff" is already there. If I failed to notify ihardlythinkso, then I'm sorry for that and will attempt to rectify that ASAP. But it's not a "two-pronged" attacked. Epi DID indeed edit-war and use incivility, while ihardlythinkso was just uncivil. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Negative. The AN3 report automatically generates a repoty for that. You need to inform them of this report. Even more important. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I went to ihardlythinkso's talk page and saw that Gen. had already beaten me to the warning. I acknowledged his effort by telling him that he had beaten me. So I think we are where we need to be as far as all of those pesky notifications go. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You were phenomenally disingenuous: "You beat me too it"... yeah, by over twenty minutes.. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GAB notified.TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed :) GAB^gab 13:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think there's maybe anything... uncivil in the way you address Epipelagic here? "FYI, edit-warrior...Well, warrior... I respectfully ask you, edit-warrior,..."[90] You also state that he's ignorant. That's not very civil, is it? Also, the way you ask "Wanna block them both for a while?" is unlikely to gain you any points here. Doc talk 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope! Because people tell others all the time that they're edit-warring or that they're edit-warriors. I've seen many an admin do exactly that while I was just in IP mode. I have done nothing different. And as for blocking, then what call to action is supposedly "better" then? If other people can request blocks for incivility and be fine, then why "shouldn't" I be able to do the same thing? Why is inconsistency the Wikipedia's favorite weakness to have? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right of course; people do do it all the time. But they tend not to do it (more than once anyway) if they are laying themselves open to the same thing... have you ever read WP:BOOMERANG? You should; 'tis a delightful piece. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For context on the "wanna block them", User:Ihardlythinkso seems to have given Too Small the idea that incivility was a blocking offence during that discussion ("IMO an admin s/ block you for your totally off-base & insulting rant"), before immediately calling their contributions "an absolute abortion", and responding to Too Small's (quite polite) response by calling them a "jerk" who says "crazy shit". I'd have put money on what a frustrated new editor would do next, here. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard of this (even remember, I was in IP mode for a long time). So why do even ADMINS do it then, though that's standard wiki terminology, and what word should be baby edit-warriors with instead, then? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that Small Fish close either this or the thread over at AN3. It's the same crowd talking about the same thing on two boards. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also going to go ahead and point out that this is one of the dumbest reasons for a dispute I've seen in a while. [[WP:Trout]]s = WP:Trouts ... [[WP:Trout|WP:Trouts]] = WP:Trouts. Why is this even remotely worth getting mad about? TimothyJosephWood 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) I was just about to mention the same (boomerang) possibility. User:Too Small a Fish to Fry I urge you very strongly to withdraw this notice before someone launches a boomerang (it will not be me, but some people relish in doing this). You have launched this notice on the basis of Incivility. There is no evidence whatsoever that Epipelagic has been Incivil. Ihardlythinkso has used some choice words which I would have not used, but you need to establish a pattern of this type of behaviour (if this exists) before launching an ANI. You seem to be very angry at something or someone. Please withdraw this notice before a boomerang is issued which will only make you angrier. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is unsanctionable and if Epipelagic calls you a troll, you're probably a troll. Withdraw this report before it WP:BOOMERANGs. 172.56.28.84 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anybody here got a very small frying pan handy...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

HAR, HARRRR.... Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, DrChrissy, how do I do that, then, if reporting one guy for incivility over at the warring board seems dishonest because I have to admit that he wasn't warring with me at the article even though he was rude, and if, the very moment I report someone for edit-warring here on the general-incidents board, someone else will tell me to take that one to the warring board instead?

Oh, 172.56.28.84? How do you figure ihardlythinkso gets extra privileges? And why should I be considered a "troll" for putting a warning on the page of someone who deserved one just like when others have put the same kind of warning on my pages after just 2-3 of my reversions while I was just an IP address but nobody would stand up and call those warnings trolling? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, let's close this before someone can even answer my quetion. "Nice." At least reopen it after the edit-warring thing is resolved. Besides, even ADMINS have used "edit-warrior" and not gotten in trouble for it. Why should they get to? And why do you figure that telling someone that they are the thing that does something is any different from telling them that they're doing that thing? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats and Sock 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.

---

Through their edit summaries, Harper9979 (talk · contribs) is making legal threats towards me and the Wikipedia foundation logged in and logged out as 110.171.182.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As a side-note, the account and the IP have both been blocked for sock puppetry in the past. This behavior looks to be continuing immediately after the initial/original blocks. Vensco (T / C) 17:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the 110 there is User:49.237.135.240 and User:49.237.143.63 that I know of. There is a history of sock blocks with 110.171.182.13 -- GreenC 18:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:AcidRock67

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.

---

AcidRock67 has a lengthy history of disruptive editing at Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary. AcidRock67 has been blocked twice by Bishonen; the second block lasted for two weeks. AcidRock67 has now returned from his most recent block to continue the same disruptive editing at Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary. At the former article, AcidRock67 restored the claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher", which is an uncited claim not supported by talk page consensus. AcidRock67 was reverted by Johnuniq; he then reverted Johnuniq in turn, and without explanation. I reverted AcidRock67, and AcidRock67 then reverted me too, again without explanation. It is an almost identical story at Timothy Leary: AcidRock67 readded the assertion that Leary was a philosopher to the article, despite its being removed many times before. Johnuniq removed the claim, AcidRock67 reverted Johnuniq, I reverted AcidRock67, and AcidRock67 reverted me. Note that AcidRock67 is behaving this way despite a request for comment on the talk page arriving at a consensus against labeling Leary a philosopher. How long is Wikipedia going to stand for such behavior? AcidRock67 has been warned about edit warring a more than sufficient number of times, but he continues to edit war against multiple users, and at multiple articles, despite having been blocked in the past for editing disruptively. I suggest that AcidRock67 receive another lengthy block, with the possibility of an indefinite block if he persists in editing disruptively afterwards. If AcidRock67 cannot do much on Wikipedia except endlessly revert at Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary, there may be little that can be done except an eventual indefinite block. Topping banning him from the Huxley and Leary articles might be an option, but I am not sure it would be effective, given his uncooperative attitude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It appears they simply waited out the two-week block and then immediately resumed edit warring on the articles, still never touching a talkpage. I won't piffle around with further limited blocks after a pattern like that; if the user writes an unblock request undertaking to change their approach, I'll be fine with an unblock. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC).

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

Incorrect attempt at closing an AfD (by the article author)

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 investigate the recent edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munik Nunes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the associated article. It's difficult to tell whether this is bad faith or ignorance/confusion. giso6150 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the templates seeing as the AFD isn't an image file, I'd say just them write what they want within reason (or revert if necessary) and just let the AFD go on, They'e not done anything that warrants banning and protecting the AFD would be harmful to IPs who actually have legit concerns, –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah hadn't realized they'd blanked the AFD and moved it - Well they've not continued after the final warning so blocking them would be pointless at this stage however if they do cause shit then report them to AIV. –Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Hebel

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, for the page Kingdom of Hungary, an editor by the name of Hebel keeps changing the edit I have improved upon the page. On the page regarding the Kingdom of Hungary, I have added the Polish language to the section of "other languages spoken". The area that the Kingdom of Hungary covered what is today part of Poland. All other areas the kingdom covered list the respective languages. This user keeps removing Polish from the language section, despite the fact that when one reads the article it shows the connections between Poland and Hungary. He tells me to source my edit, when not even any of the other languages spoken listef have a source. Can someone please help and prevent him from undoing my edit once more?. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.240 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that when you start a discussion about another user on this page, you MUST notify them on their talk page. I have now done so for you [91]. shoy (reactions) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. I am not an administrator but I'm guessing no administrator is going to take action here. My advice would be to start a discussion on the talk page and try and work this out with Hebel and the other editors I'm sure are active on that page. Jlahnum (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

what is going on with this editor? odd activity..

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:3357:BA0:D9DE:B7A4:E655:796D68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That IP is reverting vandalism and unsourced content and warning them on their talk page, which I do too. :) KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Should the verifiable fact that a president named of an all white-male Cabinet be removed from an article, or not?

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.

---

Basically, the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, NY Times, BBC, Reuters, Forbes, London Independent,etc - regarding Michel Temer's cabinet - published that he "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". They reported that Temer called for a government of "national salvation" and asked for the trust of the Brazilian people. He created his cabinet "in order to restore confidence in Brazil and demonstrate his commitment to fighting corruption." Finally, they published that "Ms Rousseff attacked the cabinet for being all-male and all-white.".

All the information above said has been removed, except the part that tells the reader that "Temer called for a government of "national salvation" and asked for the trust of the Brazilian people." by Xuxo. I failed the task to explain what is a Biographies of living persons, the importance of Neutral point of view and show that the sources that were used are Verifiability Reliable sources. I don't think that Xuxo knows What Wikipedia is not. Please, be so kind as to help us resolve the dispute. I don't want to be forced to ask the administrators to block the user, if we can avoid it. Thanks. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

First, we should move this to the dispute resolution noticeboard as this is not the correct place for this. Now, what you added on the article which is solely supposed to focus on Michel Temer is that he appointed people that are "all-male, conspicuously white". Ok, so this quote comes from The Guardian, who's staff loved Hugo Chávez and South America's left. They also POV push Rousseff so much in this article about how "Dilma Rousseff, the country’s first female president ... was stripped of her powers" and that Temer "was accused of treachery by his former running mate Rousseff, who claimed she was forced out of office by 'sabotage', 'open conspiracy' and a 'coup'", while Temer's cabinet is described like this: "Temer and his cabinet are also tainted by corruption allegations. The interim president himself faces an impeachment challenge and has been barred from standing for office for eight years due to election violations." So, this quote about the white cabinet is what bothers me, it does not matter what color their skin is. But, what I think is more suitable, is placing the corruption allegations. Those are pretty interesting. I may add them myself soon enough, let's just stay away from the color of people's skin.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! Why not "just stay away from the color of people's skin" starting with the article "Apartheid"? Or the word "Jews" out of Nazi Germany? Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 01:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, You are wrong! It wasn't ONLY the Guardian, several agencies published this FACT, this REALITY. For example, The NY Times said: "Temer has faced daily protests in Brazil's main cities since he took office. Artists, intellectuals and politicians both left-leaning and moderate have also rejected him acting as president, not only for their opposition to Rousseff's impeachment but also for Temer's naming of an all white-male Cabinet that is trying implement more conservative policies.. Your attempt to hide reality will not work! This is the Wikipedia. Sorry! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry. I didn't see that because I only used the quote you provided above. But anyways, let's just focus on the people and their actions, not their skin color. I'm more interested in why his cabinet is "tainted by corruption allegations".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Please advise admin editor to not remove my posts from another editor's page just because he doesn't like them

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.

---

HighInBC removed my comments on another user's talkpage all on his own (without asking the editor) and left his own...he left his own comment critical of one of my comments but removed my comment that was critical of his criticism...it also disrupted the flow of comments via when things were timestamped...He's censoring on someone else's talkpage without that person's permission...(note: if that person asked me to stop posting on their page I certainly would)...please see the recent back and forths on both his talkpage and mine where he refused to reinstate comments and basically told me to bring it here...and also see the user's talkpag...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HighInBC...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.48.241.158...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.162.157.141 (note too HighInBC has been generally following me around Wikipedia for the past couple of weeks and has involved himself in many of the things I've involved myself in..)68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been spending the last few days drawing attention to what they believe are issues with the block/unblocking procedure. This is fine. However when they ask newbie IPs who have been blocked to "give up" then that is the line. I have merely asked this IP to make their point without involving newbies and their blocks. They can do their little project without discouraging new users. HighInBC 15:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As for following you around, you asked me to watch over you because you thought that last 2 admins were not being fair. I don't think the problem is which admin is telling you to be less disruptive. By my count I am now the fourth admin you think is being unfair to you. I suggest you read Please do not bite the newcomers and realize that this is not just a rule I made up for you. HighInBC 15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask but suggested he was wasting his time based on everything that had already transpired and several unblock request denials...and I think this editor has been on Wikipedia longer than me...is BC's actions allowable in any sense? (note: it became pretty clear early on that I didn't want him following me around any longer...and, yes, I think there is a general problem with admins currently on Wikipedia and am looking into that (which is perfectly fine as the idea would be to improve Wikipedia)68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• 68.48.241.158, I don't see where your comments are even remotely helpful, and are instead antagonizing. You seem to fancy yourself as a defender of people around here, misinformed as you are. What I don't see is actual edits to articles, which begs the question "Why are you here?". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

you should look into what "begs the question" means and its proper use....I'm here to potentially improve Wikipedia...and I've made hundreds of edits besides just looking into policy (though just looking into policy is perfectly acceptable)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note After discussion with the blocked user and the blocking admin I have accepted the most recent unblock request, despite 158s urging that they give up. HighInBC 15:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

note: HighInBC had already been on record stating the block is proper...he changed his tune only very recently when I pointed some things out..and note too this block would never have been looked at by anyone in a proper way but for me and my initiation of discussion of it on admin noticeboard...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)The block was proper. So was the unblock. This block was reviewed because it was in the block review queue, not because you made a fuss. They were unblocked because they recognized the problem with their behaviour and committed to stop. This lack of understanding about how things work here is part of what makes you giving advice for people to give up problematic. They were not unblocked because of you, the were unblocked despite your interference. I am just glad they did not take your advice and leave forever. HighInBC 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

because my advice was for him to leave forever...you make absolutely no sense...I was the one championing this person's case all along and you were the who had been part of the group of admins blocking and supporting his block...redefining the facts to make yourself look more noble is unbecoming an admin..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose Immediate closure of this tendentious and malformed filing. Tendentious, because it is clearly an attempt to ratchet-up the arguement 68 has been having on his TP; and malformed, because- plentiful allegations and accusations aside- not one diff has been presented as evidence. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

how do you figure? he has done something wrong...he refused to revert the wrong thing he did in previous discussion and then he told me to bring this here...it is harmful to Wikipedia that admins think they can act inappropriately and against policy...I don't care that much about the actual comments being restored at this point but about not allowing an admin to just get away with acting inappropriately...it is very harmful to Wikipedia if this is allowed to go unchecked...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, how am I damaging the project? Is it when I told the user not to take your advice to give up? Is it when I removed your next message trying to discourage them? Or how about when I worked with them to get unblocked? Explain to me how I am damaging the project? HighInBC 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

see above...this user would never have been unblocked even by you but for my pointed criticisms of the case which led to discussion..that is beyond obvious..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on this IP, and I too have concerns that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but just seems to be sticking around to antagonize others through endless new discussions. You advise them, and the IP fights you every step of the way. I can't see this as ending any other way other than a 5th and final block honestly, whether we're there yet or not... Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

^this is another editor who has been unfriendly toward my discussion and proposals related to admins in the recent past (he's an admin) so his comment should be viewed in that light...and he doesn't address the issue of removal of comments from other people's talkpage which is against policy...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Which policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

my understanding is that people shouldn't be messing around with other people's talkpages unless they are reverting obvious vandalism...in this case too there are comments left in a string that came after other comments that have been removed (without the talk page editor's permission)68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Link to the policy it allegedly violates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"Another editor who has been unfriendly"...? Who was it who said, 'If all the traffic's heading towards you, you're probably in the wrong lane?' _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had plenty of positive interactins on Wikipedia...certainly there are many people involved in the status quo who will get upset at my questioning of the status quo..that is to be expected..note Wikipedia is dying in terms of new editors/new admins...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think at this point I can leave this for the community to resolve. I am still happy to answer questions if needed, but I think otherwise this can be handled without me. HighInBC 15:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User with ironic name vandalizing Macintosh articles

User:TheWordFixer has been editing articles on old Macintosh computers, claiming they can run newer versions of OS X and that they are still manufactured despite the fact Apple discontinued PowerPC-based Macs in 2006.

I have just reverted one of his absurd edits.--76.21.6.165 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A quick review of his so-called "contributions" indicates TheWordFixer (talk · contribs) is somewhere between troll and incompetent, and should not be editing here. I don't see where he was notified, so I have done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited for 2 days. I think they've got bored and given up. Mind you, I've seen iMac G3s advertised as "vintage and rare" on eBay and actually sell for what I would assume is obsolete junk these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict on the page Constitution of Medina

I’ve been in an encounter with User: Alexis Ivanov on the page Constitution of Medina in which he shows unacceptable (passive)-aggressive behaviour. Earlier I removed the sentence : “This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” from the article Constitution of Medina. I think that the sentence I removed from the article constitutes a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources as expressed here. The claim is about a matter of history and has been cited verbatim from a source not written by a historian but by two sociologists. More sources were cited calling it the “first constitution ever” but these all omit the word “democracy” and were in my opinion not dispassionate sources as would be required for an exceptional claim. The issue also revolves about the words “constitution” but especially about the word “democracy” After an edit war in which I myself may have been in contravention of 3rr I have engaged in polite discussion with User:CounterTime who challenged my edit but was at least willing to involve in polite conversation about alternative language. As was I. I have since found at least three quotes in which the content of the sentence is contradicted by certified historians. I will quote my earlier message on the talkpage verbatim now:

“CounterTime and Alexis Ivanov, It’s not all that difficult to find reliable sources that mention earlier constitutions and indeed ones that are explicitly associated with democracy. I have a few here and a few here and also here (note especially page 58 among these last ones). I’m not done with the Roman ones yet but would still urge you to consider my most recent proposal.”

User: Alexis Ivanov has responded with more passive aggressive language (also in edit summaries) and more than one revision without waiting for the other party involved, User:CounterTime to weigh in. I think his behaviour is unacceptable versus other users and versus the sources he is now confronted with that flatly contradict the sentence he is determined to return to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had NAC-closed this as a content dispute, until I realized that both parties, Hebel and Alexis Ivanov are well past 3RR, and therefore both in danger of being blocked for edit warring. My advice to both of you would be is to stop, before an admin sees fit to block you both, and iron out the dispute on the talk page, or go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. BMK (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) full-protected the article which is one solution to this problem but not the one I'd have taken. There are actually a half a dozen editors disrupting that article and I'd have blocked them all. My guess is that 90% of the editors that have touched that article in the last 12 months are likely socks or meats.--v/r - TP 00:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I had intended digging into the edit warring and then commenting here but got distracted at work. I semi-protected the article to prevent further disruption but that should not preclude other admins from examining whether the edit warring editors are aware of the 3RR rule and who should or should not be blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose 24-hours away from the project for both editors, to allow for the article to be repaired in a sterile environment. That edit-warring takes the biscuit. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:this user holds the opinion that the page should be set to semi-protection with all user accounts attempting to disrupt it be blockedFAMASFREENODE (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 82.32.50.222

82.32.50.222 (talk · contribs)

He/she creates very poor subsubstubs. No progress since January.Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannus was a redirect to Kingbird rewritten without explanation, which created a problem in Tyrannus (disambiguation).Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted Tyrannus, as it was based on one species, Tyrannus huali, for which I can find no evidence. But there is a Yutyrannus huali. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Kittysaurus was and should be a redirect, the editor has just reverted his poor text. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the revert was done by someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Trachodontoidea, Trachodontinae, Trachodontidae - redirects modernized to subsubstubs.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just reverted Podokesaurinae and Podokesauridae back to a redirect, same in Tyrannosaurus bataar by another user. The anon is also removing maintenace templates. WP:CIR? I don't doubt for a moment the anon believes he is helping the project, though. Kleuske (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WaterlooRoadFanWWE

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 has been making problematic edits to the project ranging, such as the following:

• Edit warring over original research diff 2, and adding unsourced content while being fully aware of the policy about reliable sources prior to making such edits. diff 1
• Removing sourced content diff 1
• Uploading copyrighted images that are redundant to fair use ones or derivatives of other works while claiming these are his own work.

He has been warned numerous times over the past month, but to no avail. I'm not sure if he is purposely being disruptive or is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT, but something needs to be done. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I reported them to WP:ANV a few days ago but they said there wasn't enough to take action through that channel even though there was adequate warning at that point. I've tried to introduce them to policy but the bad edits haven't stopped. It's either deliberate vandalism or just a lack of WP:COMPETENCE.LM2000 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Support indef block. I speedily deleted a WWE Draft logo they claimed to have created and which they tagged with free licenses, warned them and linked to policy. They promptly uploaded it again and still claimed to have created it. Coupled with all their other unheeded warnings, this shows they don't know how to edit or don't care. Fences&Windows 08:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:, they responded to your warnings with a personal attack. It seems like he's not here to contribute. --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

he just apologized. It seems that he's clueless, so I'm slowly trying to introduce him to WP:EYNTK to clue him into editing. Hopefully he follows it. --w^{L<speak·check>} 18:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, wL, for engaging with them and removing whatever the attack was. I am not going to pull the trigger (them baiting me into blocking them would not reflect well on me), but they are definitely on a final warning. Any recurrence of this behaviour will almost certainly see them blocked. Fences&Windows 18:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it means anything, his latest edit was a OR post about Goldberg being heel, where @Prefall: reverted. He's run out of rope. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've warned him repeatedly about sources. I'm glad he apologized for incivility but he has yet to back up his claim that he takes the encyclopedia seriously.LM2000 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If these ([92][93]) edits are any indication, it's clear at this point that they are a deliberate vandal.LM2000 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Speedy G4 (repost) tag removed by page author

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.

---

WP:SPEEDY states: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." but this happening here: [94]. I think this can be handled here, rather then through wasting time at AfD second time (given that the article doesn't seem to be much better then the spam piece that was deleted a while back)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of who removed it, this was a clearly inappropriate tag, so don't re-add it. Looking at the two versions, there's no earthly way they could be considered "substantially identical". ‑ Iridescent 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they were substantially identical – he had expanded it, but there was even identical phrasing used in a couple of spots, and I deleted it under G4. I'm not going to wheel war over it if you want to restore it, though. I've warned the editor against promotional edits, since that seems like all he's here to do. Katie^talk 09:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Balgonie Castle/"As per legal proceedings"

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 not sure if this edit is a legal threat, an attempt at censorship or quite what but I thought it best to note it here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mutt Lunker, it may have been a legal threat though that edit summary may just be a reference to legal action being taken elsewhere. However, I have revdelled this material back to April as it was negative and poorly sourced, and semi-protected the article for a month. I will leave a note for that account to bear in mind COI and NLT. If anyone can find actually reliable sources for this, then it might be included with caution. Fences&Windows 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The incident did get press coverage. I will open a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about whether and how to include it on the page. Fences&Windows 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

More Vandalism On Tommy Sotomayor 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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

As you can see here, multiple accounts have been vandalizing the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page again, this page was protected because of repeated vandalism, not the protection status is gone and the vandals are back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.12.67.139

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:601:E00:309C:7CE5:D6AC:BFB1:2DE3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:C7C6:4A00:1017:FC58:F62E:E066

Could an administrator please deal or help with this problem and perhaps change the page status to semi-protected to stop vandalism? Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

SimonTrew

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.

---

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

This editor has been here a few times over the last little while regarding indiscriminate CSD tagging, incivility, and such, but has so far escaped sanction (at least lately) because he does good work at RfD and in other areas. Recently, in response to a comment he interpreted as a personal attack, he posted this probably-in-jest legal threat on Tavix's talk page, which led to him receiving the standard no-legal-threats template courtesy of Godsy. Si's response to the warning was to insist that it was "definitely a legal threat", which led to another non-templated warning from Iridescent. After another exchange and a third warning, I tried in my way to explain from the policy why making these sorts of threats even if you have no intention of following through, and suggested that he should retract his threat. His response was to double down on the threat, insisting "...I intend to sue the Wikimedia Foundation and subpoena Jimmy Wales" and "I fully intend to sue. I do not make idle threats." That edit alone should be enough to earn him an indef WP:NLT block, even if multiple users hadn't already warned him not to do it.

Since I started writing this out he's continued, and is now demanding an apology so that he won't sue, which is textbook chilling effect, threatening to go to court if you don't get your way. That is a bright-line blockable behaviour under the WP:NLT policy, and as such I request an administrator to act.

That's the current issue for now, but I have more to say about this user in another edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have issued an apology to him. I do not intend to nor want to get more involved in this matter than I already am. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I had really hoped we could IAR and just everyone ignore the venting on his talk page. No one on the planet considers that a legitimate legal threat, so while it's intended as "chilling", it isn't actually chilling. I'll try to talk to him one more time, but there are a lot of admins who (a) watch this page, and (b) always block when they see a legal threat, so I imagine my note on his talk page will be in vain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The user appears to be in the midst of treatment for quite a nasty illness. This may be a contributing factor to somewhat unusual behaviour. Irondome (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not therapy. Block for NLT until he retracts it or gers better. People have been blocked under NLT for far less than this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been retracted so it is now moot, in any case. Irondome (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah because he got what he wanted. The exact situation NLT is meant to prevent. I don't see him promising not to make legal threats in future... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to promise not to make legal threats in the future. He "got what he wanted" not because of the legal threat, but because Tavix was remarkably gracious in wanting to see this deescalated. A very uncommon trait around here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, Simon has become a liability over the last month or so. He's taken it upon himself to sort out the remaining Neelix-related redirects, which is good for the project and there are an awful lot of them, but the way in which he has approached this has drawn a lot of criticism. His activity with the redirects is not particularly of concern, I think that it's important to stress that he has been doing good work. What has not been good has been Si's various reactions to the criticism, of which the legal threat issue above is an escalation. Any time any user has something to say about his activity with the redirects, however valid it may be (sometimes it's really not valid and he has certainly endured actual personal attacks) Si refuses to acknowledge the criticism and declares it a personal attack instead, which leads to lengthy replies like the thread currently going on on his talk page.

Roughly a month ago, he was brought before ANI in response to indiscriminate CSD tagging and uncivil comments related to Neelix redirects. He had been tagging redirects for WP:G6 deletion with poor rationale, sometimes just the word "Neelix", or sometimes a rhyme related to the title of the redirect. He was aware of the discussion because he replied to it, although he later insisted that he had not been notified and was not aware of it. Several users advised him not to tag articles without a clear rationale and not to re-tag articles where a tag had been removed, but he continued doing it anyway.

A little while after that, after I had warned him about grave dancing which was related to something else, he created Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce, a page which he created solely for the purpose of nominating it for deletion so as to create this RfD thread celebrating progress through deleting some number of Neelix's redirects. In frustration, I wrote this fairly terse note on his talk page, advising him that if he was trying to get banned he was going about it in all the right ways. He responded, essentially but in many more words, that he was "not interested".

This is not limited to RfD; not very long ago he caused a disturbance at Tavix's RfA through a series of comments made because he seemed to feel the need to defend himself from something another editor said, which he had interpreted as an accusation of canvassing. The kerfuffle arose because he declared an intention to support the candidacy but absolutely refused ([95], [96], [97]) to put it in the correct section even after several users informed him of the typical process, asked him to clarify his intent, even practically begged him to respond at one point; see also the Bureaucrats' noticeboard thread where this confusion is documented.

tl;dr: the supposed personal attack which led to the legal threats mentioned above was in fact just another in a long line of users who have opined on Si's continuing and increasingly erratic behaviour; literally, "the problem with Simon though is that he doesn't seem to listen to those trying to help him." That is exactly what the problem is. So while I think it would be fully reasonable to let a one-off legal threat of this sort slide, none of this can be considered one-off in Si's case. All of these behaviours together, plus the fact that he doesn't listen when other editors give him advice and he is escalating, show that something more needs to be done here. For not just the legal threats but for the combination of all of this, I propose that Si be blocked until he acknowledges, at least, that not everyone is his enemy, and that behaving as though every comment mentioning your name is a personal attack is no way to work in a collaborative environment. Or else he simply takes time off for his hand to heal properly; he has blamed a number of these behaviours on his injury, which does sound serious, and many users have encouraged him to take a break.

Also, thanks to Tavix for apologizing in effort to deescalate the situation, but it should be noted that Si's response to the apology contains a repeat of the legal threat to sue anyone who he perceives to be libelling him, so clearly he has not heard the message that making legal threats is not allowed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've grudgingly blocked SimonTrew indef for legal threats, which have continued even after he "withdrew" them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal and vicious attacks from User:Asilah1981

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:Asilah1981 has made vicious personal attacks against me and against ethnic Asturians at the Morisco article and talk page.

"Veritas2016 Ok you are clearly a neo-nazi with personal issues brought about by the contradiction of having your head filled with white supremacist ideas while having the face of a gypsy. In any case, please leave this article alone. Its about history, not how pure your blood line is. I'm automatically reverting all edits made with "racial hygiene" in mind. I suggest you go edit articles about Melendi, the greatest and most beautiful of the legendary Asturian race. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)" [98]

Please do something about this vicious user. Veritas2016 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Veritas seems to like vicious edit summaries and is editing while logged out. TJH2018talk 00:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: Editing while logged-out, especially accidentally and especially if they are open about it, is not in itself a violation, and all but three of the IP's edits were before the account's first edit. That said, block-evasion is certainly a violation, and that IP previously admitted to being a blocked user evading their block. If the new account is the same person, they have now created a sock account that will soon be indefinitely blocked, and the IP will likely receive another block of three months or longer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DifensorFidelis. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I pledge guilty of making a personal attack. I'm sick of articles on historical topics being periodically attacked by racists who feel some sentence in it offends their sense of racial pride. It happens periodically every few months by a user with changing user names from or identifying strongly with a small region in northern Spain. I doubt he was brought up in Spain, since no Spaniard with such views would have been capable of learning a second language. In any case, I am starting to think it is the same person, not that I can demonstrate it. I flipped out finally violating the No Personal Attacks rule. I find having to engage with him/her a form of mental torture. All this to protect articles which only very tangentially touch upon the the matter which concerns him the most: The purity of the blood line of his stupid region, which isn't even mentioned on the article! Its fricking surreal and medieval. I can't believe people like this still exist.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that being a complete racist actually has no bearing on one's ability to acquire a second language. Also, Asilah are you implying that you believe Veritas2016 has edited under other usernames in the past? If so, adding these to the currently-open SPI would be helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I don't know I just remember IP addresses periodically editing or edit warring, over the past years, on articles with the same ludicrous opinions and intentions. There is another similar Portuguese editor called Melroross although he is considerably more self-restrained and rational. I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. I just don't want articles to be vandalized for spurious reasons. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Close The OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

(Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN

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.

---

Subject: Jytdog (talk · contribs)

Jytdog is doing some commendable work at COIN, however their objectivity appears to waning and this volunteer has taken to directly editing the guidance, in relation to cases they are involved in. Jytdog appears to have a predisposed bias with the following stated on their userpage: "In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more.",[99] which is antithetical to WP:AFG and especially troubling concerning their efforts at COIN, AfD and directly editing policies and guidelines pages.

• Edits to COIN
• Edits to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (guideline)
• Edits to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

I am a declared paid editor and volunteer under the same account to avoid any appearance of being a sock. A case at COIN has been opened as to whether I, as a part time COI editor, can participate directly on advice pages and whether WP:BRD is extended to COI editors on policy and guideline pages.[100] So, I am watching the COIN page. After commenting on this unrelated issue at COIN,[101] I was cajoled on my user page,[102] and I've finally had enough.

In a previous COIN,[103] Jytdog involved himself and discovered that the guidance on Template:Advert/doc did not match what they were using the tag for, the tag was specifically written for WP:SPAM not an all encompassing tag for WP:NOTSOAPBOX. After Jytdog was made aware that the (template page) guidance did not match his enforcement goals,(both sections in this diff concern my interests) Jytdog proceeded to modify the guidance in ADVERT/Doc,diff and then proceeded to remove a passage I submitted to an emerging advice page (Help:Maintenance template removal).[104] Jytdog did not come to the ADVERT talk page, [105] until after I had started a discussion and was subsequently advised read BRD concerning the matter.[106]

Jytdog has also taken to hatting discussions he is involved with, primarily the content that may become embarrassing to him or his colleague at COIN. Jytdog voted on this AfD [107] and then hatted my supporting arguments down to the state where I had to question him about WP:TPO, he responded with a cite to the WP:BLUDGEON essay.[108] While he was pruning the article, he would not allow favorable edits, I finally reworked (I have no connection with the subject) the article in my userspace, and I modified my (keep) vote so that my copy offered for consideration, would not be hatted by Jytdog (again, already involved at this point).[109]

The extremes that Jytdog will go to are quite disturbing, apparently, alumni editing about your school is now considered COI editing.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDEA Public Schools and COIN

Finally, in my encounters with Jytdog over the past month, I've discovered his non-WP:AGF enforcement approach has garnered media attention,[110][111] concerning the RepRap project. ANI

I may have been pressing the boundaries a little with using BRD on guidance pages to get talk page conversations started, but I don't feel that way about participating in advice pages, I have a perspective to offer, especially concerning the proliferation of perma-tags, which are often placed (Twinkle users) without talk page summaries -- reverting them is the best way to notify the tagger that we can't read minds. Instead of pressing, Jytdog is moving the goal posts while the game is in play. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, this appears to be a vexatious complaint by a COI/paid editor caught out editing COI relevant guidelines. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not surprising. 009o9 is a very tough/brutal negotiator, and I was expecting this.

I am not off the rails. I am seeking to restrain 009o9 from directly editing guidelines/templates/help documents about NOTABILITY and tagging in ways that benefit his paid editing business, and yes I opened a COIN case to get consensus on whether it is appropriate for 009o9 to directly edit guidelines etc. (And so far, the consensus is, that it is not appropriate for him to do that)

There, as here, he has attacked me to throw up flak around the issue.

In addition, earlier this evening he interfered in a discussion I was having with an editor at COIN (who after 009o9 tried to derail things, acknowledged their COI with regard to their school). And yes I warned 009o9 that if he continued doing that, I would seek a TBAN for him from COI matters. (This is what happened with Elvey, see here and here).

I'll add here that I am not at all opposed to paid editors who follow PAID and COI; I work with a few who make very clueful and well crafted proposals on Talk or in drafts, and things go smoothly.

That's all I have to say here. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I became involved with this because 009o9 has been not listening on WP:NMUSIC because because everyone else is wrong and "the troubling atmosphere at AFC and AFD" twice. Basically, 009 wants to keep his pet article, and is trying to change WP:NSONG to do it, despite the fact that it was rejected at AFC, so now that the COIN discussion is against a paid editor editing guidelines to keep his own content, he wants to discredit the COI process. The editor is too disruptive to the project, and I think a boomerang block is in order. MSJapan (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no close on that discussion, I'm seeing two oppose votes and two support votes (not counting me) and a new editor offering a modified proposal today. Policy is hard, all povs should be discussed and unintended consequences can reveal themselves along the way.[112] My article is unpublished, so I'm not sure what you mean by "keep his pet article." That article is a case that the guideline (in its evolution) doesn't seem to cover anymore. I won't be resubmitting the article until some more press surrounding it turns up. BTW: thanks for your edits tonight,on this you must have had to go pretty far back in my history to find that volunteer article it. The article did need some work, repairing the referencing that got hosed up now 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 08:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang time. 009o9 is attempting to spam Wikipedia, and is trying to personally attack those most effective against his spam. His tendentious behaviour warrants a ban and probably notification of his clients. This is not how to do paid editing and the example should not be rewarded - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment WP:VOTESTACKING anyone?[113] I'm not sure that Jytdog could reasonably expect a neutral discussion/participation by seeking out COIN watchlist contributors, the conversation is related, but I doubt you'll find a neutral ideology there. I'm not here because of my COIN, I'm here because of this threat that comes from siding with a newbie.[114] 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• " I'm not here because of my COIN, I'm here because of this threat that comes from siding with a newbie" B.S. BMK (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Linking to this discussion at COIN isn't votestacking, that's nonsense. And going by 009o9's input on COIN and above, it's typical of their bludgeoning approach. For just one example, the self-interested so-called "media attention" that he states both above and at COIN that Jytdog has "garnered" is not the kind of media attention that we need to care about. The real question here is whether 009o9 is here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I vote "no". I agree with everything David Gerard says. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC).
• Boomerang BMK (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang Good to know the cabal is still around. They keep leaving me out of the meetings, though. Katie^talk 11:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Boomerang For someone with complaints about the atmosphere, the editor has not exactly gone out of their way to diffuse it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang to siteban @009o9 as WP:NOTHERE.
  After reading this page, my initial response was that we should impose editing restriction on 009o9: 1RR, topic ban on COI, and a ban on editing any policy or guideline page. However, the more I study 009o9's conduct, the more I am persuaded that they are engaged in a prolonged, systematic effort to stack the deck in favour of COI editing, and to undermine the work of those volunteer editors who give their time to trying to counter the people who warp seek to Wikipedia for personal gain. This complaint here is a direct and bold attempt to (as the English say) "get their revenge in first", by creating a FUD-storm around one of the editors who is most diligent is challenging COI misconduct. This WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is deeply toxic; a volunteer community can easily be ground down by this sort of aggression.
  Yes, 009o9 has acted honourably in disclosing the fact that they are a paid editor ... but that disclosure should be accompanied by a determination to accept the limits imposed by the non-COI community, rather than campaign across multiple fronts to weaken the defences and injure the defenders. Enough already: be gone! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

An IPv6 user is messing with my 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 don't know how IPv6 IPs work, but it's at least these 2:

• (1) 2607:FB90:2C3:858:0:7:C00F:1601 ^talk
• (2) 2607:FB90:280:924D:0:4F:90CE:B401 ^talk

I see that they both start with 2607:FB90:, but I don't know what that means.

It's not even a deal – and I feel like a dummy for reporting such a dumb thing – but they've now changed my gender userbox to "female" twice. Here and here, as seen on my page revision history. It's just annoying vandalism.

They were warned once, by DavidLeighEllis. Since it comes from 2 different IPv6 IPs, one would assume they're 2 different people. However, given the fact that it was the same, exact edit, done by an IPv6, both from a T-Mobile unit, within 24 hours from each other, I'd say it's safe to assume that they're the same person.

There's a problem, though, and this might just be due to my own ignorance of how IPv6 works. #1 seems to be from King County (Bellavue), Washington. #2 seems to be from Cook County (Chicago), Illinois.

Given that it's likely the same person, and that person probably didn't travel halfway across the US in half a day, is it a VPN? Or does someone know something more? And how can I stop my page from being edited?

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ──╤╦︻ ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 03:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The same starting numbers mean both IP-adresses come from the same network (2607:FB90::/32, which is T-Mobile). The network is a commercial consumer network (") not a VPN. IP-locators are not always accurate (and sometimes waaaay off the mark), especially in IPv6. It's best to apply a grain of salt, here and there. Kleuske (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that indefinitely semiprotecting User:Knowledgebattle without protecting the associated talk page would be an obvious remedy. There is no reason why any IP user should ever have a need to edit that page. --08:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Knowledgebattle's user page has been semi-protected by Lectonar. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

A user is vandalizing a page I follow

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 this user 211.30.131.54 which hasn't even created a user or talk page has been continually adding fake information to 2017 Rugby League World Cup and now he's deleted referenced information that me and previous 'experienced users' edited and it cannot be retrieved due to the amount of edits he has been submitting.

This is just one of a number of 'fake' users that have been vandalizing rugby league pages with the users: Starmaker1234 and Cheeselandabc currently or being blocked recently due to their nonsense edits. They, along with 211.30.131.54, have also vandalized other pages outside the sport of rugby league and sport in general.

So could you please take notice of User:211.30.131.54 and block him if he continues to vandalize with fake information.

Cheers. RugbyLeagueFan (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (NZST)

• Page semi-protected for one month by User:Sergecross73. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:133.130.117.13 personal attacks

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

---

133.130.117.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I have not looked into their accusations of anti-semitism and vandalism of another user, but reverting this IP's personal attacks led to personal attacks against me. They did not heed the warning I left on their talk page. Any of their edit summaries should be enough for an indefinite civility block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of that was pretty specialist :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now hidden the worst of their edit comments. -- The Anome (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Indef block - Textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. Jusdafax 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's JarlaxleArtemis, or a clone. Have blocked a couple of socks and removed a few more of the edit summaries. A temporary fix only, alas. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Insulting Edit Summaries

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.

---

Shown by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.30.211.170&action=history and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A46.30.211.170&type=revision&diff=723818216&oldid=723818134 , User:46.30.211.170 has been making insulting edit summaries. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

But still being annoying on his/her talk page... ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You know perfectly well the IP (like any editor) is entitled to remove notices from their TP. Why are were you edit-warring over it? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

More Links: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.30.211.170&oldid=prev&diff=723818938, please revoke his talk page access. My problem isn't the edit warring, It's the edit summaries. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're creating unnecessary drama. He was blocked before you even filed this report. His subsequent unsavoury edit-summaries were in response to you repeatedly inserting that ANI notice (which he had the right to remove). Hence, my description of your behaviour as edit-warring. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User forcing edits through

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.

---

198.90.112.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-adding content to the ATV Offroad Fury article despite being told that it violates #15 of WP:GAMECRUFT. There are also some other issues. Eik Corell (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think AN3 could probably handle this. I'm not sure it's strictly vandalism or comes within a 3RR exception, so probably best if you step back from the article as of now. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The user has received warnings already on an earlier IP: 198.90.112.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eik Corell (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... by me :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the page for two weeks and watchlisted it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Trafford centre

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

---

I have been told to come to this page regarding an "edit conflict" on the above page. The new name for the centre is 'Intu Trafford Centre", however user Stevo1000 believes that this is using Wikipedia as an advertising service. However, this is not the case when it is the new official name of the centre, as the citation and others show. Clearly if this edit keeps on being reverted, it would lead to people being mislead of the true name. Upon failing my request for page protection, I was told to raise the issue here. This issue has been going on for quite some time now. Tony Fan123 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Administrators do not adjudicate in content disputes and you will need to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution starting with opening a discussion on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To be precise, the user asked for protection, and I rejected the protected request. They contested my rejection, and I asked them to file a request here, for a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. For what it's worth, I see a slow edit war on that page, a content dispute, but not a need for protection at this time. I do see a need for people to start talking and hopefully, administrator attention will not be necessary. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There does appear to be a majority on the talkpage against the move, per WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless, to rename the page, a requested move would be the way forward. In recent times such renamings of buildings have tended to follow COMMONNAME, for example Genting Arena is now at the sponsor's name because all reliable sources use it, whilst St James' Park was not renamed the Sports Direct Arena despite that being its official name purely because it wasn't commonly used. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There's been confusion over the names of these for years however consensus so far has always been to keep the prev names per COMMONNAME etc etc, BMK may of been completely unaware to the few req moves at various intu store-talkpages (Even I don't check the TPS when moving), I suggest this be closed and the OP fires up a WP:RM .–Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 is correct, I was unaware of the other RMs, I simply checked for what the current official name is. I suppose I can be faulted for not doing sufficient due diligence, but that doesn't excuse someone coming to my talk page and accusing me of playing "silly buggers." (I never have understood exactly what that idiomatic expression means in Britglish, although I certainly get the sense of it.) BMK (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• A discussion (or rather, a continuation of a 2013 discussion) has started up on the talk page. So if people would like to weigh in there ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Link please? OldTraffordLover (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Trafford Centre --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User Amitashi, Chronic edit warring on Ukraine related topics

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.

---

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

WP:AN3#User:Amitashi reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)
WP:AN3#User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reported by User:Amitashi (Result: OP blocked)
WP:AN3#User:Amitashi reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )
First Unblock Request
2nd Unblock Request

Blocked for 36 hrs, as soon as that ended he is back again with the same story of edit warring. Although there is a current AN3 request, given that its clear he isn't here to improve the encyclopedia I thought ANI may be a better option whilst the disruption is ongoing. @Ian.thomson: the previous blocking admin. WCM_email 22:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As filer of the newest AN3 report, I support a block. Please see WP:AN3#User:Amitashi reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ) for diffs and discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• ^{Not final admin action} I've told Amitashi that if he reverts again today (or later without discussing matters), I'm going to block him until he proves he understands WP:EW. However, I consider my action to be addressing the previous edit war, not handling this overall problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• He/she does not seem to grasp the concept that citations should support the content they are being cited for. See Talk:Ukraine#New paragraph not supported by its citations and Talk:Ukraine#Eastern Ukraine's displeasure of unpopular Maidan consequences. Maybe he/she does not bother to read to sources before citing them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Or that I'm not Volunteer Marek. And he's been so insistent about it that I'm starting to think that a WP:CIR block is at least as appropriate as WP:NOTHERE. I have the block menu open in another tab and the reasons filled out already, just waiting for that last straw. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi is refactoring the talk page, and in the process deleting comments by other users:

• 00:41, 5 June 2016 removed comment by Taivo and replaced with his/her own comment.
• 07:37, 5 June 2016 deleted one section including comments by Toddy1 dated 21:43, 2 June 2016. Changed the heading on another section.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Now he/she is deleting sections with comments from other editors on Talk:War in Donbass.[115] Please can you indefinitely block this person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

[116] Partisan edits on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which do not reflect what source actually says.
[117] Repeat of partisan edits, removing relable cites such as TIME magazine.
Please note discretionary sanctions apply on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. WCM_email 09:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we've had exactly zero useful contributions from this editor and multiple instances of them misrepresenting sources as well as more edit warring on different pages. I'm going to be gone for the next couple of weeks, so this is enough WP:ROPE for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Amitashi blocked To be clearer. And now I see we have legal threats in his unblock request. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

[118] Demand to be unblocked, threat of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights against Wikipedia. WCM_email 10:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

[119] Any chance we could get semi-protection on these pages, he is back editing as an IP. WCM_email 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC) (Reported at WP:RFPP} WCM_email 15:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Odd IP address switching

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

---

I've been doing some work on Draft:Big Star (horse). The horse is definitely notable and this is an article we'd like to have in the horse project, but it wasn't written in encyclopedic style. (I think the creator speaks English as a second language, especially since the horse was born in the Netherlands.) The draft was created by an IP who edited it multiple times from the same address. However, several different IPs are now editing it and one nominated it for speedy a while ago, which I undid because there is nothing offensive or against the rules there. It does still need a few refs, but it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy, and if it was deleted it would just mean a lot of work for somebody (probably me) writing it again. I can't figure out if these IPs are different people or one person switching addresses. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The IPs are in the same country and belong to the same ISP - I would say they are the same user with an unavoidably dynamic IP address. If you're willing to persevere with the article we don't need to consider G7. It seems to be an import from fr:Big Star (cheval). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think the IPs probably all belong to the same editor. The first edits were with IPv4 and the IP in question belongs to Orange in France. The next edits are to various IPv6 addresses. Although there are a few different IPs, they are all in the same /64 subnet, suggesting it's quite likely it's sticky /64 subnet and all someone editing from the same LAN segment, probably even the same computer (even if there nominally could be a very very large number of different computers in that LAN segment each with their own IPv6 address). This may be a bit confusing, but for a typical home user situation, it means that all those IPs are very likely one (or possibly more) computers connected to the same home router, in other words basically IPs belonging to the same /64 are often best treated very similar to a single IPv4 address. These IPs also belong to Orange in France suggesting there's a good chance it's the same as the person earlier using IPv4. Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's very likely to be the same user but I see nothing here requiring admin attention. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I posted because I was unsure if the UPs were the same person. If they weren't, the G7 tag seemed like a tricky form of vandalism. I'm going to continue working on the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Slanderous (non-emergency) personal attack

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 Afterwriting has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry, using "evidence" that is a blatant fabrication. (See the talk page thread here. All the relevant information, including the accusation and my rebuttal, is laid out there.). He has also made repeated disparaging remarks regarding an alleged "obsession" of mine and pejorative word-play on my former username (Crusadestudent, which was repeatedly turned into "the Crusader", even after I expressed my offense at that moniker), and has made no effort to extend good faith. But of course the sockpuppetry fabrication is the more serious problem. Thank you for your attention. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Edited 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no "blatant fabrication" on my part. I consider the evidence to be very strong. And as for "disparaging remarks" it isn't clever for the pot to call the kettle black. User:Jujutsuan has been a highly disruptive and problematic editor on numerous articles for some weeks by unilaterally making many contentious POV changes to article names and content. Only by me and others reverting many of these changes has he started to begin discussing things instead of always asserting his POV. Afterwriting (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You just shot your argument in the foot. I have been receptive to criticism. But not to your repeated name-calling. Notice my switch from BOLD moves to RMs, except where it's obviously uncontroversial? (And many of my RMs—no, most—have been successful, or at least come away with several supporting votes.) What you call POV, I have often called NPOV, and vice versa. That's a disagreement between us, nothing more. And yes, your purported "identical edit summaries" were outright fabricated, as I have shown on my talk page. They were not in fact the same, but instead paraphrased when the other user and I made similar edits. You couldn't even get your accusation right. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Afterwriting: If you really believe that Jujutsuan is a sockpuppet, please make a formal report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. OldTraffordLover (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As one of the editors that helped Jujutsuan file his unblock request, he/she has been fairly responsive to criticism. Just file an SPI, and stop accusing him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Jujutsuan: I am very disappointed to post this here, but my patience is wearing thin. Afterwriting is one of the most diligent, bias-free editors I've encountered in Wikipedia, and to suggest otherwise is baseless. He is not personally attacking you, except to the extent you seem personally vested in the edits you propose, which have been disruptive to the project. I've tried gently coaching you, hoping to direct you towards a more productive path, but this is becoming increasingly frustrating. I have repeatedly warned you that the Catholic/Roman Catholic issue is a minefield, yet you keep poking this beehive, and keep getting angry when you're stung. Proposing edits that have been rejected in the past, and lashing out at those oppose them, is only going to result in more accusations of sock-puppetry and other rules violation. Lashing out at those who accuse you is only going to push you closer to getting banned. If you want to become a productive, respected editor, you need to learn to pick your battles, and choose less controversial edits to pursue. --Zfish118^⋉talk 13:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 13:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:94.166.184.237

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:94.166.184.237 has blanked Malian parliamentary election, 2013 twice and has written me an f word [120].Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

He has later blanked Earth Abides.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for vandalism -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Tendentious SPA editing on a single article by a user over several months

Hi. I would like to invite attention to the wikipedia article on the USCIRF, and the conduct of the user Evwv2015 vis-a-vis his edits therein. This user was created on March 24, 2016 [121]. As his contribution history clearly indicates, he is an SPA, possibly an advocate for the organization that is the subject of the wiki article. His first edits, in violation of WP:NPOV, involved removing a significant chunk of sourced content that critiqued the subject [122] without any attempt at consensus building on the talk page. This went unnoticed by the broader wikipedia editing community. Subsequent edits were uncontroversial, but sporadic, and only restricted to removing material perceived to be critical to the subject. The article remained unedited for months until I re-inserted [123] the sourced content (while keeping out any uncited or biased wordings that were introduced by other ips such as this [124]) that this user had also removed. Shortly thereafter, the user reverted the changes with no attempt at reasoning or discussion [125] using false and misleading edit summaries to justify his edits to casual vandalism monitors and bots. I request experienced editors to look into this matter, and an investigation into the activities of this user, and, if necessary, administrator intervention and enforcement of suitable preventative measures. 146.232.151.17 (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please open a talk page discussion about that content and sourcing. I have advised them to do the same. Some of the sources are scholarly articles but others may be less reliable or are now deadlinks, so revisiting the sources is justified even if bulk removal is not. Fences&Windows 09:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC disruption

It's hard to think an RFC remains valid after the concerted and constant disruption of it by User:CFCF: [126], [127][128]. —Kww(talk) 01:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All of these edits were made early on the 25th. I question how much of an impact it had on the RFC if it took almost six days to report nor why the entire RFC should be invaladated.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It was reported on ANI and only argued amongst some of the people from the RfC. The edits above look like CFCF was removing people's talk message, but was not. Beetstra, Hasteur and CFCF were moving messages. CFCF kept reverting the other two's moves. Not sure who is or isn't "right". Bgwhite (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Beetstra, Hasteur and CFCF were moving messages. CFCF kept reverting the other two's moves. - CFCF was moving the messages, Hasteur and I kept reverting their moves. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole RfC is kind of a mess. It takes the form of "This thing is great, but it's on the blacklist. Should we take it off? PS: other discussion links" without giving any of the reasons it remained blacklisted after three other RfCs. So of course it got a bunch of support votes out of the gate. People responded to votes on both sides, but CFCF opted to only remove questions directed at support votes to a separate section. It may well have been in good faith, but it's also disruptive in that those comments are now completely out of context, with no attempt made to restore context or even fix the syntax, making them somewhat unreadable and separated from everything else. Meanwhile the threads responding to the oppose votes are enormous. I don't think there's any admin action that needs to be taken, but I do question whether a consensus from this messy RfC can really take the place of the three before it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• With almost a 3-1 Support-oppose, anyone who closes that other than removing it from the blacklist had better have a cast iron reason for doing so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think continuous one-sided pruning of the RFC by an involved editor would constitute a cast-iron reason.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved out what I found to be a series of disruptive edits: [129] with the following edit: [130]

In three hours time one user chose to comment on nearly each and every support vote — often repeating the same or at least similar arguments to different people. I found this was also counter to the original intent of the RFC which specified:

1. add a numbered entry under appropriate section like # short comment. --~~~~, or simply # --~~~~.
2. (optional) further discussion can be added under the Discussion section.

As such I believe I was acting in the interest of promoting discussion, and discussion occurred quite extensively in the new section I had created.

More than a day later the same user now chose to move this commentary and discussion back into the vote section: [131]

This edit impacted more than 2.5x more text and moved substantially more editors comments. The rational was that the previous move had influenced the commentary and was opposed to WP:TPO — not considering that this edit changed far more editors comments.

I objected to this assertion, moving it back to the discussion section. I also stated that the only reason I moved the text in the first place was because it was a massive addition during a very limited time — which I interpreted to go against the formalities outlined for the RFC (not by me) and how discussion had occurred previously.

It was then objected that this was a form of cleansing the Support section for criticism, and that this was not neutral. This was in part because discussion continued to bloom in the oppose section after my first move (despite the instructions of the RFC). I expressed my full support of moving discussion out of the oppose-section as well [132], with the proviso that Beetstra had voted twice and that I did not want to change the meaning of this — so it might be best if he/she move this discussion instead.

The situation amounted to: damned if you do, damned if you don't — so I chose to leave it up to the editors who opposed the motion to move out that discussion. I understand that this may have been perceived as wishing to impact the outcome — but in light of my willingness to move even the Oppose section to comply with the set instructions I do not believe it has been disruptive.

Neither do I think this has adversely impacted the RFC — the rationale and discussion is clear for all who visit the page. Only if you contend that users base their support or opposition only upon the number of others support/oppose has it made an impact. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 17:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that most of the attendee's based their !votes on the "supports" above that it falsely appeared no one had taken the time or effort to refute.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF: - "what I found to be disruptive edits" - yet again such language from you. If you found them disruptive you either could have come to me first (you did not even bother to tell me afterwards), or you could have brought it to attention of uninvolved editors. That in combination with ad hominim remarks, bolded responses if people argue against your points .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, Dirk, you have certainly been here long enough to know that WP:BLUDGEONING all the opponents in a debate is regarded as disruptive, and indeed, was contrary to the explicit instruction of the RFC? Can we expect some restraint from mature people, or do we have to appoint a moderator to every bloody RFC? While I acknowledge S Marshall's comment below that CFCF's judgment is not always perfect, in this matter I would say he was in the right. No such user (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case .. Well analysed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've clasxhed with CFCF in the past over very similar behaviour directed at me. I feel that CFCF does have a history of managing other people's talk page contributions while involved. My sense is that he's well-intentioned, but he has an awful lot of faith in his own judgment and not much in other people's, which makes him behave inappropriately. No comment on this particular case.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruptive editing by IP

An IP editor who clearly has experience editing Wikipedia (they are familiar with the WP:MOS [133]), has been edit warring over Port Washington, Wisconsin for a couple days, making WP:POINTy edits like this one [134] by adding "former" to every entry in the notable people list, and repeatedly blanking the shared IP template from IP talk pages in violation of WP:REMOVED. Notices to stop edit warring were removed with comment summaries like "obtuse comment by disruptive editor" [135]. They have gone on to edit war at their own talk page over the Shared IP template: 1 [136], 2 [137], 3 [138], 4 [139] 5 [140]. And on and on. The same person has edited with three IPs in the past two days. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Non-admin Comment: @GigglesnortHotel and 32.218.152.198: There is no diff here or edit from this user's contributions that convince me they are vandalising, and you are just as equally to blame for edit warring as the IP editor as you didn't engage in discussion. The POINTy edit you cited strikes me as adding information to an article constructively, correct me if I'm wrong. Edit warring over an IP template of all things instead of dropping it shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part. Unless you provide more evidence diffs to show this editor is clearly disruptive, I'd suggest you just forget about this. All I see is a legitimate editor being bitten here. -NottNott|talk Reply with {{re}} 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It was not constructively adding information. Please take a few more minutes to review edits before commenting. There was a content dispute regarding whether someone who died over 100 years ago should be referred to as a "former" acting mayor of a town [141], [142]. His response was an obviously WP:POINTy edit, adding "former" to nearly every entry [143]. In any case, WP:REMOVED specifically says that Shared IP templates may not be removed from IP talk pages and he/she repeatedly deleted those with disruptive edit summaries like "obtuse" and "harassment". What began as a simple content disagreement was turned into a full on edit war by the IP, who also makes ALL CAPS edit summaries like these [144], [145]. He's now gone on to abusively restore deleted comments to my own talk page [146]. This is pretty clearly a behavioral problem and not mine. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@GigglesnortHotel: That's a similar but different IP, hence why I didn't see it. In this case we've got:

1. 32.218.37.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 32.218.152.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 32.218.47.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And a third IP I can't find (do add it) involved in the report. With the extra context given, this AN/I seems much more legitimate. As it stands, I could still recommend discussing this with the IP if you haven't done so already - if they are not put off by messages like this by you, you could solve this content dispute. -NottNott|talk Reply with {{re}} 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

IP added. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What vandalism do you see in these edits? Or these? I have a dynamic IP created by my ISP (not SNET), which is perfectly legitimate. Why is that a problem? On the other hand, it looks to me like GigglesnortHotel has removed useful information, been uncivil, added unsourced information, edit warred, and harassed another editor. I made one revert to his use of the word "former" to refer to a dead person: [147] and one revert to his removal of information: [148]. Who's the disruptive editor? 32.218.152.198 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism was not mentioned in this report by anyone except you. Why don't you log into your account to edit? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

32.218 is a long term and highly productive editor of Wisconsin social geography articles and I have worked with him (?) numerous times. In case you didn't realize it, GigglesnortHotel, there is no requirement to register here. Perhaps if you would have done what you were supposed to do and started a conversation on the article talk page, has behavior wouldn't have escalated to being pointy. How do you suppose you can communicate with an editor that uses a dynamic IP unless you do it at the article talk? 32.218....that was a bit out of line. Ggsh, remember that whether we use a silly name like yours and mine, or a real name like many or whether your handle here is a randomly changing number, we are all people and a civil discussion is most often all that is needed to resolve a problem. I'll be happy to join a conversation at the article talk page and perhaps with three calmer folks this solves easily. John from Idegon (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

So because we had a dispute, it's ok for him to violate WP:POINT, edit war, and delete the Shared IP template from IP talk pages in violation of WP:REMOVED? It's good to know we are allowed to violate policies when someone makes an edit we don't like or we have a disagreement with someone, I'll have to remember that. Anyway, obviously nobody is going to do anything about this, so just let the thread archive. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about tenacious legal claimant at Talk:The Matrix

There's someone who identifies as Sophia Stewart who claims to be the owner of The Matrix franchise following one or more lawsuits. The article about her was deleted at AfD in 2009, and it has been added to The Matrix article and on the talk page many, many times (as far back as 2003 -- see multiple sections in each of Archive 1, Archive 2 and Archive 4).

Today another user, seemingly claiming to be Stewart, is back (User:Neuroelectronic). I responded by moving the section down, adding the gist of the responses it has received in the past, and hatting it. It looks like he/she has doubled down and restored it to the top of the page.

Normally in such a case I'd probably start a conversation explaining relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, for example), but this isn't a user trying to improve the article -- it's either Stewart making actual legal claims, a user pushing a POV, ...or a troll spreading a meme. Per the latter, you see, Snopes and Time Magazine are two of many sources which have identified this story as bunkum. But those sources, the user says, are outdated, and there has actually been a more recent legal judgment in Stewart's favor. The links he/she provided to verify the claims are still terrible, as they are every time (one hosted at innersites.com and one at matrixterminator.com), but if there are actual legal claims being made here (regardless of merit), I'd prefer not to engage further.

So how should a claim like this be handled? Should the user be referred elsewhere and the talk page comments left intact? Should the comments be removed and the account reported to ARV as a promotion-only account, etc. I'm hoping to get a sense of what should happen, as well, when this user inevitably comes back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The user claims it's a separate ruling made after the publication of the Time piece, et al. (in 2014). But, again, the links for that ruling are to documents hosted on obviously unreliable sources. Personally, if I had just won $3,500,000,000 because I own the Matrix franchise, I wouldn't be desperate for that information to appear in the Wikipedia article, but that's just me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

one thing that makes no sense if that the user also claimed the judge ruled that they had the rights to the Terminator franchise in 2014 but Terminator Genisys premiered in June 2015. There certainly would have been some coverage about the ruling since it clearly would have affected the release of Genisys.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also Snopes was last updated in 2015. One would presume this means no good info on this alleged 2014 victory had reached the author then. Really even without Terminator Genisys and the contractual negotiations beforehand which were well covered, it's not plausible that no RS noticed a $3.5 billion lawsuit which handed over the rights of two of the most notable franchises of all time. Even if this really is the case, it surely can't be hard to find RS such as the author of Snopes to cover it. After all, someone who won a $3.5 billion lawsuit is someone who would have it much easier to get people to listen. Given the history here, until and unless there actually are RS discussing the recent victory, it's fine to shut down any discussion based on claims not supported by RS, regardless of whether these RS are allegedly outdated. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, even if it's true that the editor being discusssed won a court judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract, this little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. Note that the editor is apparently using wikipedia in court cases which while understandably being rejected, is another sign that great caution needs to be taken and of a strong COI [149] Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd echo Nil's concerns. In some disputes, having information favoring one side in Wikipedia can be seen as evidence in favor of that party. It's dangerous to have content in an article being introduced as fact in a litigation or other dispute resolution. We know that Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source but in the offline world, a party could make a claim that whatever is written in a Wikipedia article is 100% accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This slightly duplicates my second comment as I planned to submit it as an edit but took too long & it had already been responded to. I've tried to reduce duplication but it's difficult to completely remove it.

It seems there are two seperate issues here. One is the claim the named person won some claim relating to legal rights over the two franchises along with $3.5 billion. I see zero real evidence for this. (Someone claiming I won "X" is not evidence.)

The second is the claim they won a judgement against their former attorney due to breach of contract. There's a link to an alleged court judgement on an unreliable site [150]. Beyond the fact it's impossible to verify that this document is genuine and hasn't been modified, it actually has little relevance to either the Matrix or Terminator articles. It's a default judgement because the person they were suing never responded, perhaps because they were dead. As far as I can tell, there wasn't any real consideration of whether the copyright claim had any merit or could have been won. Especially interesting is that the court didn't award any damages on the possibility they could have won the case since Hollywood accounting meant both franchices lost money. The money they were allegedly awarded (and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the document is genuine) was based on the fees and judgements against them as a result of their earlier failed court case and incurred for the new court case.

I don't see any reason to think the judge in this case against the former attorney would have any involvement in any new court case to win rights over the franchise. Nor is there any mention of such in the case against the former attorney. (Actually I get the feeling from reading the judgement that the judge involved would much rather they were Judge Judy and could just kick people out of their court at their own whim.) So there's even more reason to disbelieve this claim of a $3.5 billion judgement convering "ownership" from the same judge based on the very sources being presented.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I read the only one that seems to award her anything, which Nil Einne sounds to have also read. Summary: Stewart sued Hollywood herself, someone offered legal services, both parties acted incompetently, but the lawyer is a lawyer so isn't allowed to act incompetently. Legal fees and other stuff awarded. The only relevant part for us, it seems, is where it talks about the copyright claims, and as Nil Einne notes it doesn't really get into the merits of the case, as far as I can see -- it just looks at it closely enough to see that her numbers (pulled from imdb and an unattributed email) were way too high and nothing can actually be awarded so those claims about what shouldacoulda if the lawyer was competent are denied. ...And as that's the one the user linked to this time -- as the most up-to-date evidence backing the claims on the talk page -- it seems we can conclude bunkum indeed.

It may well be that Stewart got screwed out of a few bucks, if the Wachowskis, et al. had purchased the story up front, and if The Matrix was indeed based on it, but we have a serious failure of WP:V here.

Would it be inappropriate to add a FAQ-style talk page banner about this, advising to remove the content immediately and explaining why? That's sort of a content issue that should get consensus at the article talk page, but I'd like to get opinions here, too, because it's also about the conduct of one or more users who repeatedly bring this up with different accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - That's not a bad idea. In the end, the "older" sources (TIME and Snopes) say that nothing happened, and the "court document" to me is irrelevant, since it's hosted on a non-government domain and we can't verify its authenticity. Really, it seems like none of this content is article-worthy. We just have to remember that it's about verifiability, not truth. The account has a clear COI and shouldn't be touching the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the edits a bit bizarre. The user had about 40 edits between 2009 and 2014, with none to The Matrix. Now after two years they return and make this odd claim. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That happens often enough that I suspect a market in autoconfirmed Wikipedia accounts. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• The content issue is not something for ANI. In terms of their behavior, I don't see a problem yet. We just ignore what people say about who they are in the real world, and all that matters is the sources they bring. So tell them "nobody on the internet knows you are a dog" and ignore their future claims of RW identity. The sources are no good - we need very reliable sources for an extraordinary claim like this (which would surely covered by independent reliable sources if it were real) - so the sources are not good enough; just explain why. Do that a couple times, then WP:SHUN. It they start to WP:BLUDGEON or edit war, that is actionable behavior for an ANI thread. I would say there is nothing to do here now, as this account has not made that many talk comments yet. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SM-Mara - whitewashing and legal threats

It's all in the recent history of the article If Americans Knew - SM-Mara (talk · contribs) is making legal threats (the repeated use of the words "potentially defamatory" when the edits in question are no such thing) and is systematically removing all references to the fact that Alison Weir has been criticized for her recommendation of books by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis such as "Israel Shamir" and Gilad Atzmon. SM-Mara has already been called out for their partiality, which is quite apparent through their edits, and seems to be either Weir herself or one of her minions. Thank you for looking into the matter. --Edelseider (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is "potentially defamatory" is not a legal threat. It is expressing a concern about our content. Do you have any diffs to other comments you think may be legal threats, or is this what you meant?

No comment on other concerns brought up here. HighInBC 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be a COI here that needs to be addressed, but like HighInBC I don't see the legal threat. If someone is removing content about a living person while expressing concerns that it is potentially defamatory, per WP:BLP they should not be reverted unless there is an explicit consensus to include that content. No one should be edit warring to reintroduce potentially BLP-violating content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Edelseider: You write "You should talk" on SM-Mara's talk page. They did. SM-Mara may have legitimate concerns, after all. COI or no COI. Just saying... Kleuske (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) With all due respect, where I come from, defamation is susceptible to have legal consequences, and rightly so if it is indeed slanderous or libellous (which is not the case here, so this is an abuse of that term anyway). Of course, I see User:HighInBC's point, but one can also see the point of edits like these. --Edelseider (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The term is used a lot by non-lawyers as well. That does not equal a legal threat in my book, though. I suggest you talk. Kleuske (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize in advance for probably not formatting this correctly.

I posted my concerns on the talk page of the article If Americans Knew. Some editors seem to be swarming to get quotations included that amount to extreme criticism of a living person without including any response or refutation.

The first quote in question states that an article by If Americans Knew's founder made unsubstantiated and unsupported claims and argued for false facts without evidence. In fact, a leading expert in the field and others support the facts explored. It seems to me that if this criticism of one of the founders many articles is going to be included, the many countering viewpoints/quotes must be included. This seems to me to be excessive digression in the article, but, either way, I feel it's completely inappropriate to include the criticism without balance.

The second quote is from a marginal writer making extreme accusations against Weir, as well as accusations about other authors, based solely on the source's assertion -- and the edits don't offer any further support of the accusations or any response from or on behalf of those authors. If these types of accusations against both Weir and other authors are going to be included, it seems to me that some kind of response must be included.

These quotes appear potentially defamatory against a living person. (My understanding is that even quoting or republishing potentially defamatory material is potentially defamatory itself.) At the minimum, the spirit of fairness requires that a response or counter viewpoint be given. I don't say that to make some kind of threats, and I think it should be a legitimate topic for discussion.

The person who posted this about me has made several personal accusations to me. It seems to me we should be talking about edits, citations and facts, not making personal accusations. I'm not very experienced, but I'm proud of trying to be very professional in my edits and excited to be learning how to be part of wikipedia. However, the swarming and personal attacks are quite intimidating.

Thanks.SM-Mara (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)SM-Mara (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edelseider and SM-Mara: Please note that both articles - Alison Weir (activist) and If Americans Knew - are now under arbitration-related sanctions. This means that:

• "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." This applies mainly to SM-Mara, who has under 500 edits.
• "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
• "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions: All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Thank you, GAB^gab 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict when I went to post my notice below, but since it was written I posted it anyway. Thanks @GAB for posting the terms in full. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry about pre-empting you there :) GAB^gab 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, GAB. Better too many notifications than not enough!  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)Arbitration Enforcement applies here. The articles If Americans Knew and Alison Weir (activist) clearly fall within the terms of the ArbCom remedies in the Arab-Israeli] case. I have therefore applied Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement to the talk page of both articles[151][152].

Editors may previously have been unaware of these restrictions, so I do not propose applying sanctions for actions which predate this posting. However, I urge all the editors involved to read the restrictions carefully. I am pinging SM-Mara, Edelseider, Vinsfan368, GeneralizationsAreBad as recent contributors to the articles so that they are aware of the restrictions. (Note that I haven't taken any view on whether they might have breached the restrictions; this is just a notification). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I first got involved in wikipedia when I saw the super unbalanced article on this topic. I was going to complain to wikipedia, but saw that anyone can edit (astonishing concept) and so I thought that was the path to take instead (and I was actually very proud of my edits, which I put a lot of effort to, and thought were well researched and professional, and began trying to get more involved) -- but it seems on this subject matter, my first instinct was correct. What's the process to raise concerns to the editors about articles on this topic, since newcomers like me shouldn't edit them? Posting on the talk pages? That didn't seem to get much response; is there something further to do? Thanks again. (And sorry if this posts twice; thought I'd posted but don't see it.)SM-Mara (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SM-Mara: posting on the talk page is the best place to start. If you are unable to reach agreement with other editors, then see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for pointers on how to resolve the dispute. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who posted this continues to make critical edits on the relevant pages, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew. Is that appropriate? SM-Mara (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no moratorium on editing the article, but it is recommended to discuss on the talk page rather than revert one another (WP:BRD). GAB^gab 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had posted my concern on the talk page, but no response yet and the edit still stands. :( SM-Mara (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Did I get this right? On WP:ANI a user calls two living people "neo-Nazis" and nobody blinks? Does WP:BLP not apply here or something? nableezy - 19:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I removed them as BLP violations (from your posting at the BLP noticeboard). No opinion on this thread, however I would tend to veer away from the user who thinks its appropriate to accuse other editors of being terrorist supporters. If Edelseider reinserts them, to AE we will go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Zalooka4 and genres

User:Zalooka4 has been adding unsourced genres to articles based on their personal interpretations, and in many cases marking the edits are minor. This is original research and they have been amply warned against this on their talk page yet continue to do so. Opencooper (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll stop contributing then, block me if you find necessary. Zalooka4 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, one in particular, I'm not seeing much of an issue here. In Opencooper's defense though, genre warring is a very prominent issue at Wikipeida, as they are almost always put in as unsourced and are therefore, not reputable. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Genre warrior and Wikipedia:Verifiability to get an understanding on why this type of behavior is seen as being unconstructive. Vensco (T | C) 00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

While one or two unsourced genre addition is innocuous, multiple additions form the bulk of their edits. In addition I and other editors have disagreed with their changes, such as categorizing Alien (film) as a horror "adventure". If an editor continues to engage in original research and still attempts to reinstate their changes, (if you look at their talk page, multiple warnings are for the same articles) it becomes quite disruptive. They either need to learn to work collaboratively and make sure their categorizations are reliably sourced, or if they're not willing to work within our community's norms then they can stop contributing as they wish. Opencooper (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

When multiple experienced editors leave warning after warning about unsubstantiated/WP:OR genre changing, it is time for some intervention, be it a mentoring, a topic ban (unlikely as this is the user's focus) or a short vacation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Page ownership issues on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice page

A pair of disruptive editors are subtly camouflaging page ownership abuse in the chaos of the point of view warring typical of comic book film articles.

Two editors are engaging in a clever slow motion edit war using the pretense of protecting the page from larger edit wars and trolling to hide their own point of view warring. Some of their efforts 2 protect the page are useful and welcome. This does not excuse them from using this as a smokescreen to wage their own edit war and disrupt others' good faith contributions that do not conform with their very narrow personal tastes.

Both GoneIn60 and Bignole cite consensus 4 their reverts of some good faith contributions despite having any clear votes or true consensus on the talk page. The talk page is a mess of bickering and socking. No clear consensus exists.

Both editors admit they are motivated by what they personally believe "sounds good" or their personal opinions over the movie's box office success or critical reaction. Personal preferences over how a sentence sounds is not proper justification for unilaterally reverting everyone else's stab at writing the article. Good faith attempts at refining the page or trimming the verboseness are greeted with hostility in the form of mindless templates and warnings on my IP without proper justification.They have a greater handle of process than me so I expect them 2 game the system against this complaint as the are doing with the page.Humbly I request help and resources 2 combat this elitism of the sort.

They are discouraging good faith contributions in their larger war 2 fight back point of view warring typical of comic book film pages. They are also using this chaos 2 sneakingly advance their own non-neutral points of view and page ownership wants. They are defending a right 2 paraphrase when the truth is that their "paraphrasing" is taking a source out of context and adding their own personal interpretations. It makes their paraphrase gaming a subtle WP:OR strategy. They are cleverly hiding their own 'drops-in-the-bucket', sly disruptive behavior behind the much worse 'louder' behavior of the tidal wave of trolls and socks constantly trolling the page.

Good luck with this. Wish I had the time 2 make right this article. Maybe y'all can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are required to let the editors know they are being discussed here when you pose a new ANI thread by leaving a message on their talk page, I have done so for you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My report acumen is rusty. Thank ya 4 fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

IP editor appears right after a sock is blocked, spouting the same argument. Interesting... --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What "sock?" My IP hub is heavily protected and private. There's no socking from here. There is probally meatpuppeting on the page I reported. It is slowmotion and extremely subtle 2 the point of being hard 2 prove so I declined against its inclusion in the complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure that I actually need to justify my actions and I don't think that Gone does either. If anyone looks at the talk page they will see that every edit that we have made or reverted back to has been based in part on a larger discussion about the wording of those items. This is not simply two editors willy-nilly reverting. There have been discussion and discussion on all of these points. If this IP is who they appear to be, then they were the 1 lone voice that kept making changes against consensus under the guise that it was still the same edit. Even after we explained how those edits changed the meaning of the statements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, a sockpuppet saying the exact same thing you are saying gets banned, and then you appear out of the ether with the same argument and non-novice knowledge of how Wikipedia functions... and your ONLY edits are on the page where the sock was editing... I'm afraid that exhausted all potential good faith I could muster. Someone do a SPI please. --Tarage (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

For those who may not be aware, the SPI's referred to above are here. Take note of the veiled threat linked in the first discussion. I haven't submitted a new one based on this IP, as the amount of evidence to do so may be a bit lacking. It is interesting that comments so far are written in somewhat similar tone and grammar, however. Also, my response in the talk page discussion clearly illustrates the issues with the proposed edits and gives ample opportunity for the editor to explain them in more detail, so that other editors can weigh in and form a new consensus or reaffirm the current status quo. We are open to new suggestions, but the previous attempts didn't appear to be improvements IMHO. Some justification for them would be a start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your problems with other editors and their socks is not my concern. It has nothing 2 do with my complaint.To mention it here is a dodge and distraction from your own possibly disruptive behavior.If an user happens 2 take the side of a troll who had a few good points among the dozen bad points it does not mean they are in a conspiracy with the trolls against U. That you and another editor with a history of disruptiveness so quickly made these allegations in a short time spam draws suspicion of the subtle meatpuppeting I wanted 2 include sans enough evidence 2 do so effectively.

Of the accusations against me, some sound stretched, all are simply untrue. Good to see that complaints of this kind are dismissed.You assume something about my behaviour which is not true. There was no intent on my part to pretend to be someone else or deceive someone -- something that the term socking suggests. I also find your use of terms such as 'disruptive' and 'unconstructive' on the comic book film page and my talk page 2b inflammatory when commenting on my contributions. If you can't justify your accusations as a reasonable against my claims of a very real problem of page ownership wars on the page in question then I will consider your allegations ungrounded and inflammatory ad hominem attacks. The page ownership problems are WP:DUCK if I ever saw one, typical of those expensive divisive comic book movies.

Some of the socks you argued with were making some good points even if they were long winded and disruptive. The remedy to the bulverism you and the socks are guilty of is to accept some to accept that some reasoning is not tainted by the reasoner, some points are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be specific. "Other editors" and the plural "socks" all refer to one individual per the outcome of the SPI. That individual was using multiple accounts to add artificial support for his/her viewpoint in talk page discussions and article edits. That's where a lot of the "bickering" – as you put it – stemmed from. I am always open to new ideas and suggestions, because I take on the perspective that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress; they're never finalized. A glance through my contributions will show that I routinely work with other editors to achieve a working consensus. In fact, Bignole and I were at odds for a while about a particular statement in the lead (see Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Update). After further discussion, we were able to quickly dissolve the crisis. In this situation, you and other anonymous editors (assuming they are all different individuals), were attempting to ram proposed changes without discussion, some of which went against previously discussed outcomes. You were eventually willing to initiate one, but after the first response, you immediately escalated this to an ANI. The escalation, in my opinion, was very quick without giving the talk page a chance to work things out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You brought this onto yourself. You, not me, escalted this in a way that made it impossible 2 talk it out short of mediation. You grouped my constructive edits in with all the disruptive lurking,and slapped unnecessary warnings on my IP. Assuming that I am responsible 4 all the disruptiveness on your article was your 1st mistake.I went 2 the talk page and read up on the dispute when told 2 so.That is when I noticed the WP:OWN problems.The sock(s) made a few valid points along with several bad ones. That socking is seperate than the anon socking occurring on the article itself that you were citing as justification 4 your edit war against me.Surely you can't reasonably contend that all of that is me.You are exploiting that problem of point of view trolling on the page, and a strategy of false accusations, to enforce an edit war of your own to hide your personal point of view or personal tastes in the page.I am not socking, end of story. I object 2 your efforts to straw man those with whom you do not agree.I do not have 2 have good faith over your preemptive bad faith on my IP. The burden was on you when you went down that road.

There is much disruptive editing on your page where anon contributors are trying insert words like 'mixed' and praise for Affleck or Gadot in the lead. I welcome your efforts 2 protect wikipedia articles.That does not afford you and the editor sole discretion 2 decide how the plot section should read, for example, or every exact word in the lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The first flurry of edits to the lead that came through were reverted, as each one touched a part of the lead that was previously discussed on the talk page. The edit summary of the revert clearly mentions this and suggests taking it to the talk page. Despite this, you reinstated your edit (diff) without explanation. Bignole partially reverted the edit (diff), followed by a quick re-revert on your part (diff), this time with an edit summary directed at Bignole. Clearly, you were quite aware that the partial reversion of your edit wasn't being grouped together with other anonymous editors, and it shows you pay attention to edit summaries. Yet, you ignored a previous request to discuss. In addition, a significant portion of your original edits have remained in the article (diff). The fact that 100% of your proposal didn't go through is no reason to feel slighted. It is still within your power to discuss the matter further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

'Investigate' me then then instead of moaning here about it. I have done nothing wrong. You should make a formal inquiry b4 slipping in personal attacks and judgement. Where was the "good faith?" Rationalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)

On the issue of existing/non-existing consensus on the talkpage; consensus is not based on a vote, what appears to be the entirety of the opposition to their position is made of sockpuppet users (until you came along) and can be disregarded. In other words, consensus exists. Also, this is one hell of a quick escalation, which brings your own motives into consideration. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusations? Bring it. My neutral contributions resulted in swift and hostile retribution and admonishments on my IP by bitter editors that brought their motives in2 question. The burden is not on me 2 prove a negative, or who I am not. That's an appeal to ignorance. Not everyone who disagrees with experienced editors are socks or aliases of noob anon trolls stalking your pages. Paranoid sham-intellectual witch hunts. Consensus is not assumed on changes not discussed in the 1st place! All my changes were reversed mostly without justification.They were based on previous revisions of the page I liked better than others, or trimming that needed 2 be done. I would not be here if knee jerk warnings were not dumped on my ip!! For the extremely narrow edits we can or can not make, it is too arbitrary 2 assume we know what you are thinkng. A vote over those exact specific changes should be recorded if it 'that' disputed, or something more specific should be outlined to warn us lurkers 2 avoid embarrassment or accidental edit warring. I see several anons making changes. Many of then denied creative access to the plot section, for example, for no other reason that you don't like it 4 personal reasons.That is on you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.231.217 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Y do U write like a hi 5chooler t3xting 2 her girlfriend? EEng 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off with the personal attacks against the editor. It serves no constructive purpose calling someone "a highschool girl." Move on.64.134.158.81 (talk)

Yes, 71.170.231.217, you have a lot better chance of having what you say taken seriously if you write using standard English spelling. This isn't Facebook. BMK (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are better ways to constructively impart that advice to the editor. You cannot justify name-calling.It doesn't belong in this section. Maybe joke around on their talk if you must.64.134.158.81 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the ip is a high-school girl. Which just leaves EEng's excuse...Primergrey (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the editor is a high school girl, then learning that different contexts require different forms of communication is a valuable lesson to be learned, and they might as well learn it here, instead of on their first important letter to a college or for a job application. BMK (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a shit who the ip is. And if, to your mind, posting on this noticeboard is similar in importance to a college or job application then there are many valuable lessons that you need to be a-learnin.Primergrey (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• BMK wasn't talking about the "importance" of various contexts, merely saying that difference contexts call for different forms of communication.
• a-learnin' has an apostrophe, since you're in that kind of mood apparently.

EEng 05:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's cute how you two answer for each other.Primergrey (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

We're both socks of each other - didn't you know? BMK (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Or meatpuppets. Not joking. Intentional or not, you are adding credence to his or her complaints on the subject. Get a bedroom you two. Seriously. Why here? For what end? Moving on! 64.134.158.81 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well done!! You found your way to AN/I with only your second edit ever! And I imagine it's just a gigantic coincidence that you and the 71 IP are both from Plano, Texas? BMK (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, we can't be meatpuppets because EEng has missed the last three Meatpuppets' Union meetings, so his membership has lapsed. BMK (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Har dee har har :) I'm in the midwest actually at a fast food restaurant where I work. Not sure if it's a dynamic IP address. It's an at&t WiFi. This is far from my 2nd edit. Not sure why my history hasn't shown up. I'm not anywhere near Texas. Do an SPI or checkuser if there's doubt. Happy trolling, love birds.67.41.116.241 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it can't be love, unfortunately. I gave the ring back to EEng. *sniff* Enjoy your job at the fast-food restaurant, but please don't edit while you're taking fries out of the Fry-a-lator, it gets grease all over the discussion. C U L8R d00d. BMK (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Filo500X

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 always edit without source, you can check all his edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Filo500X (no one is correct), please ban him. He cooperates with 62.252.141.251 booth are creating wrong edits for example: Scott Christie, AS Trenčín etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svk fan (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) You must notify users you report here, which I have done so. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Physical Threat by Alidas147

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.

---

Alidas147 Alidas made a physical threat when protesting a speedy deletion with this edit[[153]]. I don't see this as a serious threat however a threat non the less. The page has since been deleted. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked. If it was meant to be a joke, they can appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Louis Robles

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 association footballer Louis Robles' Wikipedia page states that he did not score in his loan form Gloucester City FC however this is untrue as he scored the equaliser in the last game of the season away to Lowestoft FC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.144.212 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Ongoing 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.

---

An editor with a fairly evident POV is inserting material into a number of articles associated with conflict in the middle east. He's not taking well to being reverted. I've urged him not to edit war, both in an edit summary and on his talk page. He's not getting it. From his talk page, I can see others have warned him about the same activity. Here are some very recent diffs: [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for that last diff - "Fuck off" in the edit summary does not confidence inspire. Not a cool down block - the disruption was going to continue - but it's possible that they'll calm down and discuss the issue once the block expires. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

:: @Ultraexactzz: You blocked him for one hour you may want to fix that... --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignore that I read the wrong block log. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Flat refusal by User:199.7.157.125 to engage in talk on the Macedonians (Greeks) 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.

---

Flat refusal by User:199.7.157.125 to engage in talk on the Macedonians (Greeks) page. See [160]. There is also a suspection of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry which was reported on the relevant page a few days ago. here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the sockpuppetry results, the IP's belligerent attitude is clearly detrimental to efforts at improving that article. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Quack! Kleuske (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Note: Editor continues to hop IPs and edit war. Requesting the article in question be locked from IP edits till this dies down. --Tarage (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

6/6/2016

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

---

Hi, some user by the name Iryna Harpy has been accusing me of removing sources from the article French people this is my contribution, I removed no source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_people&type=revision&diff=724048834&oldid=723747504. best regards
41.140.155.167 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 41.140.155.167, it's probably better to discuss this with the other user on their talk page, or the talkpage of the article. I've notified the user of the AN/I conflict. Vensco (T / C) 23:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)To be fair, you did not remove any sources, you just added an unsourced claim, which Iryna Harpy (justly) removed. Reverting her and reinserting the claim without any sources to back it up, is not a good idea. A trip to WP:ANI as your third edit does not bode well. Kleuske (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Vensco: I'll be fair again and point out the anon did in fact notify Iryna Harpy. A tad unconventionally, but still... Kleuske (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did anyone actually look at the edit I reverted. Aside from there being no edit summary, where did the text "... descendants of pre-indo European people that lived in western France which corresponds today to Pays de la Loire and Poitou-Charente as well as Gauls and Belgae..." come from? And this was brought straight to the ANI with a notification on my page, but no attempts to discuss the WP:RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Yeah, this was quite honestly a hasty AN/I report from the IP, which overall, is highly discouraged. Closing discussion because this is obviously not an AN/I issue, and it should clearly be taken to the article's talkpage... Vensco (T / C) 03:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP user at John Aravosis

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.

---

An anonymous editor at 73.8.233.238 keeps adding the same isolated blurb: "He claims to be unable to remember whether he supported the Iraq War." to the lead paragraph of the bio of John Aravosis. It is not connected to anything in the rest of the bio, and this user doesn't want to do anything more than to simply keep adding it. He has also, apparently, harassed some other user whom he suspects of being John Aravosis: [161]. Would some administrator kindly block the address? Motsebboh (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

(Non-administrator comment) I just reverted their most recent edit and gave them a final warning, as this is clearly not encyclopedic. Vensco (T / C) 01:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also left a warning that their edit is a violation of WP:OUTING and have removed the offending section on the user's talk page. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandal IP: 190.100.19.80

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 who kept vandalizing the Picarones article was blocked twice by Admin Materialscientist as reported by user Marek69 since my last message to him. Well, he's back, and still vandalizing. He keeps making vandalizing edits to the same article as seen in his edit history and I am certain he seems to be a WP:SPA, negatively affecting the article. I am certain he is not willing to contribute any positive changes to Wikipedia and unless he's not blocked indefinitely, he will continue with his vandalism until the end of time. (N0n3up (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

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

Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein

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 are several articles on the organ music of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel that I have created. I created the articles Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", Clavier-Übung_III, Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Handel organ concertos Op. 7 and Handel organ concertos Op. 4 amongst others. Since 2012 I have intermittently been working on Orgelbüchlein (OB), a collection of 46 chorale preludes for organ by Bach. These are musical compositions based on Lutheran hymns which Bach intended for 4 purposes: church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual. Thus religion plays a fundamental part in the work; and these compositions are part of the standard church repertoire. There are two standard texts on OB: one by Peter Williams (Cambridge University Press); and one by Russell Stinson (Oxford University Press), with 250 pages between them on OB. The writers are both organists (as am I). I have completed one fifth of the descriptions of the chorale preludes. Each involves musical quotations, a midi file in lilypond giving an audio version of the piece, part of the text of the hymn, North German images to illustrate the liturgical significance of the piece and a musical analysis. It is a rather slow and painstaking process adding new chorale preludes.

Francis Schonken has recently arrived on the scene. He appears to have an intense dislike of the fact that the pieces chart the liturgical year and have liturgical significance. He has been claiming that the article is POV pushing becauase of HEDOESNTLIKEIT. He does not feel he has to make any reference to the two main sources when discussing the article: just his own prejudices. He has attempted to add a small of content by copy-pasting from outdated sources (by Charles Sanford Terry (historian), a bio that I created) and duplicating content already in the article.

At the moment as I am busy adding content in a significant way, he has does everything possible to interrupt that content creation. Each chorale prelude requires preparation and thought. It cannot be rushed. Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered. Yet he has decided to create an impossible and toxic editing environment: in that environment he refuses to discuss the sources and simply reiterates his prejudices about religion and makes absurd statements about POV-pushing. The musical iconography in Bach's sacred music is a large part of Bach scholarship, even if Francis Schonken dislikes that. His likes and dislikes should not enter into the picture: the aim of Wikipedia is just to summarise the best possible sources, which is what I do.

At the moment, if I take a three or four hour break between editing chorale preludes, he comes back to vandalise the article; while I am in full flow but recuperating. He mostly removes content, including musical quotation. I am busy adding content for the 37 remaining chorale preludes. In the two sources Williams and Stinson, that can mean there are 3 to 5 pages to summarise, often involving extra material from elsewhere. Francis Schonken want to prevent that editing and, so it seems, frighten me away from the article.

He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please could he be topic banned from this article while it is being created?

His unwillingness to discuss sources shows extreme bad faith on his part. It runs completely counter to the way Wikipedia articles are written. He has played the same game of harassment on other editors (e.g. Gerda Arendt). As far as I am concerned, if doesn't want to look at the sources or doesn't have access to them, he should not be editing the article and certainly should not be preventing the main person responsible for the article completing its creation. Of course no article is in a finished state, but in this case the basic structure of the article has been clear from the outset. It is similar to the other articles on organ works by Bach and Handel that I have created; although each has its special flavour. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has now stated that using the two main sources (Stinson and Williams) to write the article is unacceptable. He says that relying on these as the main sources is POV-pushing. But on the other hand he has not proposed any other comparable sources at all. Indeed the reason is simple: there are none (at least in English). His stance is indefensible: he is rejecting modern musicological scholarship in this topic. There seems to be no rational reason behind his statements. Here are the books that he says are POV-pushing:

• Stinson, Russell (1999), Bach: the Orgelbüchlein, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-386214-2
• Williams, Peter (2003), The Organ Music of J. S. Bach (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–316, ISBN 0-521-89115-9

I never expected to be told on wikipedia that books like these are POV-pushing. The academic reviews of the books certainly don't say that. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In March I did this edit on Clavier-Übung III, i.e. moving a hymn text to the article on the hymn.

Now a few days ago I did a similar edit to Orgelbüchlein, that is: besides moving the hymn text to the related hymn article also replacing one image as explained in the edit summary. All at once this seemed for some reason problematic, thus I explained myself on the talk page of that article.

I tried to reason with Mathsci, to no avail thus far. Example: I pointed this editor to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explaining that naming other editors in talk page headers is not allowed, after I removed it, Mathsci reverted it back in, added another one with the same problem, and after removal yet again

I understand Mathsci is still under some ArbCom remedy for engaging in battlefield conduct. I've seen plenty of battlefield conduct in their behaviour in these few days. Some of their contentions above are all but a correct assessment of the situation (that is an understatement), so I hope nobody is taking this for true without checking. E.g., re. liturgical year / liturgical significance: I sorted the Church cantata article according to liturgical function recently, I don't think Mathsci is really aware what they accuse me of. Similar: talking about sources: that is what I put first in talk page discussions, so a fantastic accusation, with no base, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you mischaracterize Mathsci's current sanctions. He has mutual interaction bans with a number of editors, and cannot edit in the "Race and intelligence" subject area. (The exact wording can be found here; search for "Mathsci".) BMK (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci: remedies: "1.1) Mathsci is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct. —Passed 5 to 3, 01:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)". AFAIK that remedy is still active and it is stated in general, without being limited to the area of conflict of the case. And indeed, again, in a few days I've seen plenty of "battlefield conduct" by Mathsci whom I never met before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlike a block, a topic ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, an admonishment is not an active sanction. He isn't editing "under admonishment by ArbCom", like a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, he was admonished by ArbCom for his editing up to the time of the closing of the case. You'll note that he was site banned in that decision, and ArbCom just recently unbanned him, and the unban announcement made specific note of the iBans and topic bans that are still in effect, but made no mention of the admonishment, because, again, it's not an active sanction. BMK (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand all that, that's why I used the word "remedy", not "sanction" (which is a qualification you came up with and which is indeed irrelevant to the remedy I referred to). Being admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct should make someone refrain from battlefield conduct immediately after some other remedies (those others of the "sanction" type) were lifted and/or otherwise alleviated or modified (i.e. at a time when the admonishment for engaging in battlefield conduct has not been modified or alleviated or whatever at all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the question here is who is exhibiting "battlefield conduct". Is it simply Mathsci, or is it both Mathsci and you, or is it just you? Clearly, you believe it's just Mathsci, but you're hardly an unbiased observer. It's for others to determine who is misbehaving (if anyone), not you. BMK (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

Adapted some section header levels above as all of this is still part of the problems first outlined some years ago by Zwart. I'll be placing a NPOV related tag on the article now, linking to this section. The latest drive for unbalance seems to be tilting this article too much towards one or two sources (as if they were the only ones writing on individual chorale preludes in this collection). The NPOV policy and other core content policies demand to let all rpresentative reliable sources speak for themselves, and not filter them through the perspective of one or two of them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words, using the two major references (there are no others) is POV-pushing and the use of these OUP and CUP books warrants a giant NPOV tag on the article. Good grief. I've rarely seen anything so disruptive. Francis Schonken presumably will now claim that somebody else wrote that, not him. Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this situation needs a third-opinion type of resolution. It's basically a content-dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye, and trying to decipher who is causing the log-jam is I think really too long of an endeavor for ANI to figure out. Therefore, I would suggest posting an appeal for opinions on the WP:WikiProject Classical Music talk page, or go directly to WP:3O and post a request for a third opinion there. Alternatively, invite another editor(s) in who commonly edits on Bach articles -- say, Gerda Arendt, etc. -- and have them opine. From my own casual observation, I've noticed that Francis Schonken can go both ways in his editing style -- he can indeed sometimes create a toxic and domineering editing environment, or he can edit reasonably and rationally and collaboratively. To the OP I might have suggested that wholesale revision of an article is usually done best and easiest on a user-page draft rather than live, and that taking years to implement one kind of update is not ideal -- it should be done of a piece, so that the article stays coherent. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. When I wrote Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, I used the above book of Williams and Stinson's book "The Great Eighteen". For the Handel organ concertos I used the book of Stanley Sadie, etc., etc. Despite the smearing remarks of Francis Schonken, arbcom has praised my articles on baroque music. On the other hand, Francis Schonken was warned recently by two administrators about harassing Gerda Arendt, another Bach editor.[162] He's just repeating that behaviour towards another unfortunate victim. He seems to resent my expertise. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UT

You say "Not really" but you fail to refute a single thing I've said, and are indulging in repetitious self-justification. This is why I think this is a two-editor merry-go-round which needs a third opinion. Please stop arguing your content-dispute case here and take it to the proper venues as I've suggested. ANI is the wrong venue. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Observations of article talk-page behavior: For the heck of it, I just took an objective look at the article talk-page dialogue between the two editors (which has all occurred within the past week), and these edits are particularly egregious: [163], [164], [165], [166]. And they are all by Mathsci, and all from the past 24 hours. Mathsci, if you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have made 40,000 edits, and you still don't know how to behave in article talk-page discussions, I'd say you are a large part of, if not the source of, the problem here. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mathsci should direct comments towards content and not contributors. It doesn't matter so much at ANI, but this section should be titled "Disruption at Orgelbüchlein" without naming an editor. Before the current excitement, Mathsci had made 492 edits to Orgelbüchlein from May 2010 to June 2013, while Francis Schonken made one edit in February 2015. Francis Schonken should find someone who is actually damaging the encyclopedia before going into attack mode—leave the article alone and return in a month. Then ask for opinions at a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, because they are intended to deal with behavioral issues, section titles on AN and AN/I are exceptions to the proscription against naming names. BMK (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it's not necessary in this case and does not help the situation. My comment was after skimming Talk:Orgelbüchlein and a better statement would have included that after the finger-pointing at that page, it would be better to tone down the drama here (hmmm, that's not right for ANI either!). Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: To Johnuniq's points: I think the OP fails utterly in his OP to make his case (not a single WP:DIFF of evidence, and definitely no substantiating of this bit of mind-reading: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered"). Moreover, Mathsci had not edited the article in three years [Edited to add: likely due to his recently rescinded site ban] before Francis Schonken came by this week and made a large removal: [167]. That said, Francis Schonken should not be removing text from a stable article (having the same material covered in the main article and the fork article is fine and there is no stricture at all against that), or quarreling against established reliable sources, or (what appears to be deliberately) interfering with what is now ongoing work on the article by an expert in the field who has apparently been adding to and organizing it for quite some time now, or making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [168], and Mathsci then responded in kind). I agree with Johnuniq that Francis Schonken should probably leave the article alone, Mathsci should be able to return it to how he had it, and Francis Schonken should work somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't think he should return to the article in less than two months, if at all, and if so at that point then only under the condition of engaging in formal WP:DR with the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC); edited 05:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with your summary. I have resumed editing the article after 2 1/2 years away from it. At the top of one of the main sections Orgelbüchlein#Chorale_Preludes_BWV_599–644 is written: The brief descriptions of the chorale preludes are based on the detailed analysis in Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999) with harvtxt links. 9 of the brief descriptions are complete and I have started adding the remaining 37. Those two sources are the main sources in the English language within current Bach scholarship. The act of putting a POV tag on an anodyne and scholarly article was disruptive; equally disruptive was the charge that major sources in current Bach scholarship were being deliberately excluded in favour of biased sources. To restore some balance from the real world, here is Williams' obituary in The Guardian, written by the Bach scholar John Butt; Peter Williams died in April. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I deem the organisation Mathsci proposes for the article problematic (explained in part here). Instead of engaging in the discussion of that issue, Mathsci tries to govern the article content by {{in use}} templates (i.e. keeping them up between editing sessions), ignoring the topic when discussed (instead adding walls of text in talk pages unrelated to the topic at hand), engaging in inadmissible talk page behavior (see diffs above, repeated by Softlavender), removing tags without addressing the issue at hand, and the like. I'd suggest not to reinforce the editor's self-assigned presumptions w.r.t. to article content, but instead invite them to take part in reasonable discussion of the article structure topic. Mathsci has been there before, compare Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41#Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I, and for the Orgelbüchlein: Talk:Orgelbüchlein/Archive 1#Religious POV.

Re. "large removal": nah, moving two stanzas to a hymn article as I did on Orgelbüchlein (see diff above) wasn't a "large removal". I performed similar moves (of more than two stanzas) in March (diff above) and also this one from 2014: [169]. If contesting the edit and there is an ongoing talk page discussion about it then take part in that discussion with reasonable arguments: pasting a {{in use}} template and filling the talk page with off-topic replies (crying woolf about "blanking" and the like) is far from an appropriate response.

That being said, I'm of course glad Mathsci expands the article with analyses and references, but that hardly solves the "excess of vaguely related primary sources" problem: if anything it makes that issue unavoidable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't signify what or how you personally "deem" the current organization of the article -- that is the status quo and has been for years. Your coming in and trying to bully and edit-war your way to change it without consensus or WP:DR is not acceptable, and the current consensus here on this thread is that you need to bow out and stop interfering with the logical progression of the article by the expert in the subject matter who has been steadily adding to and improving it over the years [with an involuntary hiatus] and is following a well-explained plan. At this point both your large and small edits to the article are looking like harassment, especially given your talk-page characterization of them, and it would be to everyone's advantage if you bow out for now, wait a few months as Mathsci has requested (and now two other editors here have as well), and find something else on Wikipedia to do. Your "religious POV" tag on the article is the height of disruptiveness, in my opinion, and indicative of the unrealistic and battleground attitude you are taking. I think it best that you voluntarily leave the article now. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While being typical behavior for quite a lot of editors, it is farcical that someone might become so indignant about Mathsci's development of the article as to create all the bluster. If Mathsci is adding too much detail, that is hardly a great wiki sin. I mentioned above that Mathsci has commented too much about an editor rather than content, so there is some blame for everyone, including myself who should be working elsewhere. The solution is for Francis Schonken to forget about the article, and to get other opinions after a couple of months rather than taking it upon himself to be the judge and executioner. It's fine to disrupt someone who is adding misleading or poorly sourced material to degrade an article, but that is definitely not the case here. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I suggest you all look at Francis Schonken's behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and his behaviour on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4, including unacceptably copying to that page editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [170]. They are indicative of the kinds of problems Mathsci is facing. Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is a Featured Article promoted only two months ago. One month after its promotion Francis started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [171]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [172] and edit-warring [173], [174] to keep it there. The main editor objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted [175]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. The article is still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor have been driven away. Its talk page is a now an unreadable mess and a place where Francis talks only to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I hear you and I trust your analysis. I have put Orgelbüchlein on my watchlist, but I don't know what to do about Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4. Do you have any suggestion(s) or proposal(s)? I've seen this pattern of disruption and bullying with Francis Schonken before. What is your recommendation here? Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have been pinged here, a place I try to avoid (otherwise I might have come for the reasons Voceditenore outlined above). I understand Mathsci's point fully. Look just at one diff of many: the fourth (central) stanza of the chorale replaced by a link to the chorale article, leaving the image and text without its base, - no improvement if you ask me, on top of no consistency with the other pieces of the book.

I just returned from vacation where I had another chance to listen to BWV 565. Francis Schonken wrote that article, I respect it and stay away from it. I think if Francis offered the same respect to the articles of others (BWV - now a redirect to one of the longest articles on Wikipedia instead of a brief explanation of how Bach's works are arranged in the catalogue, Church cantata (Bach), see that discussion where I said first that I have no time to deal with it, and I could name more articles), we all had a better time. "Man liveth and endureth but a short time." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for your input. I have to agree from my observations (generally from afar but sometimes in the thick of his disputes with other editors over articles that the other editor[s] have vastly improved and carefully added to) that Francis Schonken's editing behavior is often disruptive, disrespectful, and domineering, and often drives good editors away in favor of his and only his preferred edits. The question is, what to do about this? It seems by all accounts to have occurred across many articles and over a long period of time. At this point we have an editor who, although he has also made some good contributions to Wikipedia, has a history of problematical behavior. Is it time for a broad-scale investigation? Or a topic ban on certain types of articles? A probationary period in which he is barred from this sort of behavior? Or some other solution(s)? Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A temporary ban from articles on the sacred music of J.S. Bach, broadly construed, might be in order. That would not exclude the lengthy article he wrote on the popular organ piece BWV 565, which has no religious connections and is probably not by Bach and not originally for organ. (Unfortunately closer inspection of BWV 565 shows that it is a very poorly written article for a large number of reasons: amongst them poor English with some sentences completely indecipherable; no proper treatment of the fugue, not even a musical quotation of the fugue subject despite 3 large images of the opening of the toccata—all part of a general absence of musical analysis; not using the main modern sources for commentary; quoting out of date sources not generally accepted within modern Bach scholarship; unduly lengthy content on legacy, such as Walt Disney's film "Fantasia"; and a blow-by-blow commentary on the source books in wikipedia's voice. This would not be so serious, except that Francis Schonken seems to think[176] that his article sets the standard for writing articles on Bach compositions.) Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Softlavender's suggestion to take it to some form of dispute resolution. Mediation, third party etc. Nothing requires administrative action here - standard content dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, my suggestion at the top of the thread is very outdated. FS has been requested by three separate editors (two of whom are completely uninvolved) to stay off the article for at least a few months. In addition a pattern of problematical behavior on FS's part across many articles and over a long period of time has been noted by at least four editors independently of each other. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Its still a content dispute. And frankly on the talkpage its not FS who is the worst offender in battleground behaviour. Lets not mention comments from the opening complaint here by Mathsci: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered. Yet he has decided to create an impossible and toxic editing environment" - implying someone is deliberately exploiting another's illness is far beyond AGF. And this is not the first time Mathsci has used his illness as a weapon/sympathy tool in a dispute. Last time he was hospitalised prior to his ban, he made very similar claims (and yet still managed to log on to wikipedia regularly to engage in disputes). Francis is no angel, but ultimately when both parties have little credibility and a history of less than stellar behaviour, favouring one over the other in a content dispute would be silly. Send it to mediation, let them both make their cases. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this side discussion, but we (the editors investigating and opining on this thread) have already long since gone over and surpassed all of those observations and reached other conclusions -- starting with Johnuniq's entry into the conversation; if you do Control+F and find his first post here you can see the flow of reasoning. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By 'long since' you mean 'in the last 48 hours'. Fortunately I do not have to agree with you and am perfectly capable of reading a discussion and forming my own conclusions. So less condescension and suggestion that I have not in fact, done so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is no content dispute between two editors. It should not be on ANI because it is not one incident. It is being helpless against an editor who produces more than I am able to read, doesn't adhere to WP:BRD and is the only one who ever edit warred with me on my talk page. The naming of Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 could have been short: FS moved - I reverted - Francis should find consensus. No, we have a flood of talk page comments, all about two names with exactly the same meaning. I have no time to deal with that. Btw, I am not the author of that article, Thoughtfortheday wrote much more, the community did, several people supported for FA, - it just doesn't meet Francis's standards. - Correction of mistakes is a different thing, we are always willing to do that if asked reasonably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm just going to correct one of your statements: ANI is for patterns of problematical behavior; it is not for single incidents. However, if you are implying that the relevant patterns of behavior and the number of articles affected are perhaps too large to be dealt with at ANI, that is possibly something to take into consideration I suppose, if a satisfactory result cannot be achieved here for the problems uncovered. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah Gerda, you may want to use a better example of someone else's bad behaviour than a content dispute over the title of an article where you failed to gain consensus for your position despite forum-shopping it to a number of a venues. You clearly *did* have time to deal with it, since you spent an unusually large amount of time attempting to drum up support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As Softlavender already pointed out, the disruption has arisen from large scale edits [(mass) tagging and arbitrary blanking] to at least two stable articles. The featured article Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is one example; Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 625 is another. I also believe Gerda Arendt, one of the major contributors to BWV 4, felt that she was being placed under undue pressure, so much so that she abandoned editing the article. Vociditenore also mentioned Francis Schonken's disruptive pasting of text from other unrelated discussions to force a point (this has happened on both talk pages). A temporary topic ban on Bach's sacred music, widely construed, is a reasonable solution. Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet, still a content dispute. Gerda's bringing up of Christ lag is a red herring as its clear from the discussion there that Francis had both policy and source-based justifications for his position which Gerda was unable to refute despite extensive forum-shopping. I do not see any difference here. Take it to mediation or stop attempting to have someone removed from the topic because they disagree with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the cantata, Voceditenore did. (Repeating: I try to avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Repeating also: I am not a "major contributor" to the article, I am one of many, it was developed over years, which explains a certain unevenness.) The present cantata name contradicts most of the sources for the article, including the most relevant ones (Dürr-Jones, Bach-Digital). I didn't go forum-shopping, I raised a more general question on classical music, and I asked a friend who is an admin and an arb if ignoring the whole thing would be best. I wasn't "unable to refute", but gave up for lack of time, - I returned from vacation only late yesterday. Please note that "no time" doesn't mean that I don't have the time but that I don't want to waste my time. - I don't want to see Francis removed from the topic to which he can contribute with knowledge, but need a way to less friction and less waste of time. For a while we had an approach that Francis wouldn't edit an article but only raise questions on the talk. It worked then, but it's still a problem that Francis can raise questions faster than I am able to deal with them. - Any suggestion welcome. 1RR perhaps? Francis accepting WP:BRD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re. Softlavender's "... making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [177], and Mathsci then responded in kind) ..." above: I fail to see any snark in the diff. I can only speak for myself – there at least I am sure: no snark of any kind was intended with that article talk page post. "Mathsci ... responded in kind" is not how I perceived this. I never felt any snarkyness or whatever of that kind, not in any kind, in Mathsci's responses. Matschi defended their edits, I defended mine, each from their perspective, but there was no atmosphere of snarkyness in any of that afaics. No "attacks" either in my talk page responses at Talk:Orgelbüchlein. There, as I explained, and has been linked a few times above, were some disallowed tendentious talk page headers in response, but that has long been settled.

Sorry for being emphatic on that point, while a lot of extrapolation seems to be derived from the wrong basic assumption on the snarkyness. If Mathsci experienced my response snarky they could have said so. I extend that invitation: please tell me what you experienced snarky in my response, if you did so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, your first point was rather snarky. But that's not the real problem illustrated by that diff. The problem is that you:

a. adamantly refused to accept that the other editor had a point: (my bolding) "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing. Yes you did. Not once but twice.

b presented your views as fiats instead of the start of a collaborative discussion and then edit-warred to "enforce" them: (my bolding) The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again and The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again.

These issues are pervasive in your editing and in your behaviour on talk pages, and it isn't restricted to the Bach articles. For example, observe your behaviour in this sequence of conversations: [178] [179], [180] over your edit-warring, aggression, and utter refusal to get the point on, of all things, a college's course page at WikiEd. And that's one of many examples. You have a lot to offer. Your edits are often very valuable and you are clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. But you do that at the expense of exhausting and driving off equally valuable editors from articles and making talk page discussions intolerable. Yes, improving the Bach articles is important but so is common courtesy, cooperation, and respect for your colleagues. I know it's not easy to find several editors criticising you in a public forum, but I encourage you to reflect a bit on what we're saying. If you don't, I'm afraid you'll end up here again and again. At the very least you'll squander whatever good will and patience other editors may have had towards you. This will be my last comment here, apart from opposing your topic ban. Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, speaking as someone who's had talk page disputes with Softlavender more than once in the past, she was not snarking you. She was describing your behavior accurately and with no emotionally-loaded comments directed at you or your content (snarking is a subset of that class of behavior). You were snarking other editors. She called you on it.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the subject matter in dispute or the personal dynamics of the issue you and Mathsci have with each other to endorse or oppose a topic ban at this time - it's unclear you're the only offender on this topic. I think further investigation of this and related disputes is called for of your conduct and of Mathsci's. It is my impression from the testimony of the editors who came forth with separate examples of things they say you did wrong that evidence of a problem with your editing style exists. My friendly and not-snarky advice is for you to read over the testimony regarding your edits on articles other than the one Mathsci posted here about originally, try to set your anger aside, and learn from your mistakes. That was helpful to me in the past, and allowed me to shift my focus back to editing an encyclopedia.

Mathsci, with due regard for the work which other editors qualified to give a good third opinion have praised from you, and as another Wikipedia editor with moderately severe medical issues, I hope you recovered well from the illness for which you last presented in hospital. That said, I was in the hospital last December and must go back in six weeks for another procedure. It would not occur to me to expect other editors to take that into account in a discussion of my edits in wikipedia, because while I've had the occasion to learn much about specialty issues and help edit articles here for accuracy, clarity and concision, I'm not indispensable. None of us are. I invite you to read Wikipedia:No_editor_is_indispensable. The proper reaction to being kept from editing owing to illness is simply to get well and start over. loupgarous (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...she was not snarking you": I never thought she was. I also never said nor implied she was. You seem to reply to something that is nowhere apparent from the above conversation, nor from the many places it links to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Francis: "Sorry for disturbing you by replacing a deadlink by a working link. It was not my intention to disturb you with an edit to a section that had no {{in use}} template" is pure biting sarcasm. There's no other possible way to read it, in my mind, because Mathsci had not mentioned that at all in his preceding comments on the Talk page. In my opinion it's just a blatant jab at Mathsci while trying to justify your own unnecessary meddling with the article while it was being expanded and improved by the expert in the field. "The section with an {{in use}} template hasn't been edited for several hours now, so per the template instructions I'll replace it with an {{under construction}} template" is pure wikilawyering (over templates of all things!). "Re. "blanking parts of the article": I did no such thing" has already been refuted by Voceditenore above [181]. "In your above reply you missed what I said, and replied to things I didn't say" is untrue; Mathsci had replied with his clear rationale for the article's content [182]; you simply didn't accept his answer or consider it worthwhile, and instead chose to claim he didn't respond to you correctly. (And by the way in my opinion your idiosyncratic reading of WP:PRIMARY is I think simply that -- idiosyncratic, and especially odd when you propose doing the same thing that Mathsci has done on the main article to the fork articles, and especially so when you had, above on the talk page, tried to justify the changing of a large image to a minuscule image to accommodate your section blanking [183] as "a hymn that is in no way about the burial of Christ should not be illustrated by a painting about that theme" when in fact Christ lag in Todesbanden is about Christ's death and by extension burial.) "The entombement image is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove it again" is a clear violation of BRD. "The text of stanzas 1 and 4 of Luther's hymn is inappropriate, for reasons explained above. I'll remove them again. They are contained in the "Christ lag in Todesbanden" article" is also a clear violation of BRD, as well as making up policies or guidelines which don't exist -- there is no stricture on material in one article being in another article as well. "The explanation of BWV 625 in the article on the hymn is inappropriate in that article, at least it is better in its place in the article on BWV 625. I'll transfer that explanation to here" likewise -- unilateral decision made without consensus and in contravention of BRD and absent any policy. "In fact it's simple: instead of having the text of the hymn in the article on the organ piece, and the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the hymn, we have the explanation of the organ piece in the article on the organ piece, and the text of the hymn in the article on the hymn" is more of the same. Note that in the discussion in this ANI thread Voceditemore has recommended three times that you reflect on the issues that are being raised here (she has been saying that in the hopes that matters will change). However if you fail to see how you've been editing uncollaboratively and uncooperatively, then her recommendation is for naught. We're all trying to raise a solution here, but the solution requires insight and understanding on your part. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...Christ lag in Todesbanden is about Christ's death and by extension burial". We shouldn't do "...by extension..." when choosing images. (Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles, policy: "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central"). "Central" to the current image (File:Entombment Art Institute Chicago Cologne.jpg) is the Good Friday related theme of Christ's burial, with Mary central in the painted group of persons mourning Christ's death – not the Easter related theme of Christ resurrecting from death. There's no Holy Virgin in the illustrated chorale, no mourning by anyone, just Christ resurrecting from death with a host of theological implications, and joyful "Halleluja!"s to celebrate the event: it is a Hymn written for Easter, not for Good Friday.

Further, there is some religous POV in play – Zwart remarked on it in general, here's how it could be seen as applying specifically to this choice of image: Lutheranism has less mourning Mary than Catholicism, as an example for that BWV 1083 could be mentioned where Bach replaces the text "At the Cross her station keeping stood the mournful Mother weeping" by that of the Miserere psalm (Old Testament, no mournful Mary weeping). Illustrating a Lutheran chorale text, if there ever was one, with a Catholic slant on a different theme is kind of an inappropriate religious POV imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break: repeated disruption on Talk:Orgelbüchlein

After having been made aware that Orgelbüchlein is an article in the course of creation—including all the sections after the lede, and in particular commentary on individual sections on each of the 46 chorale preludes, along with companion articles on WP and multiple audio/image files on commons—User:Francis Schonken has resumed his disruptive heckling on the article talk page.[184] Despite this thread, he repeatedly continues to express his personal opinion about a "religious point of view". Large preliminary sections, before the discussion of individual chorale preludes, remain in an evidently unfinished state. A glance at the two main sources, Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999), shows that quite clearly. The history ends almost in mid-sentence, there is only the briefest summary of the compositional style with no content on purpose, there is no detailed discussion of reception, etc. The lede is a summary of what will be in the article, which I am busy creating (as the tag at the top of the article indicates). The phrase "theological statement" is not contentious, except in the eyes of Francis Schonken. Many commentators refer to this aspect of Bach and his compositions. William Renwick in a commentary on BWV 614 (a section currently under construction) writes:

Bach’s art is frequently intertwined with his religious convictions. The consecration of time through music, which is part of the Christian tradition, is seen in his great cantata cycles, in Clavierubung III, and in the Orgelbuchlein. Indeed, the Orgelbuchlein, in its extensive conception though incomplete realization, contains his most detailed exposition of the theological expression of time. In many cases Bach’s compositional process was a matter of taking the text or theme of the hymn as a basis for selecting topics that could be translated into musical terms and then built into contrapuntal structures.

In Christian theology, the supreme action is the God-Man event, the incarnation. New Year, with its implications of rebirth, is a central point in the twelve-day Christmas cycle that extends from the Nativity to the Epiphany. This is the divide between old and new. In the spiritual life, this is worked out by turning away from a sinful past and toward a future promise of redemption. This concept may well be reflected in the change of tonal orientation that “Das alte Jahr” embodies. But despite our best intentions, each new year, each new beginning always ends up as a retracing of our old follies. The dividing point of the new year is in fact a mirage; we are helpless to reform without the intervention of God. In the same way, the ending on E inevitably points us back to our starting point on A.

Current musical commentary by Bach scholars like Renwick, Wolff, Williams and Stinson addresses all aspects of a composition. In the case of Orgelbüchlein this involves all sorts of things including theology and religion—hardly surprising for a collection of organ pieces devised to follow a Lutheran hymnbook and dedicated to the glory of God. This is clear in what Renwick writes above about OB and ClvUbg III, both exceptional amongst Bach's organ compositions. In an uncontentious scholarly article, which this evidently is, the lede summarises the content and no citations are needed in the lede. If Francis Schonken is too impatient to wait for that content to be added to the main body of the article, he should take the article off his watchlist until the initial stage of creation has been completed. His disruptive conduct at the moment seems designed to distract from and halt content creation. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

Per Mathsci's analysis and proposal above [185], [186]: Francis Schonken is topic-banned for six months from Bach's sacred music, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Mathsci and per the problems noted by Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately the disruption has not stopped. On this article talk page (which I have not edited), there is continued edit warring, restoring mass copy-pasting of other editors' comments with time stamps from other talk pages.[187] Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL 25,000-byte talk-page post [188]. Always a sign of a collaborative editor. And yes, restoring it less than 6 hours ago shows the disruption has not stopped [189]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

He was posting the discussions that Gerda started in other locations on the same issue in an attempt to keep the discussion in one venue. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is a link for a reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As already explained above, I started two discussion, one on classical music, the relevant project, and one asking an admin if I should ignore it. The other copies are from discussions which I didn't start. Brianboulton asked on my talk page what was going on, I answered. His response was reverted three times, I archived the thread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (below). The point isn't the length of the post. The point is that Francis re-posted editors' comments from other pages and refactored them to suit his purposes. WP:FORUMSHOPPING does not remotely justify that. Nor does it justify re-posting others' comments that are irrelevant to improving the article. Note that in this particularly egregious example, he selectively edited Brianboulton's and my comments at Gerda's talk page which were highly critical of his behaviour and tone at Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page. This is the full and original context. Francis removed our criticism of him and what he left implied that I was primarily criticising Gerda for forum shopping. How on earth is re-posting on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 my suggested wording for Gerda to use when posting at other forums relevant to improving the article? It was simply a tool to browbeat and discredit another editor. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves. The article title is unchanged. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you substantiated your witty comment by some reliable source. The article title was changed. The comment hurts me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Blatant attempt to remove dissent as part of a content dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it isn't a 25K post- it's an entire thread of many editors' posts. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A post is a post. And it's 25,000 bytes long. Moreover, it's a violation of several policies, including refactoring and copying others' comments out of context and across pages and without permission (see Voceditenore's report here [diff]). And he nevertheless restored the massive WP:TALK-violating post six hours ago. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Only in death has identified some other issues but they are not actionable. It is not a "content dispute" but disruption by Francis Schonken as explained above, and as reported here (diff). No one is required to comment at ANI, but my inference from FS's absence is that FS sees no reason to engage with others—given the context, that is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx for pinging. No, your inference is wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be open to formal third party mediation Francis? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Only in death: Mediation requires consent from all parties, so would not happen. Although adding serious content to wikipedia might not be quite your cup of tea (326 content edits, mostly on fantasy worlds, war games, anime and manga), dreaming up methods to prevent others doing so [190][191] is not a substitute. Mathsci (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, where one party in a content dispute refuses to engage in mediation that is telling in itself. It clearly indicates who *is* willing to discuss and who just wants to *win*. Although to lower myself to your level for a moment, if we are going through each other's editing history in order to make off-topic attacks - perhaps you would like to explain why when you came back from your ban one of the first edits you made was to an article that shares the real name of an editor you had significant disputes with in the past? Unlikely coincidence there given the name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a participant on wikipediocracy whose pseudonym is taken from the same fantasy series as yours? The wikipediocracy character has made several vicious and unjustified attacks on me, including charges of blatant sockpuppetry. Given your present conduct, you are probably that same person, come here to "sort me out". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO this seems to be taking an undesirable WP:ASPERSION route. In an attempt to get back on topic, I just came across User talk:Zwart#August 2012:

• "... Please try not to make your arguments personalized ..." (Mathsci) – seems to be applicable here.
• "... several of Math's [...] articles point to a problem of him adding excessive images and other unnecessary material. There's only like a dozen decent-sized paragraphs of original prose in the Orgelbüchlein article despite it being 90 kilobytes in size and even there the sourcing is not always particularly clear, so I think that article does need a lot of work. He should avoid the temptation to clutter an article with images or lyrics, especially since in the most severe cases it could arguably be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE ..." (The Devil's Advocate) – above Johnuniq wrote "... adding too much detail [...] is hardly a great wiki sin ...": neither is addressing the excessive images and lyrics situation a great wiki sin. I support Matschi in addressing the original prose situation, which, to me at least, thus far seems to be the best part of all what followed my running in with them.
• "... what was very painful in this exchange was the way I was made to feel unwelcome contributing to the article. Wikipedia should not be about fighting for your turf. I'm backing out of this one until I see signs of things opening up." (Zwart) – in other words Mathsci successfully chased Zwart off the page. I tried to be more resilient in not letting me be chased off the page. I appreciate that the way I went ahead with that was too forceful, that's at least what I understand from the many comments here.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This is typical output from Francis Schonken (FS). It does give, however, a very good illustration of his modus operandi. In 2012 while under construction a drive-by editor (Zvart) blanked all the images in the article, a skeleton at that stage. I restored them, carefully explaining why they were there. When FS appeared at the article 4 years later, he failed to notice the difference between completed and uncompleted sections—those with and without musical analysis. 25% is finished: To do list. Here are an uncompleted group and a completed group. Other sections, e.g. Reception, are unwritten. As an article in progress, FS's "statistics" are meaningless and misleading. He has also indiscriminately reproduced other people's comments out of context to make his point. That is also what Voceditenore et al have objected to. Was there a particular reason FS chose a site banned user? Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx for coming back on topic.

Re. "... drive-by editor ..." – you drove them off the article in two days time, sounds inopportune to characterize the other party as drive-by under these circumstances. Zwart's 2012 statement quoted and linked to above makes clear they had contributed more if you hadn't driven them away from the article.

Re. "... carefully explaining why [the images] were there ..." – I take you are (mainly?) referring to this 2012 exchange on the talk page. Afaics Zwart carefully rejected your rationale for the images, after which you didn't return to that topic, but simply drove Zwart of the article.

Re. " ... [FS] failed to notice ..." – I didn't fail to notice that difference. Please stop assuming.

Re. "... FS's "statistics" ..." – These statistics aren't mine, they are someone else's assessment four years ago, as I clearly indicated. So much for giving more context than needed: the main point for giving that quote was indicating that the problems regarding Mathsci's tendency to "clutter an article with images or lyrics" had been signalled since 2012, and specifically for the Orgelbüchlein article. AFAICS that issue still isn't sorted and Mathschi was to a large extent instrumental in it not getting sorted. Then this week I haphazardly stroll into that minefield of unresolved issues. The issue is also independent of who was banned when. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware FS has very little experience editing articles on Bach's major sacred works for organ: I have written almost all of that content. (4 major articles, the last still in process; I haven't touched the Schübler Chorales, just a stub.) The initial process of creating an article as complex as this is usually performed by one person, which happened to be me. The article is changing rapidly at present. FS seems to be in complete denial of that. Instead he is still trying to force a set of distorted conclusions on others by repetitive heckling, hurling outdated and already answered comments from 2012 at me as if they were biblical curses or plagues. Statistics from 2012 do not apply now. Roughly 20,000 bytes have been added since summer 2012, mainly in 2013 and 2016. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "The article is changing rapidly at present. FS seems to be in complete denial of that." – on the contrary, and I said so multiple times, even complimented you on your work, as you can see above. Please take the compliment and stop assuming.

Re. "... an article as complex as this ..." – I don't think the article is particularily complex in structure or content. It covers a lot of ground, that is however not the same as complex.

Re. "The initial process of creating an article [whether complex or not] is usually performed by one person" – I think you mis the point of the Wikipedia process of creation: whether other editors arrive early or later you can't chase them away but have to interact with them in a reasonable manner.

The basic problems I experienced with Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III and Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" are still the same, and have been signalled multiple times over a long period by multiple editors. You refuse to interact to settle the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am the only wikipedian to have written detailed articles on the chorale preludes. I play almost all of them: that background knowledge is helpful. The process of creating articles on chorale preludes is complex, even if they are just summaries of what the main sources say: they are also multimedia articles. FS informs us that the process is not complex; but he has never tackled anything remotely like them. BWV 565, which he helped write, cannot be compared to BWV 552, the most elaborate organ prelude and fugue of Bach. His sweeping statements are not useful, and almost always negative; none of them are backed by any expertise. (He made no comments on Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. I know that Canonic Variations has been translated word-by-word into French; and there hasn't been a constant stream of complaints about the articles I've created.) On the other hand I've actually been writing this type of content for some time now; and here I've simply been describing what's involved. But each time I've done so, up pops FS like a jack-in-a-box, to contradict everything I write. His behaviour is not special to me: he does it to all Bach editors, hence the proposed editing restrictions. cqfd Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The problems with Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III and Canonic Variations I was referring to are: "[Matschi] should avoid the temptation to clutter an article with images or lyrics, especially since in the most severe cases it could arguably be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE" (quoted from above), i.e.:

1. excessive images
2. excessive lyrics

Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes does not have that problem.

Please defer from wordgames: I didn't say anything about the creation of those articles being complex or not, you mentioned "... an article as complex as this ..." – so I spoke about the complexity of the article, not of the complexity of the creation process.

And my basic analysis stands: instead of addressing the excessive images/lyrics issue, an issue raised by others, you create diversions. This is not about competency in organ-playing or whatever. This is not about the score examples. Even per omnes versus chorale cantatas don't have the lyrics in their articles. I really ask myself what the organ of the Catholic Hofkirche is doing in the Canonic Variations article. So either we can discuss the excess lyrics/images issue, or you continue to avoid discussing it. I tried. There is one other issue: I don't object to Williams and Stinson as main sources for such articles (never did). But still, they are not the only ones. For the rest I see no problems and excellent work.

Re. "sweeping statements" – here is one: restoring content removed without proper explanation – accusing a bot of not giving a proper edit summary and whatnot (the IMSLP link didn't work any more after your revert, and still doesn't). I've been much more careful in my statements than that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, Mathsci was not referring to the bot with that edit, and you know it. He was restoring the material you had removed with no explanation as to why [192]. The endless bickering here between the two of you is distracting and counterproductive. Neither of you are doing yourselves any favours. I suggest you both cut it out. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

With that edit Mathsci reverted the bot edit, which caused the IMSLP link not to work properly any more (it goes to a non-existing category page at the IMSLP website currently). So yes, his edit summary was meant to also cover that inopportune part of the revert. Re. favours: what people want to see (I suppose) is me and Mathsci getting along in communicating about our differences. If that is a process that takes some time, so be it. I'm prepared to go a long way in talk page communication. I already started a Talk page discussion here, so that the Canonic Variations-related issues no longer need to be discussed at ANI (which is not suited for such issues I suppose). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis, it is laudable that you have opened a discussion there—something you should have done in the first place. However, this ANI discussion is not simply about you and one particular editor "getting along". It is about your discourteous and at times intolerable behaviour towards multiple editors in multiple Wikipedia spaces. Until you start reflecting on that wider issue, nothing is going to change. Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, but not because it's a "blatant attempt to remove dissent as part of a content dispute" (as alleged above). The problems go well beyond Mathscii's original complaint. I oppose it because it's too broad, and too long. He's been a valuable editor in many of these articles, although not a valuable colleague. I suggest we give Francis some time to reflect on what's been said here, especially, my last comment [193]. At most a 1RR restriction on the Bach articles could be imposed, but in my view, it should apply to him everywhere, and ideally Francis should impose it on himself. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, something like that seems reasonable. I've only seen a little of this. Mathsci (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Francis has a longstanding pattern of disrupting articles and doing exactly what he has done here. He baits other editors, twists people's words, and generally engages in some very serious incivility and personal attacks. He also edits against consensus, consistently inferring that anyone's view other than his is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose No comment on the appropriateness of some form of restriction, but because "Bach's sacred music, broadly construed" is such an awkward parameter (it's difficult to "broadly construe" such a narrow, specialized topic) this TBAN should not be logged as currently worded. It should either be "Bach's music, broadly construed", "sacred music, broadly construed" or "Bach's sacred music" (no "broadly construed"). I would be happy to withdraw this !vote if the wording is fixed appropriately or the current proposed wording can (somehow) be defended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps a temporary ban could help the editor try to contribute to other articles and get their procedures straight, their behavior has been rather brash from what I've seen and they should take some time off Anipad68 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is the open encyclopaedia. The first thing we tell new editors is to 'let it go'. Articles are under development by definition. How can we justify allowing a single editor to monopolize an article for years on end? As has been well documented, Mathsci has certain ideas about what the Orgelbüchlein article should look like. Others have other ideas and have raised issues on the talk page (like me). This is the second attempt to drive a dissenting editor away. Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia. I'm appalled that the question of blocking a dissenting editor for 6 months should even come up in this case. The problem clearly lies elsewhere, namely in repeated and belligerent attempts to keep well-meaning editors out. (And I'm not even going to address the condescending phrase 'drive-by editor' and raise the question how that is compatible with Wikipedia being the open encyclopaedia.) Zwart (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's not being monopolised or hijacked: it's being written, e.g. yesterday's edits. Here is Zwart's most significant edit to the article from 2012.[194] He read the following in the lede, "The Orgelbüchlein is at the same time a collection of organ music for church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual." He objected to "a religious statement" which he blanked as "religious POV pushing" along with most of the images. That sentence was an enlarged paraphrase of a summary in Stinson (1999, p. 25): "The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement." So just a paraphrase, not religious POV pushing. This provides context for evaluating Zwart's comments here and below. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment proves my point. If you look at yesterday's edits they are all by Mathsci (except for one typo edit). And this comment inside a poll is another blatant attempt to silence dissent. Mathsci's point in asking to block Francis Schoncken is simply this: let me finish my project. But that is not the way Wikipedia works. If people feel an article has issues, that should be discussed at any time. In this case, a simple solution would be to create separate articles for the individual pieces and let Mathsci work on those articles at his leisure, so that we can start a discussion on how to improve the main page. Incidentally, Stinson's remarks on the religious nature of the Orgelbüchlein (esp. p. 34) are entirely speculative, but if we go by Stinson's authority, we should also conclude that the work has a clear pedagogical purpose (pp. 29-34), a master showing the art of organ improvisation, which is why we should focus on the music and leave the liturgical context for articles on the hymns themselves. Even if this is not immediately obvious to everyone, it is a valid point that deserves to be discussed openly. That is why this proposal, and this attempt to discredit an opponent, is so objectionable and un-Wikipedian.Zwart (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is being created. That includes for example adding anchors for all the 46 chorale preludes so that they can be wikilinked by BWV numbers. All this takes time. Like the article on Khatchaturian, most of the body of he work is created by one person; when that is in place, the article can be improved and modified by others. The same is true here, but the multimedia structure is far more complex. One of the main references Stinson (1999) is an online resource of Oxford University Press. Stinson summarises the purpose of Bach's work in one sentence on page 25. He expands on this sentence in the sequel. At the end of the chapter he writes,

The Orgelbüchlein's highest purpose, however, like that of Bach's music in general, is of a religious nature: service to God and the edification of humankind. It is summed up by the rhyming couplet—essentially a dedication—that concludes the title, and that bears repeating here: Dem höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren (which Hans David and Arthur Mendel poetically translated as “In Praise of the Almighty's Will, And for my Neighbor's Greater Skill”). Like other previously discussed portions, this couplet, too, may have been borrowed from an item in Bach's personal library, the Gesangbüchlein of Michael Weisse, published in 1531, which ends with the couplet: Gott allein zu lob und ehr / Und seinn auserwelten zur leer (“For the praise and honor of God alone, and for the edification of his chosen ones”). Not only do Bach and Weisse express the same message, but they also use the same phraseology and rhyme scheme (“ehr” and “lehr”). And in addition to being a hymnal, Weisse's collection, like Ammerbach's Tabulatur, also parallels the Orgelbüchlein in its use of the term “Büchlein.”

Any connection to Weisse, however, is of secondary significance compared to the couplet's apparent biblical derivation, which would seem to reveal its true meaning. The scriptural source in question is one that has always occupied an important position in Christian liturgy. Known as Christ's “Summary of the Law,” it reads: “Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40). Basically an extension of his more common slogan Soli Deo Gloria (“To God Alone the Glory”), Bach's little couplet proclaims that his music has both a divine and worldly purpose, in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Ultimately, then, the Orgelbüchlein may be understood as its composer's response to the New Testament.

This text is deemed to be irrelevant speculation by Zwart. Stinson is just elaborating on Bach's dedication on the title page "Dem Höchsten Gott allein̍ zu Ehren". All we do on wikipedia is summarise and paraphrase. It is a form of plagiarism. I haven't in fact used any of the above text so far, although I paraphrased three words from the beginning of Stinson's section "Purpose". Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. However, "The Orgelbüchlein is [...] a religious statement [...]" appears in the article without reference. Not to Bach, not to Stinson.

@Mathsci: the applicable policy is in WP:BURDEN (a part of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy): "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Yet you re-introduced the "religious statement" material twice ([195], [196]) without an appropriate reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally add citations in the lede as you well know. (The old article looked like this,[197] a bare list with errors in the lede and no inline citations.) Your comments here (and your mass tagging of BWV 4) sum up fairly clearly why your editing is going to be restricted. You have made a series of negative and inappropriate statements about Stinson (1999), an impeccable academic source. You've said the same about Williams (2003). You have also claimed that other contemporary sources are being ignored. If you penned a letter of complaint to Oxford University Press about bias in Stinson's book, it would go straight in the wastepaper bin (where it belongs). Both BWV 77 and BWV 4 had religious images in the infobox until I uploaded high-resolution images of the autograph manuscripts. So much for religious POV pushing (the claim you made when adding a giant POV tag at the top of Orgelbüchlein). Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Strict BRD

Francis Schonken simply adheres to strict WP:BRD, for edits and page moves. If an edit is reverted, he has to find consensus on the article talk page. If his version is good it will find acceptance easily. - I just explained the idea to a new user yesterday. - I try to follow that concept, that's why I reverted only the first of his page moves, not the second and the third.

• Support as proposer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Gerda, I would support something like this, but I suggest you make some changes to your proposal to make it less vague. First, re-title it Restricted to 1RR. While WP:BRD, is a widely accepted norm, it's an essay and too open to interpretation and gaming in this case. Francis has consistently shown that he equates his pronouncements on talk pages as automatically correct, considers making these pronouncements a sufficient "discussion", and heads off to revert again. Second, make it clear in the actual proposal that he must not perform more than one revert on a single page, except his user pages, in any month. His troublesome edit-warring extends far beyond article space and in my view, anything less than a month is insufficient. Third, you should specify how long the restriction should last. I'd suggest 6 months. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Voceditenore proposal: much tighter, less wriggle-room, more likely to work. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My ANI experience - thank goodness - is limited, and I want to keep it that way. - How about you making a proposal, and rename mine suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK Gerda, I've changed your "Proposal" to "Suggestion". Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, if you do want to support the tightened version, it would be best to !vote again below to avoid confusion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Francis Schonken Restricted to 1RR

Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages.

Per my comment immediately above, the problematic edit-warring and bulldozing tactics extend beyond article space, and well beyond Bach's sacred music, and in my view anything less than six months is insufficient. Hopefully, his "my way or the highway" approach will improve with being forced either to make his case via a collaborative discussion or walking away from the page for at least a month. The choice will be his. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that while 1RR is usually within a 24-hour period, there appears to be no restriction on the WP:1RR page on making it longer than 24 hours. In this case, I feel a month is more appropriate to avoid "slow" edit-warring and encourage genuine discussion on the talk page. If Francis's edit gains consensus, then it can be implemented by another party to the discussion as soon as consensus is reached. There is also the alternative of 0RR restriction, i.e. Francis can make no reverts at all for a six-month period. I'll leave that to someone else if they want to propose it, but that precludes him even removing good faith silliness like "Many people think this fugue is boring." Voceditenore (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Creates a clear blue line for all editors; one that should be easy to not cross, but, one which it is easy to see when it has been. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a reasonable rescue package. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is a smart proposal, better than those above. It needs to be made quite clear to Francis Schonken that neither his high-handed and uncollaborative approach to editing nor his combative attitude to other editors is acceptable here, and this seems a fair way of achieving that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support what I recommended above, thank you, Voceditenore! - Francis, just today I remember that I had disagreements with Nikkimaria in the past (example: Peter Planyavsky) but now we write articles together, I had disagreements with Smerus but now we write articles together: I hope for the same with you, some day, then unrestricted. It would be another most welcome feast of joy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tx, same for me, and convinced it will work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an article in mind for soon, 16th Sunday after Trinity, so about 4 months to get to GA and DYK for Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8. Go ahead if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support This proposal seems the one most likely to produce a reasonable outcome. Something is needed given that several good editors are having difficulty working with FS. Further, FS appears to endorse this proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops, no, sorry, should have been clearer. I only replied to the last thing she said. The person who should have known me better by now chose not to. I decided to concentrate on the silver lining. And off go people jumping to wrong conclusions again. Please once and for all spare me of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: In my view, harsher treatment would have been fully justified, but perhaps this moderate approach will prove effective. The edit immediately above does not give me great confidence that it will. Gerda's generosity in the circumstances is amazing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Long overdue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was combing some of the case files to see what was ready to close, and after reading this one, I was inspired to comment. Wouldn't it be a welcome improvement to the entire DR process if more editors would conduct themselves the way Gerda Arendt and Francis Schonken did in this section despite their opposing views? Kudos. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah; although it took one of the parties an ANI report and a near-site ban for it to happen! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 06:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it took the other party learning by AE, learning that it's not the way forward I mean, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This is a mild, common-sense measure for dealing with the problem of edit warring.Homemade Pencils (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support It's a constructive way of dealing with the issue, and gives Francis Schonken a chance to demonstrate he can refrain from the behavior several third-party editors have alluded to which is causing the problem. loupgarous (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Voceditenore's counter-proposal. It allows Francis Schonken to continue making contributions which other editors have demonstrated he can make, while drawing a bright line which he crosses at the risk of worse sanctions, such as a topic ban. No criticism implied of Gerda Arendt, I wouldn't have come up with the tightly-drawn proposal that Voceditenore did, either. This gives Francis Schonken a chance to show he's here to edit an encyclopedia. If he blows that chance, stronger sanctions are in order. loupgarous (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will improve matters. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci, you need to strike this second "Support" or replace "Support" with "Comment". You've already !voted "Support" higher up in this section. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)  Done Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Francis Schonken is not the problem, it's the way the Orgelbüchlein article is being monopolized. What's to prevent the next 'drive-by editor' from running into the same problems with Mathsci? Zwart (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• By definition, a "drive-by" editor is one who hasn't edited an article before, comes by to screw around with things, and then leaves. They don't make major additions and changes to the article such as Mathsci has done, so calling him a "drive-by editor" is inaccurate, and rather insulting given the circumstances. BMK (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Already answered above.[198] Zwart's drive-by edits to Orgelbüchlein (in 2012) involved blanking the phrase "a religious statement" from the lede, a simple paraphrase from Stinson (1999), who used the words "a theological statement". Zwart described this as religious POV pushing. Above Zwart wrote,[199] "Mathsci is hijacking Wikipedia to create a platform for his pet project(s) on Bach. What he is creating would make a great website, but it's not Wikipedia". Perhaps he's thinking of the Dutch wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, in fact I am thinking of the global Wikipedia, where everyone is invited to contribute.Zwart (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What is "the global Wikipedia"? As far as I am aware there are many separate Wikipedias, each with somewhat different rules of usage and behavior, but all under the umbrella of the WMF, and subject to its overarching regulations. There is no one "global" Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - BMK (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have much to say about the issue or proposals, but a comment for both Mathsci and Francis Schonken: You should try to be extra friendly to and patient with each other, even when you disagree with each other. I think that will make you both happier with the experience of working on the articles, and with the resulting articles themselves. Goldenshimmer (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as requested in your mail, I won't ping again unless required by policy. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, btw, feel free to ping me though; I don't generally mind. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Please remember to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks. Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What I do is connecting several articles (on Bach, his compositions, the Lutheran chorales he used for these, etc.) Once and awhile one encounters WP:Walled gardens (church cantatas, organ preludes, remote passions). An example: extracting a section of a "remote passion" article to a separate article. Most of the time such WP:SPLIT, WP:MERGE, etc. operations are understood for what they are (application of Wikipedia:Article size, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Image policy, or whatever is applicable). Here's where I sometimes go wrong: I sometimes forget that the Walled garden gardeners are sometimes scarcely aware of these underlying policies and guidelines (so I should take more time to explain), follow their own set of guidelines (which sometimes may be based in guidance I'm less aware of), etc. So the "...extra friendly to and patient with each other" is probably something I needed to hear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem @Francis Schonken:. I do understand that Wikipedia (as with life in general) can often be frustrating, so I can certainly sympathise :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually like your image of the Bach cantatas as a walled garden, - it's walled for protection. Many gardeners planted, many (partly others) fertilized, pruned etc. You are invited to join the crew (see above): there's a bell at the door of the wall called article talk. Jumping the wall and changing the layout of flowerbeds to confirm with "policies and guidelines" is not good for the plants, - when the layout is "wrong" it can be changed the next season. - On top of the cantata mentioned above, I plan to improve Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161, to FA (first performance likely 1716), - you are invited to take part from the beginning. Please feel free to add a section about publication, - you know a lot about such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Voceditenore's suggestion for dealing with the problem is measured, non-punitive and practical. Tim riley talk 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Francis's conduct may be inappropriate, but so is the insistence of some editors on maintaining this set of articles as a walled garden. Gerda Arendt's comment above in support of the walled garden makes it very clear the some editors want to maintain these articles under the control of a clique, to which they will control access. Rather than singling out one editor, it would be much better to apply 1RR to the whole set of articles, so that all editors working there would be subject to the same restriction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no clique. You misunderstood my comment, walled garden is only an image I took literally, - everybody is welcome to improve, but not by repeated reverts to establish a preferred version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, on the contrary I understood your comment very clearly. You celebrated the erection a wall around these articles, which a bell at the gate -- and it's very clear that you celebrated the purpose of such a bell at a gate as being to allow those already inside to decide who is permitted to enter. Since there is no physical wall, that's clearly a metaphor for a clique which wants to vet newcomers.

I quite agree that nobody should edit by repeated reverts, which is why I propose applying 1RR to all editors who work on those pages. By opposing my suggestion of 1RR-for-all, you are demanding that some editors of those pages be exempt from 1RR. Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't oppose your oppose, I only tried to clarify. I didn't celebrate. I don't allow. The decision is not who may enter, but what content may enter, and it is not made by me but the community. Try to improve articles I watch and see what I do. Perhaps do a GA review, four are open, all Bach compositions, found on my user page or here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose after reading this long storm-in-a-teacup and support the universal 1RR proposal of User:BrownHairedGirl. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC).

I don't see such a proposal worded so far. What would be the scope? It has been mentioned in this proposal that it's "beyond article space, and well beyond Bach's sacred music". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Xxanthippe was referring to my proposal above, which was "to apply 1RR to the whole set of articles, so that all editors working there would be subject to the same restriction". By "the whole set", I meant the same scope as was chosen by Softlavender in their proposed topic ban of Francis: "Bach's sacred music, broadly construed".

So if you want it all in one sentence, my proposal is for "1RR to apply to all pages relating to Bach's sacred music, broadly construed". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: here's Gerda Arendt removing a link to Bach's second cantata cycle from the article on Bach's first cantata – twice in less than 24H: 19:42, 19 March 2016; 07:02, 20 March 2016

It also illustrates a typical WP:Walled garden operation: the Bach's second cantata cycle content being outside of the walled garden content controlled by her, she removes links to it from the articles inside the walled garden – see the definition of walled garden in the essay linked to above: "... a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group".

Gerda keeping to 1RR according to her self-declarations is incorrect. Imposing 1RR per BrownHairedGirl's proposal would inconvenience Gerda in her attempts to keep up walls that shouldn't be there in the first place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Context: In March, Bach's second cantata cycle was a redirect to Chorale cantata (Bach), which was linked in that article before. The redirect was since deleted and is now a redirect to Chorale cantata cycle which was created only later. - My second edit was a revert of not bolding the redirect, I probably didn't even even see that you, Francis, had linked again in the same edit. I linked to the cycle now, no problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what inspired Brianboulton to this drive-by blanking performed on the article under discussion here, discussing blanking on that article, during these discussions, which they were well aware of (see their !vote above). Just pointing out that there too all links to the chorale cantata cycle/second cantata cycle article were removed. Brianboulton's revert linked to above even re-introduced this WP:EGG link to the in-wall article on Bach's chorale cantatas, pretending it is the article on the cycle: [[Chorale cantata (Bach)|chorale cycle]] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I added that link on 30 May, and it is currently in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• My point being that Brianboulton's drive-by blanking was part of the "bad behaviour" pattern BrownHairedGirl seems to be alluding to below (we shouldn't be governing mainspace content by large-scale reverts, followed by re-reverts), but the proposed remedy (1RR) would be ineffective for this example of "drive-by" reverting, followed by a host of further reverts by other editors.

For instance this edit was a partial revert of Brianboulton's revert, without the edit summary ("Bach digital sources") even indicating it was, in fact, a re-revert. On a secondary note, by not indicating that edit as a revert it seemed to introduce that material in the article for the first time, while, in fact, it was a redo of material I had introduced in the article before Brianboulton's massive revert. That way it is of course easy to paint an unfavorable picture of my edits: when I do the edit it gets reverted, then someone else re-introduces it, apparently claiming it as their own. So indeed, time to put a stop to the bad blood going around here, but I fear the 1RR may not be effective enough.

That said, I'd plead for reason here, which may be more effective than selective measures. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeating a lie does not make it truthful; Francis's several references to my "drive-by blankings" are further examples of his manipulative attempts to distort the truth. As he knows full well, when reverting the Christ lag article to the version that existed before he began his bulldozing treatment, I fully explained what I was doing on the article's talk page, my main concern being that this recent FA and TFA should not be left in a trashed state while changes to its content were argued over. I ended by saying: "I have done this as a housekeeping arrangement, not as a judgement on the worthiness or otherwise of the changes that have been proposed. That is a matter for the content experts to decide, now with a clean sheet and, hopefully, an atmosphere of mutual respect." Is it impossible for you, Francis, to begin working in this way? It is certainly not for you to lecture us about "putting a stop to the bad blood going around here" or "pleading for reason", since you alone are the principal source of the ill-feeling. It is down to you to change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 June 2016

• Support. This seems to currently be the best way to prevent the bullying, bulldozing, and uncollabortive editing and the driving away of other editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: 1RR applied to Bach's sacred music

All pages within the topic of Bach's sacred music, broadly construed, are subject to WP:1RR.

This would restrain Francis Schonken from edit-warring, as sought by the other proposals above. However, it would also restrain the editors who have been using this ANI discussion to try gain the upper hand in their own edit-warring, such as these two reverts[200] [201] in the less than 12 hours by Gerda Arendt, who has supported[202] the 1RR on Francis Schonken.

There is too much bad behaviour on all sides here. It's time for an even-handed restraint on all the editors involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support for even-handedness. There are several editors showing WP:Ownership issues. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose Not a carefully thought-out proposal. It isn't based on a proper assessment of the editing of Bach's sacred music. It also might accidentally discourage content creation, which can be highly technical, time-consuming and elaborate. That applies not only to the creation of text but to the creation of image and audio files. Two examples are: File:Weimar Christoph Riegel 1686.jpeg, an image of the buildings in Weimar as Bach would have known them (after the rebuilding of the Schloss in 1656 and before the fire of 1774), created from 4 tiles, unearthed on the 939th page of a digitised 1686 Nuremberg manuscript held in Münster University Library; and File:BWV622-organ.mid with its registration and elaborate ornamentation. Once created these articles are usually stable, e.g. BWV 105, created by me in 2008 and translated word-by-word by someone else for the French article on fr.wikipedia.org. In cantata articles, which many people edit, there are no hard and fast rules. Some have images of autograph manuscripts, some don't; some have associated articles on hymns, some don't; some have infoboxes, some don't; some have religious images, some don't. Mathsci (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of that long paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion. This proposal is not about the content or structure of these articles; it is about holding all editors working on those pages to a standard of conduct which helps to avoid edit wars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring was not the problem. Francis Schonken was challenging the structure of BWV 4 (and BWV 625) in disruptive ways designed to halt or discourage editing. His disruptive editing/tagging of BWV 4, a month or so after it became a featured article, was all rolled back. Christ lag in Todesbanden is just one of many Lutheran hymns; Francis Schonken behaved as if he were Lord and Master of the fiefdom of Christ lag in Todesbanden. It was all completely out of proportion. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Problem is not with ownership, but with one editor who bullies, edit-wars, bulldozes, and drives away good-faith editors. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My proposal concerning Francis Schonken restricted to 1RR above does not apply solely to the Bach pages, it would apply to all pages in all spaces (apart from his own) for six months. This may have been brought here as a Bach dispute, but his editwarring, uncooperative, bulldozing behaviour goes well beyond that and has been going on for years. He has been blocked 6 times for editwarring on Wikipedia, only once for a Bach page. Other times when he has escaped a block either because the ANI discussions petered out or he just got lucky but where his behaviour was very inappropriate include: a WikiProject talk page [203]; an article talk page [204]; another user's talk page (once, twice, three times and final warning here); and this illustrative, sequence concerning his editwarring and aggressive behaviour on a Wikipedia Education course page. If you want to make an additional proposal restricting everyone to 1RR on the Bach pages, fine, but I cannot support this as a replacement for Proposal: Francis Schonken Restricted to 1RR. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is one editor and there is no reason to believe there would be any issues if FS were encouraged to edit elsewhere for a couple of months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Facing harassment

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

---

I am facing a serious issue of harassment from User:ALongStay, who has nominated two articles for deletion. While there is nothing, in and of itself, wrong with doing that, he does not have the right to be going about it this way. I believe him to be passing himself off as an editor I know, in order to strike discord. ALongStay was blocked at Christmas time, for doing the same thing. LongStay then had a twin editor, ABriefPassing, who was doing at that time too and got indefinitely blocked. ALongStay should also be permanently blocked. He has also threatened to do damage as an unregistered user. I need intervention in this situation, because it threatens my ability to continue to do work here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide diffs to evidence your points. Very difficult to research such vague allegations. I note, for a start, that your intimation that BrefPassing's block was somehow censurous is misleading: it was blocked as being 'abandoned.' I also note you have been canvassing against this editor, here,here, and here- over most of the day. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If I can chime in Fortuna, it appears that ALongStay was unblocked, per the guideline of a one-way interaction ban here: [205]. Today on their user page, they posted this message to GaragePunk: [206]. That to me would be a violation of the interaction ban, and as a result a violation of the terms of their unblocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick both of your links go to the same diff. -- GB fan 18:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that! RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence of harassment. I do see evidence of Garagepunk assuming bad faith in the face of rather obvious agreement that at least one of these articles is trivia that should be merged to the barely-notable parent band article. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh Garagepunk66 I wish you hadn't taken this route especially as unprepared as you are. First off, no diffs, big no-no. Secondly, I was allowed to change accounts because I admitted to its use and stopped using it. Also, I was blocked for my confrontational messages, not Afds. Fourthly, I never said I'd do damage as an unregistered editor, I simply said I'd return to IP editing to avoid conflict with people like you. Boomerang may be in order if you keep this up.ALongStay (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional, one cannot say I broke the interaction ban for the diff above because Garagepunk66 messaged me firstALongStay (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You also nominated an article created by Garagepunk for deletion, (Would I Still Be) Her Big Man. here you were told that was part of the ban. -- GB fan 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

But have I harassed him? Have I committed any of the accusations he has brought about? Garagepunk even admitted in the opening Afds were ok.ALongStay (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't dug into that enough, but your unblock conditions were that you would leave Garagepunk alone, no interaction. If they were working on an article you wanted top work on you needed to find something else to do. You have not lived up to the conditions of your unblock. Why shouldn't I reblock you? -- GB fan 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Also Garagepunk does not have the authority to modify your unblock conditions. -- GB fan 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You can do as you please, but the re block would be to punish me, not to teach me a lesson. I've learned from the last block which was the whole point. Garagepunk had no issue stated here with it, but, again, do as you please.ALongStay (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The reblock would not be to punish you, it would be to stop your disruption. You were put under a strict interaction ban that said you were not to interact with Garagepunk. No submitting articles for AFD, no editing any article where they are already editing. I see two AFDs that you have created on articles that Garagepunk created, one and two. I also see at least one other article that they created that you have edited, here. If you have learned your lesson, why are you violating the terms of your last unblock? -- GB fan 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

My lesson was on how I communicated with editors. I was hostile but ever since then I have acted neutral. There has been no disruption from my recent editing, but valid Afds and minor edits. Say anything you want, but another block would be as punishment since I haven't done anything wrong with those edits you mentioned. So go ahead, block me for valid Afds and minor edits.ALongStay (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you violating the terms of your unblock? -- GB fan 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw articles that I thought failed notability. I started making minor edits because I wanted to move away from Afds after these were taken care of. Music articles are all I'm interested in so that's why. Honestly, if you are going to block me just do it already. I apologize if what I did is considered disruptive, but from what I see my lesson was taught and I was making genuine edits.ALongStay (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Did I ever say I was going to reblock you? I haven't made up my mind, I am trying to understand why you are doing the things you are doing and why you feel the terms of the unblock no longer apply. -- GB fan 19:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw articles that I thought didn't pass notability. Clearly, others agreed, so it wasn't like I was doing it to spite others. I changed my ways of communicating, which I strongly thought meant I could have a second chance at free-editing. In this case, I guess I was wrong, but it came from a good place. It wasn't meant to rebel or act out, but rather prove the interaction ban was no longer neccessary.ALongStay (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

When you think you have changed enough for editing restrictions to be removed you talk about it. In this case you need to go back to the admin that placed those restrictions and ask for them to be lifted. The problem is you have already breached them and that does not look good. You do not get to decide when those editing restrictions are lifted. I would suggest you follow the restrictions closely for a couple of months and then go back and ask for them to be lifted showing your changed attitude. -- GB fan 19:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair. To address the other accusations Garagepunk brought up, I will say out-right they are false. All you will find is him canvassing (as one user said above) to favor his side. I made a mistake, yes, but I cannot accept the lies he has said here sitting down. Other than that, I feel the terms are more than fair and I will follow them.ALongStay (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

LongStay posted a message about someone called "Boomerang" under my AFI notification, and I take that to be a thinly veiled attack. I have not mentioned any of my broader concerns here, but if this situation does not cool out, I am going to have to take this whole matter to a higher level and have checkbusters brought in to get to the bottom of what is going in here. Back off so I can get my editing work done. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:ALongStay, I have closed boths AfDs as speedy keep, as you unambiguously broke your interaction ban. Other thsn this thread it is still in place. Do not breach it again. User:Garagepunk66, the reference was to WP:BOOMERANG - when a report backfires on the filer. Fences&Windows 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Fences and Windows I will go along with that. As long as Garagepunk's ridiculous accusations are dropped, I am content with the decisions.ALongStay (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken using sockpuppets to make personal attacks and 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.

---

User:Beyond My Ken left an unpleasant message on my talk page, telling me I "clearly don't have a scintilla of a clue" and saying "Stop that shit, please".[207] I deleted the message and referred the user to WP:NPA.[208] Someone editing from an IP address restored the content, in contravention of WP:TPO, saying "looks like fair comment rather than a personal attack".[209] That IP's only previous edit had been made an hour earlier, when they remade a disputed edit by User:Beyond My Ken: ([210], following [211] and [212]).

Clearly, the IP is User:Beyond My Ken. And clearly, they did not just inadvertently log out, but wanted to create an illusion of support. I see that this user has been blocked a number of times, once being for abusive use of multiple accounts. Thus, it seems that this problematic behaviour is recurring. 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, nothing to it. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you come to that conclusion? Or are you being sarcastic? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• But let me just add that I also don't have a scintilla of clue: BMK has also reverted me for removing the useless, redundant, non-neutral, and vague "noted" (redundant because if someone isn't "noted", whatever that means, they shouldn't be cited). Drmies (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• As much as it pains me to disagree with Drmies, "noted" is a NPOV way of indicating that the person cited isn't just your run-of-the-mill reliable source, it's someone with a very good reputation in their field. We don't want to say "world-renowned" or "famous" or "the bestsest one there is" or things of that nature, but the fact is that some sources are simply more authoritative than others, and carry more weight. If Einstein says it, it's most likely of more value than if Dr. Sam Physicist from Hardly Heardof University says it -- not that Einstein was always right, but you get the idea. NPOV doesn't mean that we cannot assign relative values to things - we could hardly be an encyclopedia if we didn't - and "noted" is simply a gentle way of saying "this person is well-known, an expert, or a trusted authority on this subject." BMK (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, that's easily fixed. Just change your mind. People who aren't well-known or an expert shouldn't be cited: the word is redundant. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• There nothing in WP:RS that requires a source to be "well-known", just that they be reliable. BMK (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is not NPOV. It is exactly as unacceptable as "famous" or "world-renowned". 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll say that BMK's message to the IP maybe could have been a little nicer, but that's about it. The accused IP has reverted two articles after BMK twice (see contribs), but I'm not seeing any unambiguous proof to back up the sock puppetry accusations beyond that (which isn't enough in itself, to me). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What would you consider to be "unambiguous proof"? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, BMK is clearly edit warring. OldTraffordLover (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Surprise!! OldTraffordLover is an account created yesterday. And here they are. In fact, their very first edit was to AN/I, and all of their 17 edits have been to Wikipedia space or User talk pages. It doesn't take much to see this is an account created for a specific purpose, and that purpose is not improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

BMK, I have my questions about this editor also, but to categorize them as NOTHERE without any proof is not OK. Some of their edits appear to have been helpful, and offered in good faith. Hey, to paraphrase Cullen's phrase--just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to OldTraffordLover, we disagree again. This editor is clearly NOTHERE, as least as far my perception is concerned -- but, there again, you have another reason why I should never be an admin, 'cause if I was, I'd block him immediately. Dead weight is dead weight. BMK (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Faulty Logic 101: "BMK disagreed with me. An IP editor disagreed with me, and agreed with BMK. Therefore, the IP editor is a sockpuppet of BMK."

Another possibility: Two entirely different people disagree with you.

OP, Please go back to school and kick your brain into high gear. BMK, kindness is a virtue. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindness is a virtue when people deserve kindness; not everyone does. Certainly sockpuppets, puppetmasters, trolls, and vandals are not deserving of kindness. I'm not sure which category the brand-spanking-new 83 IP falls into, but it's certainly one of those, unless you believe that fully functioning Wikipedia editors are created ex nihilo, like Athena from the head of Zeus. BMK (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You think that the IP could be someone entirely unrelated to Beyond My Ken? You can't seriously think that's plausible. Also, don't make personal attacks. 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

OP has gotten their trolling jollies. Someone please close this utter rot ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better to wait for admin action or a clear decision by an admin that action will not occur before considering closing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah So you consider this trolling to be okay. I thought you had a better understanding of life around here - to me you've proved that time and again - so I am bummed out about this post. It is sad to see you approve this attack on BMK that has a total lack of examples to be worthy of anyone's - especially an asmin's - time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I'm not saying that at all. Trolling is never okay. But the IP should be blocked or action taken before we close the thread. We can always revert trolling and attacks - that's what I meant by my previous post. I apologize if my reply confused you or implied anything different. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of trolling, and why? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK. There is nothing to the sock allegation, nothing whatsoever. Sock accusations need proof; there is no proof. Also, the IP geolocates to the UK. BMK has many faults, but being British is not one of them (booyah). I repeat, there is nothing to it. Now, since I actually agree with the IP on one thing I'm going to edit war with BMK for a little bit, but I hope some other, uninvolved admin will come by soon to confirm my very basic observation and close this thread. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What kind of proof are you looking for? You don't think it's in any way suspicious that an IP's first edit is to re-revert shortly after Beyond My Ken reverts, and that their second is to restore his personal attack against me? That's just how people normally behave? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that since the OP is convinced that the 79 IP is me, they should file an SPI and let a CU check. CU's don't normally do "innocence" checks, but there's a specific claim being made here, with specific behavioral evidence, so I would think they would run one in that circumstance. That I'm in NYC (pretty well known, I think) and not in the U.K., and wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to access an open proxy (notwithstanding that the 79 IP is not shown to be an open proxy, just dynamic) shouldn't be a deterrent to having a CU run - I could ask my 17 year old son, who I'm pretty sure would probably know how. BMK (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by JzG

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.

---

JzG has called me a rat and accused me of sockpuppetry. Owing to his very recent admonishment (his third by ArbCom) I am bringing his violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to this forum for review. New England Cop (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is hilariously out of place. One would think a retired police officer such as yourself would know the expression "I smell a rat". This is a waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Or almost anyone that is a native Enflish speaker.--70.27.231.140 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This remarkably inapt complaint is the third attempt in the past few days for this editor to get JzG sanctioned for something (it doesn't seem to matter what). I don't know the exact point where an editor crosses over into becoming a vexatious litigant but I'm sure we're getting close. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement of civility rules is hardly a waste of time when those rules are enshrined as non-negotiable. New England Cop (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you the editor who just posted on AN that JzG had been admonished by ArbCom 3 times, so it should be "3 strikes and you're out"? (No explanatuion of how the Infield Fly Rule applies to Wikipedia, though.) Yes, you were. So why would a brand new user take such a disliking to an admin in such a short time? Answer: they shouldn't, if they really were a brand-new editor. I think something smells rotten in Denmark. BMK (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The officer joined our club back in 2012 though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah... well, then.... Never mind. </Emily Latella> Still, his attempts to get JzG desysoped or otherwise sanctioned, rightly labelled as "inapt", but also truly inept, need to stop. BMK (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• ArbCom is more than happy to pounce on JzG whenever we can, but we need a better pretext than this. The forumshopping plaintiff, "complaining" about a supposed insult made days ago, is blocked for disruptive editing: trying to forumshop to get someone blocked is particularly low. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Unnat jha - vandalism only account

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

---

Resolved

 – User blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 9:19 am, Today (UTC+1)

Unnat jha, Uttank jha - alleged jokes

FIITJEE - 4 vandalisms Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: This has been mentioned to you a couple of times now, please notify the editor when starting a discussion about them here. I have notified them and reported them to WP:AIV - in the future reports such as this can go there -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have informed. Please don't put this discussion here, it's not a public matter.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)? Apologies, I didn't see the ANI notice, have struck my incorrect comment above -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: What isn't a public matter? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, I think an edit conflict removed a number of editor's comments here, including the addition of {{resolved}} - I've attempted to restore them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Revdelete request

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.

---

Wondering if one of you kind admins would take a look at this BLP edit with grossly degrading material and judge whether a revdelete is warranted? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just once I'd like to get here in time to read the naughty stuff. EEng 19:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, EEng, you'll just have to aim at becoming admin. When I handed in the tools a while back, the curiosity about revdel was killing me, I couldn't stand it. Only reason I asked for them back. Thanks, Ivanvector. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

@EEng: the real filth is on the subject's website. NSFW. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...to find out wot they were saying about you! :p. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Revdel-seeing is rather overrated :). Lectonar (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That one was pretty tame, but please don't post revdel requests to the most public noticeboard on the project. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please ask an admin directly everybody. . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Or you can also email the oversight team too right here: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and asked to have the edit revdel'd. I've done that, or emailed them with edits I've seen and they've been able to help. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Range block of Edit Filter request for 213.205.252.*

I've been tracking edits by a long-term vandal who likes to change dates on cartoon and television pages (see my list here). I requested an edit filter back at the end of March (Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#TV_date_changes_vandalism) but there's been no movement yet. The user has been using the same IP range for a while now Special:Contributions/213.205.252.*. (Sorry, I don't know CIDR well enough so I'm just using the wildcard syntax). This location and behavior matches past IPs. However there seems to be a fair number of IP users in this range who make constructive contributions. Widr has been very prompt in blocking these IPs when I report them to AIV, but there's been an uptick in activity so I thought I'd come here and ask for admin attention. Below is a list of recent IPs, dates, and edits, starting with the first instance of this IP range:

• 213.205.252.111 - 22 March 2016 (1 edit; different ISP)
• 80.249.56.77 - 27 March 2016 (24 edits)
• 151.227.163.140 - 30-31 March through 2 April 2016 (30 edits)
• 94.1.180.104 - 4 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 94.195.178.50 - 4 April + 12 April 2016 (38 edits - resumed after 1 week block)
• 86.135.105.121 - 11-12 April 2016 (3 edits)
• 31.118.196.86 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 213.205.236.64 - 17 April 2016 (7 edits)
• 213.205.232.64 - 17 April 2016 (8 edits)
• 94.195.176.54 - 27 April 2016 (17 edits)
• 213.205.252.204 - 27 April 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.109 - 29 April 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.29 - 7 May 2016 (7 edits)
• 213.205.252.187 - 14 May 2016 (3 edits)
• 213.205.252.106 - 24 May 2016 (6 edits)
• 213.205.252.27 - 30 May 2016 (14 edits)
• 213.205.252.17 - 1 June 2016 (5 edits)
• 213.205.252.35 - 2 June 2016 (2 edits)
• 213.205.252.183 - 2 June 2016 (3 edits)

Is there anything that can be done about this, or should I just keep checking edits using the wildcard and date range restrictions (example)? I understand if admins do not want to block the range due to collateral damage, but I thought there might be something I'm missing so thought I'd ask. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• The way you really want to search that network is using this link [213] which searches 213.205.252.0/24, or 213.205.252.everything. Not sure what the wildcard is really picking up, but you can see the right way shows there is a lot of traffic on that network. I haven't tried to filter through it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: The wildcard does the same if you enable the option in preferences. I restrict the dates to check for new edits. You're correct that there is a lot of traffic from that network which is why I originally asked for the edit filter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it shows just a little of the traffic if I use the *, which is why I wanted to share. I'm probably a bit more conservative than most, but unless the disturbance is high, I hate to cut off that much traffic. If no one responds, you might try asking at WP:SPI. No, it isn't a sock, but the front page of SPI is where you make requests of CUs, and they have tools that admin don't have and can often tell if the "good" edits are really the same person as the bad edits, making it ok to block the whole Class C. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll post to the Functionaries list and try to draw some checkuser/edit-filter-manager attention to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't a huge range, but CUs just have better tools to see what the real issue is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Newyorkbrad: Thank you both. Dennis, maybe I'm mistaken about how the wildcard thing works? I really need to learn the CIDR stuff. Appreciate you pointing out the extent of the range. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, range block not possible. This is a mobile range, which makes it hyperdynamic. It's also very large. There are plenty of good edits on the range. I'm very, very hesitant to block large mobile ranges at the best of times, and this one doesn't nearly meet the threshold. Risker (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: Understood. Any chance this could be addressed with an edit filter? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I am happy to semiprotect any complex or high visibility pages if that helps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an edit filter, especially if it reduces the burden for hardworking vandal fighters like User:EvergreenFir. However, looking at the vandalism that's happening here, I'm not sure how you'd construct a filter to pick it up without also blocking a lot of legitimate edits. Number changers and date changers who target a broad spectrum of articles can be very difficult for automated processes to pick up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for the comments and kind words. I'll just keep watching the IP range for now. If it gets overwhelming, I'll ask for some page protections and point to this conversation. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

WP:NLT says: "Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator.". In this case there is reason to believe it is a hoax, but it is a legal threat anyway. I have no experience dealing with this kinda stuff, so I will just leave this message here, someone here probably knows what to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

He says that his rights have been 'allegedly' infringed, not that he will necessarilly do anything about it. And in any case, it appears he was correct to do so- the material he pointed out has been removed? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User Sjö wrote: "this appears to be a hoax by user:Neha0974". User utcursch wrote: "Pardon my language, but this is bullshit.". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User Neha0974 wrote: "I have a good faith belief that none of the materials or activities listed above have been authorized by me, or the law.I hereby give notice of these activities to you and request that you take expeditious action to remove or disable access to the material described above, and thereby prevent the unauthorized distribution and use of my materials. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Seems like a legal threat to me... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your user page seems chock-full of WP:copyvios. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Also as you say, it should be reported 'elsewhere to an administrator.' Why bring it here when there was already an admin 'on-site'? Ian.thomson is well aware of his role and its nuances. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If I see a bunch of usernames it is not immediately clear who is and who is not an admin. Not all admins deal with everything, they are volunteers. Many stick to one or more areas they prefer. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense: Not in matters of policy. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I was wondering if anyone else considered it a legal threat. The individual was hoaxing us, claiming copyright on stuff that she stole from us. There wasn't any explicit "I'll sue you" language, however. Buuut... Between the two, I spent a while trying to figure out the exact reason to block her for but was (and am) tired and got distracted by other things. I need to turn in (should have a couple hours ago), so I'm not going to be the blocking admin on this case (though I'm not seeing how we can assume enough good faith from the copyright-hoaxer to leave her unblocked). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that ?she has completely wasted a shed-load of editors' time- propably intentionally, and certainly not caring if so- and is almost certainly not here to help; however, apropos the OP, I thnk we have to be vey clear as to what exactly constitutes a breach of WP:NLT. Sleep well! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Simple. Block her per WP:NOTHERE. If they're posting hoaxes like that, then they're obviously here for the sole purpose of being disruptive.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&type=revision&diff=723896716&oldid=723888959 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DinoLover4321

• He has created tens of erroneous substubs, examples:Elephas recki recki is not a species but subspecies, Antilohyrax is a genus. Ordathspidotherium - doesn't exist according to Google.
• He doesn't answer any critics.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Xx236: please inform users you report here, as it mentions at the top of the page. I have done this for you. I'm not overly sure what to make of these stubs (eg. Elephas recki ileretensis, Elephas recki brumpti etc) which all have the same content - "Name is an extinct species of large herbivorous mammals that were closely related to Asian elephants." -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a series of misinformations, probably more than 100, not an error. The author is probably a child.

He hasn't ever reacted.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

51 in total, each of which will need to be considered before they are deleted - some of these may be notable with some improvement, and shouldn't just be blanket CSD'd -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a good example of WP:CIR. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed all the misplaced CSD tags for these as A7 does apply to species or genus. From looking through the list most appear to be legitimate extinct species and genus. The subspecies can be redirected to the species or genus (depending on what we have articles for). There might be a few synonyms which are also legitimate redirects. The rest obviously need expanded, corrected and references added but there is no reason to delete. I will got through them and add what I can/redirect as needed. I started to redirect the Elephas recki subspecies to Palaeoloxodon recki as this is where Elephas recki redirects to but searching on Google seems to suggest that both are legitimate names. EOL lists both and doesn't mention one as a synonym of the other, so I'm a bit confused about that one and will need to look into it more. I don't think this is a case of WP:CIR but more of someone copy/pasting a boilerplate sentence to quickly create lots of stubs. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ordathspidotherium was a typo of Orthaspidotherium. The typo originates not from this user but from the page Phenacodontidae; I have fixed it wiki-wide. However some kind of semi-automated cleanup may be necessary. Is there an automatic script/bot to add taxoboxes? Intelligentsium 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User circumventing block again

User Mikequfv was blocked for his disruptive editing last month. He broke his first block and then, as a result, had his block length increased to "indefinite" and had the IP that he used to circumvent the original block, blocked as well. (Reports are here and here.) Since the original two blocks, there have been edits from other IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that match his style of editing and thus seem to be him. Today there has been a renewed effort to push his changes on articles where he's previously made attempts that were reverted, at Victoria, BC and Arica with this IP. Air.light (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Proof" in the context of sockpuppetry

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

---

Firstly, I thought it was pretty clear that an IP who makes an edit that Beyond My Ken made and restored an attack that Beyond My Ken made was being used by Beyond My Ken. However, that report was closed by someone who said "no evidence presented that the IP and BMK are the same person", while other commenters had said "Sock accusations need proof; there is no proof", and "not seeing any unambiguous proof to back up the sock puppetry accusations". I asked several times what they were looking for but no-one replied. If coincidental IP replication of problematic edits happens often, what other evidence do you find indicative of sockpuppetry? What is the standard of proof you're looking for? Balance of probabilities? Beyond reasonable doubt?

Secondly, if my report was somehow lacking, it would have been nice for someone to explain why. What was not nice was that several users appear to be accusing me of trolling.[214] And one of those users subsequently undid some of my edits, seemingly to take some kind of revenge on behalf of Beyond My Ken. These were this one, where I'd moved a template that was incorrectly placed on the article page to its talk page, and the entire removal of which violates the attribution clauses of the content licenses; and this one, where I'd removed some extremely biased material, such as a description of the subject of the article as "a scholarly tour de force". I do not think the user thought very hard about whether they were making the encyclopaedia better or worse; I think it's obvious that they just made these edits to piss me off. They accused me of trolling, and then decided to troll me. I think that's unacceptable. 83.52.84.186 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Given your previous complaint was closed with no action - opening another straight away is unlikely to get the result you are looking for. As your editing history resembles the pattern of a banned disruptive editor you would be wise to look at that LTA page and see where edit warring and insults (I see calling another editor 'sycophantic' in your editing history) will take you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So, because no action was taken before, no-one will explain to me what they consider to be proof in questions of sockpuppetry? That doesn't seem particularly logical. Why don't you try to answer the question instead of trying to derail the discussion before it's even begun like this?

As for where edit warring and insults will take you, it seems to me to lead to general approval, when it's Beyond My Ken doing the edit warring and insulting. He can call me "clueless" and refer to my edits as "shit", and clearly violate the 3RR, and everyone's his pal. Is that the lesson I should be learning here? 83.52.84.186 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RE Sockpuppetry - if an IP and a registered user revert you, that is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Its evidence 2 people disagree with you. Evidence of sockpuppetry would be actual evidence that links the two - either significant behavioural or technical. RE civility, in short yes. The civility policies are rarely enforced against long term registered editors unless the personal attacks are particularly bad. Best case given the evidence you presented is a verbal slap on the wrist. Also referring to your edits as 'shit' is not a personal attack. Referring to you as clueless is, but again, no admin is going to seriously consider blocking BMK for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Strange account giving strange awards

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 care to investigate Epic Fails (talk · contribs)? He's given me an "award", but I can't help but feel that that is not a cause for joy. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see where this is headed. SQL^{Query me!} 04:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm only a kid RGloucester (talk · contribs) Epic Fails</span[[User talk:Epic Fails|5:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

9/10 on trying to copy my sig. SQL^{Query me!} 05:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

9/10? An epic fail surely :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• This account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, in the most obvious sense. Please block it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, their single edit was to thank you for your work on wikipedia, and you want to block them? What's going on? Is there some strange subtext here? StAnselm (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• ANI?? REALLY??? EEng 18:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I think that the username "Epic Fails" makes clear that the "thanks" was not any kind of "thanks" at all, but instead some sort of WP:NOTHERE game. Assuming good faith in such a case as this seems like suicide, but I suppose as I'm the only victim, it isn't of anyone's concern. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think suicide might be taking things just a little too far, R. Gloucester? I thought that was a lovely cup. And quite a jazzy signature, too, for "just a kid". Shows immense potential. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ... just to remind people that episode was the one where "his psychiatrist, Nolan, suggests that House take up a hobby that can channel his focus."

• A Technical note - as the user's name matches on the title blacklist - they cannot receive messages except from admins and template editors - and I'm not sure that they can reply. It might be best for them to choose a new username. SQL^{Query me!} 02:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Pot House Hamlet

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.

---

• Pot House Hamlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pot House Hamlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user "Pot House Hamlet" is blanking the article "Pot House Hamlet", claiming the content is copyrighted and stolen. However, the talk page indicates that OTRS permission was given for the content on the page. Kelly ^hi! 12:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If the OTRS notice met our requirements, then the GDFL release from 2008 is irrevocable. Has anything in our rules changed since then to suggest that this release is actually revocable? Even if the answer is no, is there a reason why we would not just reduce the article to a stub and remove all of the offending text? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, is a gmail account *really* considered all thats needed by OTRS as proof of releasing rights? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's the e-mail listed on the website (showing that they have control of both), maybe. There's a reason smarter people than I handle OTRS, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What was so contentious about the material anyway. Except for that fourth *slightly bizarre* paragraph about the rose cultivator, which could come under BLP, the reast of it was just history- and that can't be copyrighted. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos I believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my guess as well. It's almost as if things would be simpler if the editor actually explained their concerns. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both, that makes some sense. But I still can't believe we're giving credence to this. Remove the images by all means, if they're under contention, and that BLP bit; but everything else? The categories? Reflist? See also? Dismbiguator??? Why isn't this being treated as vandalism. We're basicly being bullied. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The original author now wants to remove the page. 8 years after it's creation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And he's suddenly decided to get involved??? So no connection there then :D _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be possible to re-write with other sources, I think - the site is a scheduled monument and Historic England has a brief history of it.[215] The user also claims the images were "stolen" - apparently referring to File:The Old Mill, pot house hamlet, silkstone.JPG and File:Pot House Hamlet, Silkstone.JPG, both on Commons. Those images were the only contributions of the uploader there (Commons:User:Horsfe). If necessary, they could be replaced by this photo from Geograph. Kelly ^hi! 13:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Good one there Kelly. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Nothing sinister here at all. I would simply like the page removing please. No need to look too deep into this. The wiki page interferes with the businesses FB page as FB create auto generated pages. It is very misleading and is causing real problems on the ground. Peoples businesses are taking the brunt of this confusion and its really creating a problem. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing sinister? Telling people what they can and cannot read on Wikipedia? We are not, after all, guardians of your businesses or their facebook pages. Please desist from your vandalism. And while we're here, could you explain your connection to the Pot House Hamlet account? Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)In that case I would suggest we rename our article to Silkstone glassworks based on the Historic England reference above. "Pot House Hamlet" the business is probably non-notable by our standards. This is the first time in many years of editing that I have seen a business NOT want a Wikipedia page. Kelly ^hi! 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it does: both of the sources in the article before stubification talk about the glass works at Silkstone; I don't think (from a quick glance) either of them mention "Pot House Hamlet"... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Pot House Hamlet appears to just be a business that happens to be located on the site of the old glassworks, of which nothing remains aboveground. Kelly ^hi! 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, come on then. Get with the program! *poke* _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple trustees who are trying to sort this out hence beck2008 and PotHouseHmalet.. We are not telling people what they can or can not read on wiki. Whoever wrote that comment needs get off the high horse. We are simply asking for a page to be deleted as it is misleading. The relationship of the wiki page to what is actually going on on the ground is not correct. Changing to SIlktone glassworks dd further confusion as its does make sense to the situation either. Deletion of the page will solve everything please. Why would people want to vandalise others livelihoods by not helping a real concern here is cruel. Its not such a big thing that a business does not want to be misrepresented and is trying to rectify that. Please can the page be removed and if at a later date we wish to input a page again it will be listed correctly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Beck2008: Please note that it is unlikely the page will be deleted as the subject of the article is very notable and because Wikipedia is not censored. The most you can expect is content changes within the article - deletion is highly unlikely. -NottNott|talk 14:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott Even if this account started the page it cannot delete it? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No, because you do not own the page. As stated above, a number of editors have made changes and edits to the page over the course of 8 years. At this point, the article stands on it's own as a notable subject and a valid article. Had this been say 8 MINUTES after creation and you requested deletion, them there is more of a chance it could be deleted, but not after 8 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Beck2008: Unfortunately in your case, nobody WP:OWNs an article on Wikipedia. By making any edit to the site, you release your addition under the WP:CC BY-SA Creative Commons license. -NottNott|talk 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Can the name be changed to be something that is relevant instead of misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it will be changed to Silkstone glassworks, I expect. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I boldly moved the page to Silkstone Glassworks. Obviously if this was not to be done, please revert me, but I feel this might be the best way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Good move RickinBaltimore, but shouldn't it be a lowercase 'g'? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is? Honestly I'm not 100% sure, if it is, feel free to move it. I thought it was a capital G, but if not make it right :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it. Historic England uses lowercase and it wasn't a proper name anyway...apparently we don't know what the site's contemporary name was, if it had one. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kelly! 14:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelly said above that the page could be moved to Silkstone Glassworks, as that seems to be the better known name. Community consensus however would be the overall factor in seeing if it would be moved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And there you have it; thanks, RickinBaltimore. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment And that, as they say, is that. Sorted, finito. Now we can all get back to what we're meant to be doing- building an encyclopeadia, protecting business's Facebook pages, whatever _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• @Beck2008: - as the page has been renamed here, I suggest you get with Facebook to address this concern with them. Good luck. Kelly ^hi! 14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Facebook was my first port of call, and they take it from source, that being you guys. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beck2008 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on talk page of hoax article

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

---

Article creator (evidently a kid) has made a legal threat at Talk:Lachlan Hodge, in this edit. It's a repeatedly re-created hoax article, and should be salted. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete, salt, point out the block imminent on any further breach of WP:NLT. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also see this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnlegend45. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 11:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Name change of template

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.

---

André de Toth → Andre de Toth (not by me), so how to change name of eponymous template?? {{André de Toth}} Quis separabit? 19:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we have André de Toth → Andre de Toth → Andre DeToth, from what I am seeing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely we have both André de Toth → Andre DeToth and Andre de Toth → Andre DeToth?  :) But to the point, I suggest the OP's question be asked at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion is the correct place to request assistance with this matter, Rms125a@hotmail.com. Also, hi! Good to run into you again. Hope you're doing well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Revdel request

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 kindly revdel these two edit summaries per WP:CRD#3? [216], [217]. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Valley Center Western Days/Valley Center Days

• Vchero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vcwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valley Center Western Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Valley Center Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday, new account Vchero started to overwrite content at the Valley Center Western Days article, alleging that the event had been renamed. The website is still up for the old name, and shows a 2016 iteration of the event and plans for 2017. Another editor and I both reverted the changes, with various cautions about providing independent sourcing.

Today, Vchero created an article on Valley Center Days. I tagged that article for A7 speedy deletion; that's still pending.

Meanwhile, the Valley Center Western Days article was nominated for deletion, and I've !voted there. (That's one reason why I'm reluctant to take direct administrative action against the users now.)

Vchero is alternately said Western Days is not an event [218] or not a sanctioned event [219]. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Vchero is editing from a point-of-view position that Valley Center Days is the "rightful" heir to the history of the Valley Center Western Days event.

Into the fray today comes user Vcwd, who hadn't been active since 2013. That user's only edits today have been to my user talk page.

Something squirrelly is going on here, and I'd like extra admin eyes on the situation. (IMHO, it reads like there's been some sort of split or name dispute with two rival organizations putting on Valley Center Western Days and Valley Center Days, and they've taken their dispute to the Wikipedia article(s) now.) My concerns are these:

1. Has Vchero's conduct reached a level where sanctions are warranted? Or, can somebody help mentor him through the NPOV (and possibly COI) guidelines?
2. Is the Valley Center Days article subject to CSD A7, or should it be nominated for deletion discussion as well?
3. Does Vcwd need some guidance regarding NPOV and COI?
4. Does Vcwd need to change usernames? If so, should they do so now or after the AfD is resolved?

Like I said, a lot of things going on, and I feel too involved to apply the mop here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This debate has divided our town. There is only one event, and that is the sanctioned Valley Center Days, which includes a rodeo, parade, and festival. VCWD and Justin760 are both from Roadrunner Publications, a privately owned, for-profit corporation attempting to profit off the event by trying to trademarking the name "Valley Center Western Days", which was the previous name of the event, so he could control all media output on the event. This is being legally contested by the true event organizers, who are responsible for putting on the non-profit event each year. Justin's 'ownership' of the name is the sole reason for changing it. VCWD and Justin760 (who are actually the same person, in case you're wondering why he magically popped up) own and manage the websites for Valley Roadrunner, Valley Center History Museum, Valley Center Rotary Club, Valley Center Western Days, and countless others. The sources on the Valley Center Western Days pages were published and written by him. He is the only newspaper in town who does not recognize the name change . His ownership of the name prevents him from publishing correct information, as he refuses to recognize the name change due to his financial interests vested in the previous name. He also refuses to recognize other news sources, as his newspaper would be threatened by acknowledging another news source in town. I have documented proof of the name change, recognition from community THIRD PARTY organizations, and the 2016 Valley Center Days parade, rodeo, and festival that just came to a conclusion. There is no rival organization, there is Valley Center Days (the true event organizers) and the owner of Roadrunner Publications (who has NEVER organized the parade, rodeo, or festival). There is no Valley Center Western Days anymore, Valley Center Days used to be Western Days, but it had to be changed. There was no Valley Center Western Days festival this year, and there never will be again due to Roadrunner Publications. Vchero (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• A sad story, but for any of it to be included in a Wikipedia articles, you are going to need citations from third-party reliable sources to back it up. We cannot go by what you "know" is true, nor can we accept your interpretation of events at face value - or theirs, for that matter. I suggest that the article be rolled back to a previous version before the brouhaha began, and fully protected from editing until things can be sorted out. Edit requests should not be accepted if they're not accompanied by unaligned third party reliable sources. BMK (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have cited multiple reliable third party sources, unlike the other user, who only uses self-published sources. All of my references in my article are verifiable- you can contact ANY of them, and my information will be backed up. If you contact the sources on VCWD, you will only be in contact with Justin760, the owner of Roadrunner Publications. I am not affiliated with any private corporations. I have proven without a reasonable doubt that the event is named Valley Center Days, and that the attempted trademark of the name by Justin is illegal, especially considering it isn't even connected to the event anymore. Check my references on Valley Center Days, everything is in order and everything is true, and I can verify that. Vchero (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Here is proof that he is the owner of the Valley Roadrunner and Roadrunner publications on another one of his self-promoting wiki articles, here is proof that he is attempting to trademark the name "Valley Center Western Days" and is being legally contested , here is proof that he purchased ficticious business names for events, organizations, and businesses he does not own , here are editorials on another news source condemning his actions , here is other news sources and community organizations recognizing the event as "Valley Center Days" , here is an article asking for Valley Center Days parade entries using the correct website , here is the announcement for the name change on another news source in town, here is where he 'donates' the trademark "Valley Center Western Days", which he DOES NOT OWN, to the Valley Center History Museum (whose website he owns and manages) , although he still filed the trademark under Roadrunner Publications, Inc. , this is his OWN PUBLICATION claiming that Valley Center Days is the new name for the event and that he owns and manages westerndays.org, which is not the offical website , and here is the official Valley Center Days website, owned and maintained by the cordinators of the true event . If this is still not enough for you, then I have no idea what could convince you that Justin760 is posting articles on wikipedia for his own financial gain. He even acknowledges the change in his own newspaper . I urge you to delete all wikipedia articles he has started that reroute to his newspaper with his self published sources, including Valley Center Western Days, Valley Center History Museum, and Valley Roadrunner, as they are blatant advertising and meant to deceive the community. Vchero (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• Note. The individual typing info above is associated with ValleyCenterHappenings, a local blog that has been extremely threatened by the larger media organization. The individuals have consistently attempted to discredit their competition, with to no avail. The newly created user clearly is attempting to have their competion, a real newspaper and publishing business that covers numerous community's and city's, and legit article, removed from Wiki. In addition, this newly created user is attempting to have the local museum page/article removed. This shows malice and true agenda and should be considered a violation of wiki NPA policy and new page violation of ATP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcwd (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think the solution is to delete both of these articles and encourage the two sides to take their argument elsewhere. We don't need to play host to play-by-play coverage of a small-town spat over a festival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note. I am not affiliated with any news source whatsoever. Valley Center Happenings is not a blog, it is a local e-news source and competition for the printed paper so he refuses to recognize it (especially considering it has been drawing more people and sponsors than print), and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I would be happy with Valley Center Days being deleted, but ONLY if all articles (and future articles) affiliated with Valley Roadrunner, Valley Center History Museum, and Roadrunner Publications (i.e.: Justin Salter/Justin760) are deleted as well. Vchero (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I say delete both pages, and if they are recreated in their current sorry state without reliable third-party sources then salt them and block whoever it was who recreated them. No opinion on the other pages the new account wants deleted, as I haven't looked at them -- they may be just as bad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree delete We are not the colosseum; WP:TNT those articles until editors independent and removed from the festival and its partisans want to work on it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Check the other pages I mention, (Valley Center History Museum and Valley Roadrunner). 4/5 of the links on Valley Roadrunner are self-published by Justin/Vcwd, and 3/4 of the links on Valley Center History Museum are as well (Note: he owns anything made by Valley Roadrunner, Times Advocate, or Valley Center History Museum/Valley Center Historical Society. Also, he refuses to allow up to date information of Valley Center Days on the Valley Center, California article. I've proven that anything citing Valley Roadrunner or the History Museum is only meant for ambiguous advertising. Valley Center Western Days does not exist, it has been proven multiple times that the new name of the event is Valley Center Days, recognized by everyone except the Roadrunner. I can provide whatever you need to validate that, unlike Justin, who can only provide self-published sources. As long as "Valley Roadrunner", "Valley Center History Museum", and "Valley Center Western Days" get permanently removed, as well as "Valley Center, California" having the correct, up-to-date information on our Memorial Day event (Valley Center Days), I do not mind "Valley Center Days" being deleted (it is not notable or global enough to be mentioned, but neither is a small town newspaper, a tiny museum, or an event that no longer exists). But if the other pages stand, which is clearly advertising for Roadrunner Publications, there is no reason to remove my article, especially considering none of my sources are self-published, and all are from reliable third party associations which validate my claims. Vchero (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like he also has another page, "Times Advocate", which is also ambiguous advertising for Roadrunner Publications. Anything citing Valley Roadrunner, Roadrunner Publications, or Valley Center History Museum should be deleted instantly. Vchero (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note. I apologize to the admins reading the drama created by this new user. As the admin stated, nobody cares who owns what. There's an apparent agenda by this new user. Valley Roadrunner and Times-Advocate are both physical print legally adjudicated newspapers. Admins Vchero contribution and talk history should be reviewed. As a new account, there are a lot of spam/vandalism alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin760 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note I apologize that you all have been lied to and deceived to the point of believing the user above. I also apologize to take up your time, but this person has been causing an unholy amount of problems for the Rodeo Committee and other organizations putting on the event. The church and Optimist Club in charge of the parade has been met with unbridled criticism and hate on Justin's many deceiving pages, which are only designed to reroute back to Valley Roadrunner. Note how all citations that Justin and Western Days provides are affiliated with Roadrunner Publications in some way. Also, most of the "alerts" left on my page were put there by Justin, and many are just small cliparts of random pictures and some hyperlinks that he throws around. All of my edits were constructive and entirely correct. I even tried to cite a reference on a museum expansion, but since the newspaper was not under Roadrunner Publications, he deleted it. It is very obvious that he only has articles up to support his own paper and add links that all route to the Roadrunner. If you notice, he has made it so that whenever someone attempts to find the correct informations, they always somehow end up at his misleading pages. He told many parents that they could just show up with their kids for one of the children's events in the rodeo, which was false (you have to sign up), and they had plenty of screaming, sad kids and upset parents due to him. He also sold advertising in his unofficial program under the impression they were sponsoring the real event. This is absolutely insane. I can prove everything I have said, and yet Justin has absolutely no basis for an argument. It shouldn't be so hard to have a non-profit event intended for benefiting the youth of our community, and Roadrunner Publications should not try to intercept the proceeds that are meant for scholarships and various youth activities. Vchero (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is a significant conflict of interest issue here. If User:Justin760 is the Justin Salter who owns the Valley Roadrunner, he should stop editing that page or any related pages, and should certainly not be inserting external links to his businesses or websites. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

For example, in this edit, Justin760 reverted Vchero's insertion of links to an apparent competitor's website with the edit summary "Spamming of References," but in this previous edit, Justin760 inserted links to the commercial website he apparently owns. There are no clean hands here. We have two sides of a small-town argument each trying to use Wikipedia articles to fight their battle, and both Justin760 and Vchero should refrain from it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I will cease all edits and turn my article "Valley Center Days" over to admins so long as Justin Salter and all of his affiliates (Justin760, VCWD, and probably countless others) are banned from further editing as all of his edits have been to promote his private business and attempt to retain the previous name (that he owns). If all of his articles containing or citing Valley Roadrunner / Roadrunner Publications (Valley Center History Museum, Times Advocate, Valley Center Western Days, and Valley Roadrunner) are permanently deleted from Wikipedia, I have no problem with whatever the administrators decide to do with my corrective article. Vchero (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• What in God's name is this doing at ANI? EEng 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it primarily seems to be a content dispute, but there's the ancilliary issue of whether one (or both) of the parties are editing with a COI. Superficially, the answer seems to be "yes". BMK (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please refer back to my four concerns at the top of this report. Yes, there is a secondary content issue, in that I was asking for an independent administrator to confirm the CSD A7—but only because I did not feel sufficiently uninvolved to delete it myself. My primary concerns, though, were a mixture of NPOV and COI, plus a username concern. This is now compounded by some possible privacy concerns. If this were an ordinary content dispute, I'd never have brought this here; however, the interplay of COI, username concerns, and repeated reverts made it seem like it was better to come here for "one-stop shopping" rather than file multiple reports at WP:COIN, WP:UAA, and WP:AN3.

In all honesty, if I could figure out the IRC system, I'd have asked for help there and never started a thread here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, there are several issues here. First, I'm not sure why DGG declined the speedy deletion of [220] of the "new" article Valley Center Days created by User:Vchero. True, C.Fred's original rationale of A7 (no indication of importance) did not apply but it clearly qualifies under A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). This article was created 2 days ago duplicates the topic and basic content of Valley Center Western Days which was created 4 years ago and is now at AfD. Someone now needs to start an AfD for the new article or speedy delete it under A10. In the interim, I have drastically copyedited the version of the new article by User:Vchero. This, was entirely unacceptable to state in Wikipedia's voice. It also used original research and primary sources and incorporated copyvio. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The article's creator even admitted in this thread that he/she did not create the article because it's topic is notable and encyclopedic (it was created to "balance out" the other article that it mirrors) and can be deleted if the other article is (and several other loosely related articles are) also deleted. COI editing on the part of Justin760 is actually a relatively minor issue in this case, as none of the articles he wrote appear to be especially promotional or otherwise biased in how they are written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not actually a minor issue, because the issue is that Justin760 has edited the various VCD/VCWD articles in a manner which apparently promotes his company's particular point of view with regard to the apparent dispute over the festival, and removed other sources which happen to contradict his company's point of view. And no, I can't believe that I just typed all that, because it means Wikipedia has become a battleground to argue about the name of a small-town Memorial Day festival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, NorthBySouthBaranof, both Vchero and Justin760 (+assorted IPs) have been editing the articles to support their opposing points of view. But note that the name, the local print newspaper, and the original website for this event and their addition to Valley Center Western Days, long predate the current newspaper owner's acquisition of it. Also Vchero, Do NOT speculate about or post on Wikipedia the purported real-life identity of other editors as you did here and here. Cut it out, now. But yes, both articles should be deleted—pure hummus (apart from the attempted outing)—and not notable. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification In my opinion, all these users' COI edits are a relatively minor problem, as the articles they edited should be deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be settled the traditional way - team Morris danceing. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have suggested on the relevant article talk page that we solve this issue very simply: By removing and/or deleting all mention of this small-town Memorial Day festival from the encyclopedia. There's no evidence the festival is notable in any way significant that would distinguish it from thousands upon thousands of other holiday parade/festival/whatevers, and what sourcing is out there is all highly localized and trivial. This spat has wasted enough of everyone's time — just nuke it all from orbit. tl;dr: delete the two pages and remove all mention from the community article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As a member of the board of directors of the Valley Center History Museum, the event name is Western Days. The name for the Parade was changed for this year only. There is no point of view of our local newspaper. The information is available on our museums website as historical data. The parade is one event of many during the Western Days week. The event website is WesternDays.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.67 (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendation to just delete everything in regards to the event. The individual has taken up too much of everyone's time. Just look at her contrib history. The original creator, user vcwd, wrote on C.Fred's talk page to delete it as well. Justin760 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everything regarding the event should be deleted, and so should Valley Roadrunner, which is advertising for his newspaper. There is no reason that a small town newspaper should be mentioned in wikipedia, especially when all sources are self published. "Valley Center Days", "Valley Center Western Days", "Roadrunner Publications" and "Valley Roadrunner" should simply be blacklisted from wikipedia and all articles/mentions should be deleted. Vchero (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per the OP this is totally COI driven, all the accounts are WP:SPA promoting the town and doubly conflicted as we have a RW conflict dragged into WP. One side with Vcwd and Jason760 (to spell it out on the slim chance that anybody has missed it, Valley Center Western Days which was and still is in part owned by Jason Salter - note I am not making any claims on identity - just whose interests are being represented), which may be operated by one person but are surely MEAT if they are two people, on one side, and Vchero ("Valley Center hero" - the folks opposing Jason in the RW depict themselves as little guys standing up to the big guy), on the other. All the edits by both accounts are promotional for the town and its institutions, and of course their own POV on those things. (Here is how the Valley Center Western Days article looked when it was created - it is literally an ad to come on down to the festival.)

In my view none of these editors are here to build an encyclopedia. I propose a topic ban for all three accounts on all things related to Valley Center We can sort out the content peacefully without their disruption. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a topic ban in place. Once Justin760 (and all of his affiliates who are also involved in the Valley Roadruner, including vcwd, BrandonVC, and other miscellaneous IP addresses) is unable to publish any misleading information regarding Western Days/VC Days, I will recede and withhold any future edits on any pages whatsoever. But if he continue to vandalize and sabotage Valley Center Days by routing people to his own websites instead of the official page (valleycenterdays.org), I will once again bring this to your attention. Please place a topic ban on all editors involved, and prevent anyone from starting a "Valley Center Western Days" article. Vchero (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Vchero, you don't seem to understand that the suggestion for a topic ban includes you. You are just as at fault as the other two for editing with a conflict of interest and not adhering to a neutral point of view. For these reasons I support Jytdog's suggestion of a topic ban for User:Justin760, User:VCWD, User:Vchero and anyone else connected with this brouhaha. The probable deletion of Valley Center Western Days should help, and I see no reason for a deletion of Valley Roadrunner, which appears to be a legitimate article about a legitimate newspaper. BMK (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that it includes me, and as long as Valley Center Western Days is permanently deleted, I do not mind. Vchero (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• SPI update: Justin760 had two socks, NewsRunner and BrandonVC; all three are indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• In terms of content, all the articles created by the socks, which were only to promote Roadrunner Publications, Inc. (speedied) and things connected to it have been AfDed, some by me, some by others
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times-Advocate
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center History Museum
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Roadrunner
  • and of course the article at the center of this dispute Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Center Western Days

So all that is remaining here is the disposition of editors Vchero and Vcwd, each of whom has only been here to promote the town etc, and VChereo only to argue as well. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So, yeah. I'm frankly surprised Vchero hasn't already been indeffed many times over -- he/she has already admitted numerous times in this thread to being the very definition of WP:NOTHERE. Anyone who says "I don't mind being blocked, as long as you block this other person and delete all their articles permanently" is clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Vcwd is a little greyer, but not that much; he/she is a NOTHERE SPA whose agenda, from what I can establish from reading their comments in this thread, is to promote one news organization and attack a smaller news organization. Block them both indefinitely; see if Vcwd posts an unblock request promising to contribute to the project and refrain from all COI editing from now on, and if it seems at all possible that they are being honest then unblock them; Vchero should be SBANned (i.e., an admin cannot choose to unilaterally unblock) for six months. Honestly, I'm inclined to give them WP:ROPE, as all the articles look set to get deleted and salted, so the odds of either of these accounts doing any significant damage in the future seem somewhat slim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

actually since Vchero was only here to fight and their chief opponent has been indeffed, and vcwd was dormant and only came b/c some notification was triggered the drama is over and we can probably let this drift into the archive. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What if some other SPA that can't be CU-linked to either Justin or Vcwd shows up down the road and continues the dispute with some "new", "reliable" sources? Vchero will just come back and fight some more, and claim that his "opponents" in this case were blocked and he/she wasn't. We need only look up this page to the "off-site canvassing"/"outing" thread to see someone claiming that because one of their opponents was a sock-user it means they are right in making their attacks on everyone else. Heck, what if Justin says six months down the line that they will not use sockpuppets and will not make COI edits and gets unblocked -- Vchero will almost certainly return and cause more trouble. It's a simple matter of blocking a user who has already admitted to being NOTHERE to prevent such problems in the future. I do not know if it's standard practice to allow NOTHERE users to go unblocked because it's possible (or even probable) that the damage is already done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Greek Macedon and his editing of Macedonians (Greeks) and edits by other users.

User:Greek Macedon is making contradictive edits to the lead of the Macedonians (Greeks) article while flatly refusing to discuss his issues on the talkpage. As can be seen here, here, here, here, and and here. He is apparently supporting the edits made by now banned user: 199.7.157.125 and some of his suspected sockpuppets like user: 199.7.157.70, User: 199.7.157.23, User: 199.119.233.157 and User: 199.119.233.20, who I also believe to be sockpuppets of User:99 Harry, User:199.119.233.240, User:199.7.157.82 and User:99.243.33.88 See also this sockpuppet report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pace your suggestion of course; but this seems like a content dispute which has descended into an edit-war. And whilst the SPI might prove something, until it does, any mention of it here comes across as muddying the waters I'm afraid. NAAR. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix, The origin of this is indeed an edit dispute. But there is the added dimension of the consistent refusal to engage in talk, which is basically why I reported it here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I totally agree with your analysis- the behaviour at the article was outrageous. I just think that SPIs should probably be left to do its thing- In emergency break glass. In any case he has been temporarilly neutralised. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful comment Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Basically I can sometimes be an impatient person that worries too much. The SPI has been going on for more than a week now and in that period I have been adding stuff. Could I have done something wrong administratively there? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Mike V:- they might be able to help you with that one. But I will say, accounts aren't usually linked (publicly, anyway) to IPs, as it would be a form of WP:OUTING. But there's probably more to it than that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will ask them because I am worried I may have done something wrong there. I don't know how long these things normally take and I certainly won't be complaining about that or about the eventual outcome, but it's better to know than to just be guessing... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)}}

Old discussions being changed

While cleaning up mildly malformed references, an editor is making changes to old closed AfD discussions and various Noticeboard discussions. The changes are not limited to fixing the references but include correcting spellings in other editors' contributions. The example I came across was this (on my watchlist) where I suspect that "Blatent nonsence" may indeed have been what the editor intended to type: in any case, that's what was said in the 2008 discussion and that's what should remain. The editor has said that the spelling corrections were "unintentional", which makes me wonder how many other unintentional "corrections" have been made to words within quotes, media titles, etc. The objective was to clear articles out of Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list.

I've rolled back a small handful of these edits but then realised that there's an hour's worth of similar changes, to files in the "Wikipedia:" space, from 00:34 to 01:36 this morning. Should they all be rolled back? Or does fixing reference format in non-reader-facing areas matter more than leaving editors' comments intact? PamD 11:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds like a hit and run editor to me. I have seen Dcirovic's changes on articles on my watchlist, but just shrugged them off as being harmless and trivial. I think as long as we can prove that the meaning of the discussions hasn't changed (and the one you linked to didn't), we are probably best off leaving them be for the time being. If I spot Dcirovic fiddling with spellings on ancient talk page discussions with rapid-fire again though, then a block would be helpful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's casually threaten to block someone with a quarter million edits and 6 years service if they ever accidentally change the spelling of some long dead pages again. Reason #75934 why people hate admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Talk is being talked a bit. Sure, AWB "abuse" is blockable, but let's try and help the person out while they're helping us out. Dcirovic, please come by here and chat. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with blocking somebody for ten minutes so the AWB script they accidentally ran doesn't change 5,000 pages they didn't mean to, then unblocking them immediately afterwards with a "sorry about that" note. After all, don't bots have a "click this to block in case of malfunction" button? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Dcirovic and I (and a few others) have been working on this backlog, so I watch their talk page.

Dcirovic, you can remove non-mainspace pages in AWB by right-clicking anywhere in the article-list -> Remove -> Non-main space.

Whether or not non-mainspace articles should exist in the maintenance category is an issue to bring up at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (I'm not sure if that can be controlled, but someone there would know).

Finally, non-supervised editing requires a bot flag, which is a stringent process, but avoids problems like this.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried as hard as I could to confine my edits to reference updates. The meaning of those old discussions is not changed. Nevertheless, I would gladly roll those edits back, if that was the preferred course of action. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The bigger concern is not paying proper attention to each AWB edit. "As hard as I could" isn't going to win many sympathies, because each part of each edit is under your control. You can even turn off typo/spelling correction altogether. It looks like there were many spelling corrections in project space, including many instances of editing other people's comments. I only clicked on a random sample, but noticed that, for example here you changed Bluerasberry's signature to the "correct" spelling of "raspberry" and, as just brought up on your talk page, there were also some obvious errors in articlespace re: spelling. I think this talk of a block above is crazy, but what people need to hear is a commitment to do more than "trying", making a lot of mistakes, then offering to roll back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I had a small concern about Dcirovic's edits, and they were very responsive to my complaint, so I do not think a block is in order. I do think that D. should not make any spelling changes in comments on talk pages, and I presume, knowing next to nothing about AWB, their script can be adjusted to accomplish that. BMK (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Green Flash Brewing Company

The article appears to be tended by numerous COI accounts. There are several issues here in addition to conflict of interest, including the likelihood of sock or meatpuppets editing the article, promotional tone and long lists of products and awards. So I'm requesting assistance in dealing with WP:SPA contributors, and with trimming the fluff as well. Given the recent edit history, my sense is if I go about this alone we'll have an edit war. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Again, I could use some assistance, even if it's to suggest reporting at SPI or COI. I've come here because those issues are allied with the article's content problems. 2601:188:1:AEA0:6D65:E16:58E2:F07C (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can't remember which beer I drank from Green Flash with some regularity a few years ago. It was pretty tasty, I remember that. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Threats made by IP 85.101.176.167

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

---

(Note, they were not directed at me.) See this diff. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hard to do anything. It's from 2 days ago, and there's little evidence the same person is still using that IP address. I'm not sure any block would have any useful effect at stopping anything, since nothing more has happened. --Jayron32 02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no investment in this one way or another. Just thought it should be brought to light. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 02:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Jujutsuan - Edit was two days ago. Blocking the IP would do more harm than good at this point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to do any good, at this point the block would probably do more harm than any good it could possibly do. No need for collateral damage.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

TheLiberal.ie

The article TheLiberal.ie has a problem with an editor, Imthenumberonefan, that appears to have a WP:COI - possibly the owner of the website in question or an employee. E.g., only "favourable"/positive information added, criticism removed even though it's referenced, and they have added information that does not appear to be otherwise in the public domain. Typical edit: diff

They have been warned for WP:3RR. Now an anonymous IP has shown up and is removing referenced material with an incorrect edit summary.

Could we get page protection or an admin to otherwise have a look? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I can't see anything wrong with an edit that removes contentious (and possibly libelous) information sourced to Twitter and Reddit. Whilst the editor is a bit promotional, I am amazed that experienced editors are restoring crap like that. I have removed said material from the article. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The tweets (including some by journalists who had their articles plagiarised) include screenshots of plagiarised articles! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the claims that the competitions were fixed - which was only sourced to Reddit. The Tweets didn't even need to be there as the plagiarism claim was sourced to reliable sources already. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Will try to find additional sources for the allegations of fixed contests. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And remember the edit-warring eh _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And again, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm not edit warring - I've restored referenced content, have not approached 3RR, engaged on the talk page, and raised the issue here. But thanks for your concern. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Keep it up. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that the page is considered for deletion. I think that may be the only solution since it's impossible to get ridiculous claims off the page from an editor who does not engage on the talk page. The page isn't that notable, but someone is determined to remove controversies on the public record, replaced with promotional material and even if blocked, would likely just create different accounts to circumvent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StringerNL (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Extra Administrator eyes required on articles containing information about the Northern Ireland Flag

There's been a recent upsurge in heated activity on various articles containing information about the Flag of Northern Ireland. I'm trying hard to get editors to start discussing content rather than complaining about each other, but I feel I am losing the battle as the sole administrator who seems active at the moment on the articles. I have an additional problem of having got into a wrangle with a rather persistent editor who I consider is taunting, sarcastic, is gaming the system as well as throwing out insults about my actions, and generally being disruptive by being overly persistent and leading one into a labyrinthine set of twisty passages of fine wiki-lawyering points and loaded questions. I am now not convinced that I could be justifiable in wielding any future discretionary sanctions against this editor by virtue of my interactions with them making me involved. I would be grateful if some extra help could be given on the following articles: Countries of the United Kingdom (where I have actually succeeded in getting editors to generally contribute to finding reliable sources rather than complain and edit war within the rules), and Flag of Northern Ireland. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm on vacation right now – just taking a look at the dramaz while drinking coffee – but I recently had to protect Flag of Northern Ireland after an RFPP report, and I see that the edit warring resumed right after that protection expired. This is only the most recent of a rash of WP:TROUBLES problems we've had of late, and the whole thing may be beginning to gather steam again. Katie^talk 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Because of centenaries here and here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, following a clearly disruptive edit on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland that shows clear battleground behaviour, the editor I referred to, above, has been blocked for one month and the action listed in the Discretionary Sanctions log for The Troubles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Echoing administrator DDStretch's call for more administrative eyes on the 2 articles-in-question. FWIW, I'm the editor who requested protection for both articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Eisenhower

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.

---

Seven minutes after his block expired, Mr. Eisenhower repeated the behavior (copyright violation, impersonating an administrator) that got him blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So after I fixed Guy Macon's edit so the link pointed to a user instead of a non existent page, I looked at this dude's contributions. Mr. Eisenhower is certainly not building the Wikipedia equivalent of the Interstate Highway System. I'd say a NOTHERE indef is in order. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to concur, and have done exactly that. Anyone is free to unblock should we see some sort of credible response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:User000name

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 that User000name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked indefinitely or otherwise severely sanctioned, and his or her userpage deleted, but because I find myself too angry to appear impartial am bringing the situation here.

I first heard of this user when I saw a post on another editor's talkpage, admonishing that editor for referring to User000name as a "Nazi" in an edit summary. The editor responded that User000name is a Nazi as reflected on his userpage. This led me to take a look at that page, which includes long lists of external links. I was concerned to discover that the largest section of the userpage was (and is) headed "Holocaust Revisionism" and contains dozens of links to Holocaust-denial articles, "documentaries" and videos. In this thread, I asked User000name to explain the purpose of including this material on his userpage. Another administrator added that User000name must remove Youtube links to copyrighted material, which is true enough although in this context I think a secondary consideration. User000name then responded to both of us, ''Purpose of sections "external links" and "Holocaust Revisionism": it is a collection of info, sometimes the sources aren't the best per WP policy so I will not add them anywhere at the (Main) namespace but will keep them on my userpage; is there an issue with that? I'll remove the links."

User000name then removed the Youtube links, replacing them with the word "REDACTED". These included links to sites such as "Auschwitz - Why the Gas Chambers are a Myth", "Buchenwald a Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil", "Zundel vs. Zionist - Truth vs. Lies", "Spielberg's Hoax - The Last Days of the Big Lie", and "Understanding the Holocaust as a Legend". The edit summary was "Removing YouTube links fags asked me to remove".

User000name did not remove any other links, and the "collection of info" on his userpage continued to have a "Holocaust Revisionism" links section including links to "Zyklon-B and the German Delousing Chambers", "The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax", "Exposing the Holocaust™ Hoax", and "Nazi Gassings" (whose caption is "just another website that denies the Holocaust hoax"), among others. There is also a "Nazism" section of the userpage whose contents are also appalling. I discussed this situation in this thread, asking another administrator whether User000name should be indeffed as a Holocaust-denial troll. User000name then provided the further explanation that "The ['fags'] edit summary meant I disagreed with removing any links to YouTube. Holocaust revisionism links were there because they are sort of interesting."

In a further review, I observed that User000name's userpage, in its own prose (not in a link) uses the term "Holohoax" and elsewhere describes Barack Obama as a "monkey." I asked User000name to explain, and his entire response was, "Along with useful info POVs were also included from text files that were made from text copied from a textboard titled "/newpol/"; more importantly, what is the issue? I could be making useful edits at this website instead of this."

In addressing this situation I tried to be mindful of the fact that Wikipedia embraces a broad range of people and ideologies, and also of the caution passed along by another administrator that sometimes external links may be posted for purposes of studying or identifying problematic human behavior rather than praising such behavior. But even the most lenient version of AGF and widest broadmindedness can only go so far. I pinged User000name to my page, where I told him very directly (in by far the strongest language I've ever used in 10 years on this site—people will be surprised) exactly what I thought of his userpage and, if the page was an accurate reflection of his ideation, of him. He had a clear chance to explain that I was misunderstanding him, if such a response was possible, and dissociate himself from all of those links and comments. He said nothing.

I just spot-checked User000name's contributions for the past 24 hours. His most recent edit was to add a rare spelling variant to the Kike article, which he sourced to Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish. The book was already cited in the article, but User000name gave it a reference-name; the name he chose was "<ref name="kike.htm">". Correction per the user's talkpage; I don't think it affects the overall situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(The situation speaks for itself in my view, but for those who might be interested, see the principles enunciated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander.)

Submitted for such action as may be appropriate, hopefully without more drama than necessary. Pinging Doug Weller, Iridescent, Alanyst, and MastCell as they commented in the thread on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Incivility aside, is it against the rules of Wikipedia to hold crackpot theories? I was under the assumption that Wikipedia is not censored. These don't strike me as particularly offensive. Wrong? Yes. Offensive? Not any more than your average conspiracy theory nut... I could be wrong I suppose, looking forward to hear what other users think. --Tarage (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed. User is not here to edit Wikipedia. User page deleted for containing waaaaay too much offensive material and offensive links--including, for instance, pro-Nazi conspiratorial material about Anne Frank, the well-known fraud invented by the allies to demoralize the defeated Germans even more, or something like that. Tarage, Wikipedia is not censored per se, but Wikipedia is also not a forum for crackpot theories and offensive material--that's what the comments threads on Facebook are for. If User000name wishes to explain, besides the "fags" comment and all that, what good that material served, they are welcome to do so in an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks Drmies. Users are not indeffed merely because of a yuck factor—the issue concerns using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. WP:Wikipedia is not censored applies only to articles, and WP:User pages forbids "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". BMK (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• NOTCENSORED is sometimes taken to mean that we are a free-speech zone. By the same token, NOTHERE covers a lot of ground. The user may have made positive edits, but they are grossly outweighed by the negative ones. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• You're right that NOTCENSORED is sometimes taken that way, but, paradoxically, while the volunteer editors here have decided that the encyclopedia should not be censored, those same volunteers actually have no individual right to freedom of speech on a private website, and have also collectively decided in what ways private speech will be regulated in userspace. Personally, I espouse a zero-tolerance policy concerning Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers, similar to the one mandated by the Foundation concerning pedophilia - some things are simply too offensive to be acceptable. BMK (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Support the block. The incident surrounding their userpage plus his ignoring a request to explain his 'fags' comment, the sort of thing that can have a chilling effect on editors less used to abuse, support the block. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the block, since User is not here to edit Wikipedia (the purported reason for the block, in both this thread and the block log) is clearly nonsensical—he has well over 1000 mainspace edits in the past month alone, all of which (with the arguable exception of the "kike" edit cited by NYB above) appear constructive and uncontroversial on a quick dip-sample. For comparison, Newyorkbrad who brought this complaint made 54 mainspace edits in the same period, all apparently minor. Given the "fags" comment this isn't a cause on which I'll stand and fight, but Drmies, at least be honest when you block someone on the grounds that you personally disagree with their opinions, rather than fabricating an easily-disproved pretext. (If we are going to go down the road of declaring people nonpersons for holding contentious views, you probably ought not to look too closely at the WMF.) ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You may be going down that road, Iridescent, but I'm not. And thanks for the charge of dishonesty, that's real nice coming from someone I used to respect a lot. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Come on, Iridescent. His "1,000 mainspace edits" consist mostly of running MOSNUMscript. That's a pretty minor effort compared to the time he's spent lovingly curating a userpage full of racist and anti-Semitic nonsense. It's entirely honest to say that this person's primary interest does not appear to be in building an encyclopedia. Separately, I'm sure we all have different thresholds for when a "contentious opinion" (to use your phrase) becomes morally repugnant enough that Wikipedia should not be used to promote it, but I would think most people agree that neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, and referring to African-Americans as "monkeys" are all unequivocally across that threshold. It's surprising, and depressing, to see you arguing an abstruse wiki-technicality at the expense of common sense and basic decency. You've always been a voice of reason and sanity, and this is beneath you. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block; uncollegiality of such an extent is a classic expression of an absence from the ideals of the project. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• good block. NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Bad block, as all "NOTHERE" blocks are (see prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#RfC_about_WP:NOTHERE if you have that much time of your life to waste). Of course the page should have been deleted, and I have no problem with an indef block, but it would spare a lot of drama to use an actual reason. For example, Wikipedia:User_pages#Advocacy_or_support_of_grossly_improper_behaviors_with_no_project_benefit would work. NE Ent 23:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• By all means, let's invite him back into the room so we can dot some I's and cross some T's. WP:BURO. A righteous block, period. BMK (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• User:NE Ent how odd that you cite that RfC and state the opposite of its close, which is quite clear that "The consensus is that WP:NOTHERE is a valid reason for blocking and should be included and used. The majority opinion is that it is widely used and the community has accepted it as a valid reason used in various places like ANI and the blocks of many admins." Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bad block, His edits are a little good, but we supposed to bring him back to Wikipedia, Remember WP:NOTCENSORED KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block, I'm reluctant to block people solely for their personal views but that isn't the issue here. People can have their personal views but it doesn't mean they can use wikipedia to push them. Notcensored is about content pages and content related discussions. Editors are given a wide degree of latitude over what's on their user page but as BMK and NE Ent has said, that latitude isn't infinite. Pushing highly offensive views on your user page is one area that's going to far. If it was something like a userbox which said "this editor believes the holocaust didn't happen" or whatever, personally I would feel it better to leave it stand. Although it's highly offensive, it seems better to let an editor say it so people are easily aware than it is to cover it up and leave editors unaware. However others may feel differently so I wouldn't oppose a block in such a case. If the editor promises to cut that crap out, given my reluctance to block people solely on their views I'd probably support an unblock with a very very short leash but even then I wouldn't really push much. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech. Editors may have whatever personal beliefs they want, but for certain beliefs, announcing them or advocating for them on-wiki in a manner that can lead to disruption may taint such editor's entire record of contributions (going backwards and forwards), disrupt the project for others, and generally bring the project into disrepute. The classical example of this is the self-described pedophile, and I believe Holocaust deniers cause the same type of disruption (child protection issues notwithstanding). There may be conditions under which an unblock may be granted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block Sorry, Wikipedia is a cabal, not a congress. What I am saying here is that freedom of speech on Wikimedia wikis is limited. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean you can make personal attacks. Honestly, I was blocked on Commons for 1 week for saying that the WMF is a nazi twice (but later unblocked one day). --Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - While Wikipedia is not censored, is it not a vehicle to exercise Free Speech. We are a community that edits solely by the grace of the Foundation and our fellow editors. When an editor's actions are offensive enough that it would offend a consensus of editors, we have empowered the community to disallow that editor from participating. It doesn't require a brightline violation of policy to do this, only consensus, as editing at Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block as per Dennis Brown's succinct and clear reasoning. Irondome (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - We as a community have dealt with plenty of this (example), albeit not always so severe. The edit summary alone is appalling. This is not even a borderline case - I am very alarmed by the user's claim that "I never promoted Nazism, racism, or anti-semitism anywhere here (those are point of views); my userpage was just a collection of info which mistakenly had POVs and bad sources." I'm unconvinced, given the other "holohoax" and Obama references. Accordingly, I am joining the pile-on. Enough already. GAB^gab 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - We are trying to build an encyclopedia, and this kind of behaviour is very disruptive. I am pro-free speech, but I also believe that actions have consequences. We have plenty of users who can run the MOSNUMscript without being disruptive. Tolerating stuff like this will drive away good users. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Asilah1981

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) I came across this editor after a recent report on ANI and found their edits questionable.

• removal of sourced statements (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), which now seems to be devolving into an edit war.
• A questionable statement on White Puerto Ricans, which I reverted was answered by this and this. More prodding on my side finally started a discussion and as it turned out, the statement was an example of WP:SYNTH.
• The editor in question seems to have a history of disagreements, amongst others in Afro-Puerto Ricans, Spain (See the talk page),
• The straw that broke the camels back, however, was this.

Regards, Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske has been for some strange reason tracking my edits, and automatically reverting them. A hostile behavior which is fine. Only issue is his decision to remove 10 sources which support an undisputed and uncontroversial claim because he clearly very much doesn't like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or more likely doesn't like me.

[221]

[222]

[223]

The curious thing is that the more sources I add which solidly back an uncontroversial claim which is replicated and well-sourced in a number of articles on both English and Spanish language wikipedia (that Puerto Ricans have African ancestry inherited from the Guanches of the Canary Islands), the more insistent he is on deleting it. I don't really know how to discuss with him on Wikipedia since he seems not to be even aware that the Canary Islands are in Africa or that the Guanches were an African ethnic group. His strategy is quoting extracts for which he doesn't provide the source and blankly denying the content of the ones provided.

Both his disruptive behavior on the said articles and this rather pointless Notification seems to me to be motivated by personal reasons of a user who is picking for a fight with someone (in this case me), since he clearly does not understand nor have a desire to understand the topic discussed. I would like to point out that the last someone opened an ANI against me the editor in question was immediately blocked, so yes I have a history of dealing with disruptive editors. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The above is indicative of this users attitude towards dissent. I would like to point out that i've waded through all the sources Asilah1981 provided, and came to the conclusion that none of them supported the statement I contested. If Asilah1981 thinks differently, one source which does support his claim, would suffice. Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah... "His strategy is quoting extracts for which he doesn't provide the source and blankly denying the content of the ones provided.", the extracts i quoted were taken directly from the sources Asilah1981 provided. The fact that they seem unfamiliar to them is telling. Kleuske (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 has long been disruptive on both the White Puerto Ricans article and many articles relating to Spain, Puerto Rico, Canary Islands and other Spanish possessions - especially in regards to race and ethnicity topics. The user steadfastly refuses to read others' retorts and explanations and thinks themselves above all WP policies or even above reading the articles they are trying to link to to presumably make their fictitious point (which tends towards OR/Speculation/Synthesis) when it, in fact, undermines it, cf. The earlier dust-up on the Talk page of the article these two users are currently embattled over - Asilah1981's obstinate use of the word "Caucasian" despite repeated emphasis that that word was not a synonym for "white" and the subject of the article was "white", etc. User is combative, aggressive, and a very strong applicant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I confirm the above statements. Asilah1981 has a very long record of disruption to the WP, a close check to his edits and personal page history, visible and removed, should suffice. I will not dwell more on all the issues related to this editor, just the latest evidence I could spot some days ago, here, and followed by my reply, pretty upset, here. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also encountered difficulties with Asilah1981. I've considered a number of his edits to be on the dubious side since I encountered him/her from the beginning of the year, but carried on cleaning up refs, etc. on a number of articles surrounding the subject of Latin America following AGF and, I'm sorry to say, without checking the changes as thoroughly as I usually do if my nose starts to twitch. I hadn't noticed that content and refs were being added and removed on one particular article until a comment was made here on the Afro-Puerto Ricans talk page. While the comment was unwarranted (and I did make a note about inappropriate interaction on the relevant editor's talk page), after checking through Asilah1981's changes, I couldn't qualify it as being incorrect. Most of the activity went on from early March until about 28 March when I checked back over the changes being made during a period of time I'd spent confirming cites, fixing dead and corrupted links, and finding substitute sources where possible, hence my not noticing edits being made in between my reading and translating. A pattern of an uncomfortably racially motivated POV has emerged in Asilah1981's behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

With some dismay, I have to conclude that the edit-warring and POV-pushing continues on White Puerto Ricans, Bullfighting and Spaniards, arguments are being misrepresented in Talk:Spaniards ("Germanic" is equivocated with "German", Spanish with "proto-castilian spoken in Northern Spain") and WP:FRINGE-sources introduced (Steward Synopsis, Racial Amnesia. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• We actually have an article called White Puerto Ricans? Seems a bit SYNTHetic and/or "X in Y"-ish. EEng 14:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I thought so, too, but by the same token it's unlikely to stand up to an AfD as self-identification and academic research into the area of the 'whitening' of Puerto Rico is abundant. Whether it stands up as a spin-off article is another issue. That's where the SYNTH comes in in terms of the development of which ethnic groups are prominent. From my reading of the sources, the brunt of the academic discussion is not about which 'white ethnic groups' constitute the majority of the 'whiteness', but the self-identification as being white. For me, the majority of the article is WP:OFFTOPIC and breaches WP:NOR by developing sections on countries for which there are main articles on the subject. (But, then, I'm going off-topic by discussing content here when it's Asilah1981's editing behaviour that is in question.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin please semi-protect Operation Barbarossa? / HarveyCarter socks

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

---

It is coming under sustained vandalism by the well known banned user Harvey Carter. Thanks! Irondome (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:81.132.48.174 and User:165.120.240.166 quack very loudly: same HarveyCarter MO, same HarveyCarter location in the UK. The 81 IP is edit warring against four other editors on Operation Barbarossa. I dropped a note on Bbb23's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. BMK (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:81.159.6.158. BMK (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Dennis Brown for 90 days. Sorted. Irondome (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, sorta sorted. Dennis also blocked 81.132, but 165.120 and 81.159 are still free to edit. (Sorry, Irondome, I re-opened your close, since there is still an issue not yet dealt with.) BMK (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries BMK. I just wanted to see if I could close one! First time nac'er..Irondome (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The other two have been dealt with, 81.159 is the only one unblocked now. GAB^gab 19:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, but since the IP hasn't edited for a couple of days, I don't think any admin is going to block it. An eye should be kept on it, though. BMK (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Off site canvassing

• Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bringing this to the attention of others for comment. Chris Kyle is currently the locus of an entrenched content dispute, with multiple edit warriors, disruption and blatant POV-pushing. It has been alleged that there have been attempts made off-wiki to recruit people to join the talk page to "stop the Libtards" from "stealing American Sniper's valor". Without naming names or pointing fingers, I felt it was appropriate to add {{Template:Recruiting}} This diff, which might require oversight, along with the relevant file (I'm not certain about how that policy applies in this instance) is yet more evidence of canvassing. Winkelvi and DHeyward, have both persisted in attempts to remove the template from the page [224] [225] [226] [227]. The template's tone is neutral; would someone please explain to them that it should not be removed, or explain to me why it should be removed. The whole page is a rats' nest, with some serious sub-par behaviour. Keri (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see: 3 doxing attempts, no evidence that there is canvassing, a bad faith SPI filed against me and then a thinly veiled template trying to support the doxing as valid. Look at the edit summaries of the editors replacing it[228]. Your supporter was blocked and you asked for multiple sanctions at 3RR (didn't happen) so now you are forum shopping/canvassing it here? If you were the one to add that template, please take it down as its main purpose seems to be to perpetuate the doxing and casting aspersions that were in three hatted discussions - whatever your intent, that's what the editor justified its existence with. All the offsite links were blanked before I could even see them but the 3 doxing attempts was apparently somebody with the last name of "Heyward" is on Facebook and you chimed in that it was "troubling." Meanwhile the only new editor was the IP that came to warn us. It was semi-protected so the warnings, doxing and newbie contributions stopped which was when you decided to add the template. For what purpose? It seems the effect was only to perpetuate harassment of me. --DHeyward (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Also there is hardly any dispute. The article has been stable for a over a year. We are waiting on the Navy to address the concerns raised and following consensus until consensus changes. The person that was not doing that is sitting out for a week. --DHeyward (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already made it very clear that I don't think any of the main actors from that page are involved in canvassing. The screenshot provided bears no resemblance to your name or anyone else's involved in that page. As for multiple sanctions, yes, I think you should have been sanctioned for edit warring. But that's by the by: you were lucky. The fact remains that an external website is encouraging people of a particular POV to edit the page. The template informs them about consensus and !vote. Keri (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For reference, it was doxing and anyone who's been here long enough will see it (I've been completely doxed before). It was lame and false, but not unrelated. Second, if you want to cry out that you think something should be oversighted, don't post the accusations and links on ANI. It perpetuates the harassment as do templates that call attention to it. --DHeyward (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It won't be oversighted unless someone asks for it to be oversighted. FYI I was unaware of anyone attempting to out your identity, either past or present. I didn't upload the image to commons, but I tagged it for speedy deletion. It is only because someone has just emailed me that I have any inkling what you're talking about. Keri (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So you clipped all those diffs and missed the "Outing violation" hat note on 3 conxecutive discussions started by IP editors [229]? You the brought them here for a parade and brought notice with the template? Your statements are becoming less credible. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

if dheyward says its doxing, isn't he basically admitted he is the person doing the posting on facebook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotWolf359 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — PatriotWolf359 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. baseballbugs i just registered yesterday bcuz it wouldnt let me provide the screen otherwise last time i posted people asked for a screen why are you being insulting?

• As this can no longer be discussed openly, I have emailed ArbCom instead. Closure seems sensible and prudent as the incidents can't be solved or discussed here. Keri (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am not posting on facebook. The hideous thing about doxing is the "prove the negative" condition where I must reveal my IRL identity. It's why we have strict policies on doxing which you (patriotwolf) are violating. How much personal information are you requiring me to provide? --DHeyward (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

if you claim it is doxing you are saying someone is providing your identity which means youre the one posting to facebook trying to get people to come slam the rfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotWolf359 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop digging. --DHeyward (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Attempted outing is against the rules, no matter whether the information is true or false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Agree. The consequence for WP:OUTING is severe, and immediate. Let it be executed immediately. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Keri was warned yesterday by admin [230] to stop pursuing. Keri ignored an awful lot to perpetuate this attempted outing including the 3 hatted discussions on the talk page. The warning was specifically for a boomerang. Everything Keri has done including the templates, is to call attention to it. Now Keri is trying to deflect a boomerang by saying she emailed ArbCom but for what purpose? It seems to me as if that's an attempt to only bring it to another forum in the hope that it will deflect an outing sanction here that she was warned about. --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the editor that was blocked for edit warring, that Keri was supporting, has now been indeffed for being a sock [231]. His previous socks have a history of creating Joe Job accounts as "proof" of recruitment and collusion [232]. Had Keri heeded the warning, the socks agenda would not have been advanced. --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The warning was directed at PVJ, not me. My response in that thread is here. For someone who is so concerned that they are being outed, you really are the only one who is still waving a banner and drawing attention to that which you claim outs you. You haven't requested any oversights, it was me that requested the screenshots on Commons be speedied, and after I was emailed by another editor making me aware of pertinent information I said this should be closed, and emailed ArbCom instead. I think you are a thoroughly unpleasant person, and your behaviour throughout this dispute has been appalling; I wouldn't attempt to deliberately out you, however. As you have effectively trumped any discussion about off site canvassing, I suggest you drop the stick. Keri (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Keri, my behaviour was not appalling and was quite reserved considering the invective and accusations being launched at me by the now indeffed PVJ. I didn't see the image until I saw you linked it here. I don't particularly care about the information being oversighted. I do care about the behaviour that continued to thoroughly enable unpleasant editors like PVJ to continue their crusade. I'm sorry you don't see your role in this mess as enabling a now banned Joe Jobbing sockpuppet. Previously, under a different account, he doctored IRC logs to make it appear as if a WP editor was canvassing him. There simply was no canvassing - it was a ruse to foment discord. I realize you were likely duped by this person and not being malicious but if you come out of this with a polarized view, then his trolling was successful. --DHeyward (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Making bogus "outing" accusations is most certainly appalling, and it is offensive to those of us who have suffered legit outing attempts. At the very worst, you had someone impersonate you off-wiki and post your (not private) information on Facebook; at best, you engaged in off-wiki canvassing and are trying to blame it on someone else. This very clearly is not outing, and the fact that someone who doesn't like you has been blocked for sockpuppetry is an off-topic red herring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of outing policy didn't you understand? If I posted on-wiki to a facebook post by someone named Hijiri and claimed it was you, that's outing. It's not a hard policy to understand. Impersonatiton is also classical harassment. It's reprehensible that you are supporting it and even giving it credence. --DHeyward (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a nebulous area. I have had one oversighter claim that providing links on-wiki to off-wiki profiles is not outing, then a different oversighter claim the opposite. From casual conversation it appears some are under the impression that on-wiki "DHeyward is person 'Dobby Heyward'" would be outing, but "DHeyward is account 'dobbyheywardfacebookprofile' is not. The relevant part of WP:Outing is "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(This entire comment is directed at DHeyward, depite the indentation.) No, if you claimed someone on Facebook called Hijiri was me, I would take it as a joke, as Hijiri is very obviously not my real name. It would technically kinda-sorta fall under the broad definition of outing given on WP:OUT, but even if I tried to get someone blocked for it it probably wouldn't work out for me. Now, if I edited Wikipedia under my real name and someone linked to a post I made off-wiki under the same name, it most definitely would be outing, but if I emailed oversight they would tell me it's my own fault for choosing to edit Wikipedia under my real name (please don't force me to partially out myself by explaining how I know this). Now, if I edited Wikipedia under my real name, and I posted publicly on Facebook about my Wikipedia activity, in a manner that violated Wikipedia policy, and someone linked to this and said it was probably me, then I would get blocked and or TBANned, and the person who kinda-sorta technically outed me would probably get off with a soft warning.

Note: I don't think "D. Heyward" is your real name, and I doubt it was you who posted on Facebook. But if it weren't for a load of peripheral stuff related to sockpuppetry and users who were blocked before this even started, I think the user who "outed" you would not be blocked for it, as all they did was post a link to what very much looks like off-site canvassing, which is usually considered to be acceptable even if it is sometimes kinda-sorta in breach of the outing policy. Again, please look at the actual cases I linked to above, one of which came before ArbCom and the other of which involved a CU-enabled editor "outing" a user by connecting their "pseudonymous" account with their real-world identity. This is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

These weasel-worded excuses for outing and harassment are just that. If I posted a like to a real world identity and said it was you, that's a violation of WP:OUT. Unlike your claim, none of the blocks had occurred before this ANI. That's why the drive by poster, (blocked after his comment) was making claims that the FB poster was me. That was done in this thread. Read it. Facebook is real life identities. It would be even worse if I made up s Facebook identity with, put "wiki name is Hijiri88" on the facebook profile and started posting to extremist groups to discredit you. That's what just happened to me. You still think that would be okay? How about if after that, we all just said "It's probably not you but let's put up this generic template just in case." I was fortunate that it turned out the harassers were caught so I wouldn't have to prove anything as you seem to suggest is necessary. And yes, I have been doxxed in much more insidious and direct ways when the wiki part was just the beginning. I am not looking for a block for Keri. She was duped. But the lesson doesn't appear to have been learned given the excuses you keep making. --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not outing You seem to believe that the Facebook post was made by someone who disliked your Wikipedia edits impersonating you, and you may well be right. If you are right, however, then what happened here definitely is not outing. Someone used the information you posted on-wiki to pretend, briefly, to be you on an external site. Outing involves posting your off-wiki information on Wikipedia; posting your on-wiki information on Facebook is the opposite of outing. While saying "Your real name is D. Heyward, isn't it? Are you this person on Facebook?" is a violation of the letter of WP:OUT, if you had been engaged in off-site canvassing it would not be considered a form of harassment, and if it was the person who said this impersonating you off-site then there was neither intention nor effect to out you according to the spirit of the policy. You are the one being a wiki-lawyer here, not me. I am not saying I approve of what was done; I am saying that it is not outing, and that you are using what was done to you apparently by an already-blocked user to attack everyone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Take a step back and a breath. Posting a link on-wiki to an offsite, IRL account with a name is outing. You are hungup on truthiness which does not matter. Nobody posted anything on Facebook that they were me, they posted on WP that the Facebook account was me. You have it ass-backwards and yes, it is a form of outing. Sorry you can't see that. The spirit and letter is "don't post on wiki to IRL accounts or attempt to connect a wiki account to an IRL account." Stop parsing and splitting hairs. I am also not attacking anyone. I didn't bring this to ANI and the blocks of the Joe Job sockpuppet didn't happen until the OUTing attempt was paraded to 3 notice boards. I am lucky that I don't have to "prove" it wasn't me to people that don't understand policy. The problematic post wasn't on Facebook, it was on Wikipedia and that is very clear from the 3 hatted "Outing" discussions on the Kyle talk page which I know you've see. If you think it's not outing, feel free to reopen them but the admins that hatted it may have an issue (as will I). --DHeyward (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment Posting a link to off-site canvassing that explicitly mentions a Wikipedia RFC is not in itself a form of OUTing, and indeed is commendable both as detective-work and as contextualization for anything that comes out of said off-site canvassing. Speculating as to the real-world identity of a particular Wikipedia user is a form of OUTing, but depending on the circumstances the consequences need not necessarily be "severe, and immediate". In cases where someone posts in a public forum under their real name and explicitly states their Wikipedia username in an attempt to get around Wikipedia conduct guidelines (including those related to canvassing), linking to this off-site canvassing is indeed a form of outing, but the real culprit and the one who will likely get the short end of the consequence stick is the user who outed themselves in order to engage in off-site canvassing. In this case, it would appear that the off-site canvassing did not mention the canvasser's Wikipedia username, so linking is not itself outing, as there is no attempt made to link a Wikipedia user with a real-life person. (What Patriotwolf did in this thread is indeed outing and blockworthy.) If, as in the historical Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon and Fearofreprisal/Jesus historicity/Reddit cases, there is only one user on one side of an on-wiki dispute and this user publicly canvasses off-site and effectively outs themselves, linking to such discussion is effectively outing, but I have never heard of anyone being sanctioned for this. In this case, it would appear that the canvasser did not explicitly connect their username to their real-world identity on- or off-wiki, and there is more than one person on each side of the on-wiki dispute, so whether "outing" took place in the now-collapsed talk page discussions is ... questionable, at worst. Canvassing off-wiki, and then attempting to silence all discussion of discussion of said canvassing by making bogus accusations of "outing" is highly disruptive, and I am certain if this came before ArbCom that would be seen as worthy of sanction. Indeed, if it appears that someone deliberately posted off-wiki using their real name, with the intention of shouting down all accusations of off-site canvassing as "outing attempts", this is a severe offense and warrants heavy sanctions.

And I don't want anyone claiming I am not sensitive to the nuances of OUTing. I know how bad legit OUTing is. I had my parents' home address posted on-wiki, and I was also deeply involved in the two cases of off-wiki canvassing linked above.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: And I hope you would be offended if someone implied it might have been you posting your parents address in order to game the system. Did you read the talk page Talk:Chris Kyle? Did you see the editor that is now blocked has a history of Joe Job accounts (i.e they went to the trouble of creating two facebook accounts with an attempt to create a likeness to wiki editors). They post to an extremist group, screenshot it and then come to wiki to "warn" us of off-site canvassing with an insinuation that the likeness in name points to a wiki editor. It's the same thing that the sockmaster has done before. Please don't say you understand the policy and then dismiss it. I didn't close any of three discussions that called it outing and missed seeing the evidence as the links were dead. I only called it out when I removed the "canvassing" template was calling attention to it. There is no canvassing as the Joe Job sock account was responsible for it as well as edit warring. Keri keeps claiming the template is okay and has brought it to no less than 3 forums in support of the sockpuppet that only has Keri's support. Please tell me you understand how acquiescing to the demands of the Joe Jobbing sock is disruptive, further invites more doxing attempts and destroys the collegial editing atmosphere. Keri's second sentence in this ANI is "Without naming names or pointing fingers" - is pretty self-evident that she knew the accusations of canvasing was an outing attempt. "Gaming" is very much involved when an editor is aware of an outing attempt but cloaks material support for that attempt and calls attention to it after being asked to stop.

Here's Keri's edit after the outing attempt [233] - read and tell me if you think there are no fingers being pointed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm confused -- are you accusing someone of trying to frame you for canvassing by impersonating you off-wiki, or are you accusing them of attempting to out you by linking to a post you actually made yourself? These two seem mutually exclusive, but...? Or are you accusing someone of trying to 'out' you by impersonating you off-wiki and speculating that the name you use on-wiki is your real name? Outing, as defined on WP:OUT, would involve posting (or attempting to post) your off-wiki information on Wikipedia, not posting your on-wiki information on Facebook. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Someone created an offsite account with a likeness to my wiki account. They posted a recruitment message in some group and then came on wiki basically saying it was me. Posting a link to an offsite account claiming it is a WP editor, whether that information true or false, is a violation of WP:OUT policy. I didn't see the post, only the accusation by the IP that it was me. You should read the diff and policy again. Not mutually exclusive. Luckily, they linked the editor to a sock known for Joe Jobbing. Your line of questioning was the logical next step in "proving" it was false is having to answer whether my wiki name is my real name or not. Read the on-wiki diff [[234]]. Pretty clear-cut vio by the IP. --DHeyward (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not personally seeing any deliberate attempted outing, but I do see cause for concern about the fairly obvious canvassing, posted in several FB places. Since the evidence has apparently been deleted (except for quoted text here [235]), I don't see that there's much further need for non-admins to opine here on the outing-vs.-canvassing debate. Now that the alleged canvassing has been noted, and the article full-protected, and presumably eyes are on the TP and RfC for SPAs etc., I think this whole debate can possibly be put to rest -- or admins should settle it. I'm more concerned about the blatantly non-neutral RfC statement. In my opinion, that RfC needs to be scrapped completely and re-opened without the POV text. It is for !voters to decide what is or isn't a reliable source (and an autobiography certainly fails as an independent automatically reliable source), not the framer of the RfC. This can also be taken up at WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: There was no canvassing. Joe Job sock puppet (now blocked) sowing seeds of mistrust which the template was a part. This [236] is part of the problem. Am I the only one seeing fingerpointing and an attempt to link me to offsite accounts by the Joe Jobber? --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Fun fact: PatriotWolf359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a possible sock of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked as a likely sock of SkepticAnonymous - sure brings back old memories. GAB^gab 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks in AfD nomination

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/Schrödinger's Rapist (still visible in this version)
• Accompanied by this diff

It's notable that the editor User:DracoEssentialis was blocked earlier this year for personal attacks.

I tried putting a collapsible table around the attack but was reverted by a third party. Requesting either a caution or a temporary block to encourage this user not to use processes like AfD to be a jerk to other users. (I've never filed an AN/I before, so not sure about process.)--Carwil (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How the hell does a gratuitous personal attack and rant like what's in that AFD nomination stay for days without anyone removing it? Is DracoEssentialis one of those special editors who can get away with any level of abusiveness because they are also content creators? Deli nk (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whilst lacking so little in accuracy, eh? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Na, it was more likely a combination of 1.No one saw it, apart from serial AFD stalkers, the nominator and the original author, it was not getting a wide audience. 2.Those who did see it not disagreeing entirely with the sentiment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I that's partially true. I saw it, and I disagree with the statements. Many people saw it, and a disturbing amount of people agree with it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't follow the drama around here closely enough to have understood the language of the AfD as a personal attack on a specific person, so I just read the rest and !voted to merge, based on my own google search and the arguments posted before I got to the AfD. But then I read the taunt posted by the nominator to the talk page of the article creator. That taunt is a picture-perfect example of the kind of on-wiki interaction that turns decent people with little appetite for polemics away from our project. If it doesn't prompt some sort of administrative response, it reflects poorly on our whole endeavor. If we mean to keep building and maintaining an encyclopedia, we need to arrest the toxicity that this talk page message so thoroughly exemplifies. David in DC (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

David, the offending text was removed before your recent !vote, I've added a link above.--Carwil (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding nobody taking notice, the first two users to comment at the AfD were admins. @Drmies and Wbm1058: is there some context that's not immediately obvious which makes this a non-issue? Is everybody just friends, and the rest of us are hypersensitive? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Context? Oh, I don't know--long-standing antipathy, maybe, possibly mutual. I did not see something blockable here, but I have to admit that I didn't look that closely at the lengthy nomination statement. I see plenty of sarcasm, sure. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. He or she was blocked for personal attacks for a week in April 2016, so I escalated it to a month this time. The AfD can continue as far as I am concerned, but this doesn't excuse the manner in which the creator of the article was addressed. Fram (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Racism in South Korea

I'm trying to avert an edit war here, currently low level but with the potential to escalate. My attention was caught by this edit by AmericanExpat and there are further comments on my talk page. I wouldn't normally bring a content dispute here, but I have to say that I find the tone of this article, including the title, quite worrying. I would welcome comments/edits from other experienced editors to try to improve this article , or at least give more oversight of what is going on. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised I have started an attempt at discourse and made specific suggestions for bringing neutrality and objectivity to the article as well as cleaning up the citations. I, too, would like to avoid an edit war and would like some third party oversight on the matter.

AmericanExpat (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't examined this matter and do not intend to. I do, however, notice that your latest (and enormous) addition to the talk page deletes somebody else's comment. I recommend that you quickly reinstate that comment, however much you may disagree with it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoary I am unfamiliar with the edit interface on Wikipedia. If you or someone else can figure out what I inadvertently deleted, please restore it without deleting my comments. Thanks. AmericanExpat (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reinstated the accidentally-deleted section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I initiated a deletion request recently, where I also stated my major problems with the article like the lack of reliable sources, especially since I find mainly journal articles should be used for such a topic. Moreover, I find it is rather a list of incidents and original research. Almost all sources are newspaper articles and I have a lot of issues with Korea Observer. They are maybe now "registered as a business", but for me, the site is still a blog and they also refer to that they have been nominated for a blog award. I also left my comments on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, I have no more motivation to edit this article but I hope some people will understand the issues on the article when looking on the talk page and maybe will improve it. --Christian140 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:RFX Dealers

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.

---

RFX Dealers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'd like to assume good faith on this one, but this "new" user has been around all of five days, and has made contributions such as this, this and this. They seem to know about GA/FA from their edit history, are quick to use prod tags without knowing about the notability concerned, and based on that last diff, I suspect they are a sock of User:KgosarMyth. Their talkpage is already awash with warning messages, and words fail me for their actual user page. If someone could take a look, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sock of TeaLover1996? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: TeaLover1992 isn't a registered username. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Anarchyte and thanks for pointing out the error. I assumed I'd got the year correct when it showed up as a blue link. Odd! I'm not sure it is him actually, now; similarly busy userpage, but this editor seems to have a slightly stilted use of language, whereas (I think) Tealover was native. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I filed a report on WP:AIV for this user here but I later realised that wasn't the best way to go about it. The user has been readding false claims of user rights, which is against the rules. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:RFX Dealers certainly seem to be edging into WP:CIR territory but for what it's worth I do not think they are either of the users mentioned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. If nothing else, the Fissan article certainly needs looking at. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm almost certain it isn't Tealover1996 - a large percentage of Tealover's edits were to football articles, and this user doesn't have any. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Fissan has the feel of a copy and paste, particularly as User:RFX Dealers's English doesn't appear to be very good. In fact, the first two sentences beginning "Fissan was founded in 1930..." appear to be copied from a Google translation of fissan.com/Chi Siamo and the rest from a Google translation of the article Fissan on de.wikipedia. The page is up for deletion at AFD so further input can be provided there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, well, User:RFX Dealers has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Synthelabobabe21. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Will slap some G5s around. The sockmaster looks familiar... what's this socker's MO? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Velella identified them very early on as having identical user pages and very similar style of generally disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Synthelabobabe21/Archive. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate this is now closed, but thanks to all involved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Setad article

Hi,

Can WP admins review the edit history of this article and add it to their watchlist? I don't want to enter into "WP:edit wars".. If not, this may rapidly decay into a tool for (Iranian) propaganda and this is against WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance for your review. 86.106.23.246 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)An editwar in the making and/or content dispute gone bad between two newbies

• Ali Yazdi from Iran (talk · contribs) WP:SPA, and
• US guy (talk · contribs) near SPA

A third user got involved, but doesn't qualify as SPA. They may be just be an intervening onlooker. All accounts are brand spanking new. I'll notify the users in question. Kleuske (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (WP:AN/3 for short) is a better venue. It's intended to deal with situations like this. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kswikiaccount

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 having a bit of a dispute with Kswikiaccount (talk · contribs) over at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. The prior version of the article was this: [237], this was modified by an IP here [238] which I reverted but later tried to add a more NPOV tone here. [239]. A bit later Kswikiaccount made an edit on the talk-page [240] calling myself, and @JFG: out saying "I have a hard time assuming good faith". Before a discussion could begin on the matter the article was reverted [241] back to a version that pre-ceded JFG's edit claiming a consensus was in place. I then reverted the editor who reverted me back (1RR prevents me from going further) again claiming that a consensus was in place when there wasn't. [242] I am a bit stuck now on what to do... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take it to DRN --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand though is establishing a consensus before edits are made so it involves multiple editors for a solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What administrative action is requested here? SQL^{Query me!} 23:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

kswikiaccount response

Immediately there is evidence this editor has lied. I am quoted as saying "I have a hard time assuming good faith". As in, he quotes me as having said exactly those words. I went to the linked page, did a search using ctrl+f to copy paste what Knowledgekid87 quoted, and chrome found 0 instances. I did a search for "assuming good faith" and these are the only 4 hits I get at 4:10 pm PST:

1. "I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith, there has been a lot of 'mistakes' on this article." by me at 19:52, 8 June
2. "you even said above that you had a hard time "assuming good faith" I mean what is up with that?" by him at 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
3. "I am assuming good faith, which is why I am asking you if there is some bias on your part" by me at 21:17, 8 June 2016
4. "No you are not assuming good faith. You are being passive-aggressive" by him at 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2 you can see he asks me "you had a hard time "assuming good faith" I mean what is up with that?" at 21:13 even though I had already answered him before at 19:52 in 1 and even at 21:04 when I stated "Your behavior is very strange to me because you seem to be throwing a bunch of guidelines at me with the intention to get me not to edit the page." Clearly knowledgekid87 is having some issues. I'm not sure what those issues are though, which is why I asked him instead of, like him, making assumptions and wild accusations.

So basically the evidence points to me attempting to assume good faith, not making accusations against him, asking him questions, and him doing the opposite of me.

"Before a discussion could begin on the matter the article was reverted"

Knowledgekid87 is trying to portray it this way:

1. He does not need consensus to change the page from its original state to an altered state, BUT I need permission to edit the page to how it was originally a few hours ago before he made edits on the page.
2. I am the one breaking the 1RR when I edited his edit, even though his edit did not revert mine, but (he claims) my edit of him violates 1RR. But he is, somehow, not breaking the 1RR when he edits my edit of him.

Ok. Now let's look at his own evidence. He claims that I had broken the 1RR, he has currently put his argument that I did not seek consensus aside for the moment while focusing on the 1RR. He has six pieces of evidence to try and prove that I broke the 1RR:

1. The first piece of evidence in his post is labelled as 1, which could be confusing because he calls it "prior version of the article" but links a diff. It would make more sense to link not the diff, but the original page showing the bottom right bar labelled "Additional delegate votes needed for nomination" because this was the original page.
2. The second piece of evidence shows some random IP stating a fact. JFG had edited the page to say that Bernie Sanders has, and I quote by copy/pasting, "No more path to nomination", which is actually incorrect as I explained so simply in my post to the Talk Page. BTW I posted in the talk page before altering the actual page.
3. The third piece of evidence labelled as 3 in his post tries to show that he added an NPOV by changing "No path to nomination" to "No path to nomination with pledged delegates", which is either a) incorrect because I think he is trying to say "no path to nomination with current unpledged delegates", which is correct assuming that the future is predicted, but I think wikipedia tries not to predict the future or b) factually incorrect, because "with pledged delegates" even Hillary Clinton does not have a path to nomination since they will both need the unpledged delegates to get over the hump to nomination.
4. The 4th piece of evidence I have already responded to in the beginning, but i would like to add that knowledgekid87 has been extremely hostile towards me and his brief interaction with me has left me physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted. What is worse is that I have already told him to take his hostile behavior down when I said, "this interaction has left me physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted." Also notice how even though I explicitly stated "I am assuming good faith" he goes on to say in his next edit that "No you are not assuming good faith. You are being passive-aggressive".
5. The 5th piece of evidence in his post is a link showing me changing the page back to its original state with the following statement from knowledgekid87 stating that the I did the "edit claiming a consensus was in place", but I actually never stated consensus was in place, in fact, if anyone sees where I claim this please tell me because my edit was made with the following comment "Please avoid changing Bernie Sanders Delegate Votes Needed until getting the go ahead on the Talk Page".
6. His sixth piece of evidence is him showing me changing his revert of my edit. Notice how his edit was made with the following comment, and I am copy/pasting the quote, "Please don't mess up the layout". He states this because if you look at the previous state of the page, you will find that there was a formatting error which made the page unreadable. I had fixed the error, assuming he was speaking about the error. So there was no error anymore and I restated my comment, not to knowledgekid87 because I assumed his problem was with the formatting.

This is where knowledgekid87's good faith comes into the picture.

Initially at 20:12, 8 June 2016 he reverts my edit and says "you get a consensus here THEN you change the article". Which as I stated above is nonsensical, because if this is true then what is his dispute with me? He is one of the people that violated this rule by not seeking consensus when they changed the article from its original state, which is shown in his first confusing piece of evidence which shows a diff instead of the actual state of the page.

So I respond to him slightly confused, "Great, feel free to follow your own advice. You changed the article before getting consensus."

Then his next responses switch from me having to Seek Consensus to 1RR, which again is nonsensical because he violated the 1RR when he initially reverted my edit which fixed my "mess up [of] the layout" which was an edit of him editing the page to remove its original state.

Now as I did here, I want to ask again, is there a reason he is trying to keep me from editing the page? Many of his edits are strange to me, like this factually incorrect statement "Sanders math-wise has no chance of winning the nomination" or the other ones linked above where he claims NPOV while making statements that are false such as this one saying Bernie Sanders has "No path to nomination" or the strange flip flopping (from get consensus to 1RR) and, what looks like to me, Gaming The System in the Talk page and now here in the Dispute Resolution to keep me from editing the page. Kswikiaccount (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Kswikiaccount had not been given the discretionary sanctions notice for WP:ARBAP2; I remedied that little problem. 1RR is not nonsensical here. I'm sorely tempted to lock the page until this wording issue is resolved. Stop reverting each other and start working to settle this. Katie^talk 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A few users are dominating the page. I think the page needs outside help to fix it. There are two sides on it and they've been in the middle of a battle for months now. I don't think telling either side to work together is going to help, except maybe get me and 2 other users to simply leave the page alone to people that have been making irresponsible edits. I think the worst thing wikipedia could do is leave it to consensus because me and 2 or 3 other users keep suggesting people add information while we are harassed by a few of the 5-10 users that keep deleting and altering certain information. Everyone is getting frustrated. I think the best thing we can do is have someone watch over the page to encourage the responsible addition of information.

If you look at the page right now, without consensus the page says "Mathematically eliminated". That is insane because I prove in the talk page that "mathematically" it is still possible for Sanders to get elected. Kswikiaccount (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you kindly say who is "dominating" the page? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is another one of your edits where you are blaming a user: [243]. You need to focus on content not the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Withdraw I would like to withdraw this thread if I can, a discussion on a possible solution is taking place on the disputed article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this should be withdrawn. I would like someone to go over what happened so I can know who was doing what. Was I actually violating NPOV, Consensus, 1RR, and harassing users, or was knowledgekid87 Gaming the System, advancing an NPOV, violating 1RR while claiming I was the one violating it, and badgering me? I've been left exhausted in every way by his, in my opinion, hostile interaction with me, and it is not the first time I've been harassed this way, but it is the first time I didn't just stop using wikipedia when it happened. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my diffs that I provided, had a proper discussion had started sooner none of this would have happened. At this point I think it would be in the best interest of everyone to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have previously asked for some administrative attention to close some of the discussions on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, which is apparently the talk page for the article in question here.

I now ask that at least one administrator monitor this page (which is under discretionary sanctions) to put a stop to any disruptive editing practices that may have occurred on these pages recently.

The user initially under question here has recently stated on several another user's talk pages that: "Don't argue with them, just revert their edits and make them send it to arbitration." & "I'm in the middle of a dispute resolution with one of those nutjobs." (apparently in relation to this AN/I thread here). Guy1890 (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's good that knowledgekid has removed his comment requesting the withdrawal. Here is him violating the 1RR multiple times in a 24 hour period, not including his revert of my edit:

1. 18:18 June 8
2. 17:33 June 8
3. 23:58 June 7
4. 22:23 June 7
5. 15:43 June 7

I am requesting a ban for this user as it says in the discretionary sanctions. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually it states: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." Some of the IP edits here were in the wrong such as one saying that Sanders was "eliminated" while others removed a good bit of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And I quote "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." and "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"." from WP:1RR. I've simply quoted the wiki policy. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will narrow your diffs down to 4 since it is past 24 hours. This edit here: [244] was against WP:NPOV, this edit here [245] was reverting vandalism in the form of blanking content, the others were un-discussed changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are your 1RR violations:

1. [246]
2. [247]

This is after you made the edit as an IP here: [248]. You never took the issue to the talk-page per WP:BRD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is Ks dragging another editor into this: [249]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

How does this above post not count as harassment? He is stalking me on other pages. Also what is his complaint? Is he saying that it is ok for users that are not me to be breaking the 1RR that he quoted to me multiple times, and even posted on my user talk page? Do I need to create a separate section on this board or do I need to go to the edit warring section? Kswikiaccount (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

David Gaither (artist)

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 initially reported this article at the COI noticeboard; another editor subsequently blanked part of it and reported the piece as a copyright violation. Since then several WP:SPA accounts have edited, always removing the copyright template. I'm not aware that the concerns have been resolved by an administrator, so I restore the template, warn the most recent account, and a few days later a new one pops up and we re-enact the dance. Assistance will be appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

user:Mateothehistorian

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.

---

That editor seems to be reverting everything made by others today.

• Pedro Marín
• Höfer
• Michael Hahn
• Napoleon Chagnon
• Mission Santa Inés

I see he was blocked for disruptive editing on 20 April.
I see had only 65 edits the last year (including 5 today). Alice Zhang Mengping (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

My first gut feeling is to give the user the benefit of the doubt. The reported user reverted edits made by 213.205.198.194 thinking that the edits were vandalism. I'd just message the user and either ask what the deal is, and/or let them know to review Wikipedia's guide on vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say, did you even bother trying to talk to the user before dragging them to ANI? Please at least put in some effort before running to ANI. I request this be closed as non-actionable. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Mad Hatter continuing controversial splits without 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.

---

A previous ANI on this matter did not reach a conclusion (see previous ANI here: two supports for a ban, and one oppose that chastised the practice). The editor in question has recently resumed the practice, with no change in pattern (see [250]/[251], [252]/[253]). I ask for an indefinite ban a six month ban on page splits by this editor. (I think an indefinite ban is easily justified, but six months is more likely to get support.) —swpb^T 14:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) To editors KoshVorlon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Cullen328:

Yikes, isn't that a bit harsh, considering how short and inconclusive the last discussion was? Can you break it down a bit more to let us know why the splits are so bad they're topic ban worthy? Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not harsh at all. The splits (several detailed in the last ANI) are in direct opposition to the explicit guidance of WP:SPLIT (no one disagrees with that), and therefore require consensus prior to action. The editor here has been warned many, many times to seek such consensus, and still refuses to do so. I don't see how anything less than a ban can be justified at this point. —swpb^T 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some difs then? To some scenarios where there was an active consensus not to do a split, and then we went out and did it anyways then? The only evidence you've submitted is to a discussion with very little discussion at all, let alone any real resolution. I'm not defending him, I have no idea if the splits are warranted or not, I just don't see the difs to warrant any action yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've given numerous diffs of the offending edits. I'm not sure how the lack of response to the last ANI is relevant in any way. And the point is that there is no attempt to find consensus - MH doesn't ask for consensus, wait, and then act when there has been no complaint; he acts before asking, when he is obligated to seek a consensus, whether one emerges or not. There is nothing so urgent about these splits that he can't wait for input; he just doesn't care to seek input, despite warnings from quite a few people. IAR isn't an invitation to anarchy; it's a privilege, and one that MH has continued to abuse. He should not be allowed to continue. —swpb^T 17:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for difs proving he's doing the splits, I can see pretty easily what he's doing, I'm asking for proof that he's actively editing against a consensus and/or warning regarding this. If you can't provide that, then all you've got here is a content dispute you should hash out on article and WikiProject talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you really need me to paste all the warnings he's gotten? Plainly, he's editing against the general consensus about when splits are called for; as for acting against a consensus that is specific to an article, you're introducing a standard that does not apply. The correct standard is this: 2) MH is clearly obligated to start discussions, whether they result in a consensus or not; 2) MH does not do this. Given 1 and 2, there is violation of the community-wide consensus on behavior. Given the repetition, there is need for enforcement. —swpb^T 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like you to start linking to something. Your case so far is "I don't like how he's splitting articles. Here's some times he did it. Here's a time we discussed it with no resolution. Now ban him from this." With the dif's you've provided so far, it looks like you're trying to solve a content dispute with a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Replace "I" with "the consensus of the community" and you'd have something accurate. It's been well-known and constantly reaffirmed consensus for years that, if there is any chance of a split being seen as controversial, the splitter is obligated to attempt to get a consensus first; do you deny that? —swpb^T 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand this, but "the chance of it being seen as controversial" is a very subjective measure. It could be made much more clear if he had been warned/blocked over this before, or if there were some RFC that occurred saying don't split an article, and then he went and did it anyways. Look, feel free to keep arguing, but you should know by now that we don't enact something as serious as a topic ban on someone with as weak of a case as you've built here. I find it highly unlikely that you'll come up with a consensus for a topic band with such poor documentation of the issue. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you can be so confident in the outcome when so few people have commented (seriously—for all the text, it's just been you, me, MH, and one other person), and you're still ignoring the fact that he has been warned plenty, but even if there's no action this time, there will be eventually; I don't believe MH takes any of this seriously, and I'd put money that we'll be back here until the need for action can't be ignored. —swpb^T 19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Response: Hello, my name is Chavdar Likov. I am qualified librarian and I have been working on Wikipedia for 15 years. I am also pursuing Masters in "Electronic Content" and "Creative Writing". I have made such splits for Peter Hamilton, Gregory Benford, Kim Stanley Robinson, Robert Jordan, David Eddings, Robert Salvatore just to name of few. I saw there are huge bibliographies and section-trimmed articles and empty categories like Fantasy and Science Fiction and decided to fill them up with author bibliography-splits. I also did considering work on Historical fiction with honorable editors User:Sadads and User:Rwood128 on it. We also splitted the historical pointing article List of historical fiction by time period and configured the template. I am working here for 15 years and no one makes discussions, and User:Taeyebaar collaborates and make good stuff working on Space opera as I am great fan of these genres and I even intend a doctorate on literary theory. What I do is split these articles when there are bigger section-filled bibliographies and put them in the seperate categories. That's it. My David Gemmel, Stephen R. Donaldson and Anne McCaffrey, however after 2 years no one comments, I am patroled, reverted and threatened with ban. I don't understand why. swpb, you can easily look on my history and you can go and revert the all universe, but for these 3, you are threatening me with ban, waiting for 10 days, since no one is showing up and we have empty categories and huge bibliographies. Start a lengthy discussions on which probably no one will answer because for 2 years, there is no attention on the article. I go and split the bibliography and make redirect with filling Category:Fantasy bibliographies. Half of the bibliographies there are from my redirects, swpb. If that is such a crime - ok, ban me if you want. But I wanted to make contribution with simple redirects and rearrangements of the articles.

Kindest regards to all administrators: Chavdar LikovThe Mad Hatter (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

1. "Needing to fill categories" is a complete nonsense argument.

2. How would you know whether your split requests would get a response, since you never even start the discussion? You are obligated to start a discussion and wait a reasonable time before going forward, whether you think anyone is watching or not. You've been told that many times. If you can't learn that simple fact, then yes, you should lose your right to do any splits at all. —swpb^T 18:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

One is not obligated to discuss before splitting. You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension, swpb. It may well be by a very large margin the most sensible approach - not least after wading into a stylistic battle such as this. But it is not obligatary, and so it is not a 'simple fact' and The Mad Hatter's inability to learn it is, thus, neither here nor there. I think the possibility must exist that you can thrash your differences out with Mad Hatter by discussion; I think the probability that you'll get an action-ban sanction here is vanishingly small. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Umm... really? Bibliographies are certainly non-controversal splits -- they are actually very good ways to separate different types of information about an author -- their life and commentary about them, and their work. I think swpb is overreacting and overapplying process without acknowledge WP:IAR (note that WP:SPLIT is a recommendation, not a guideline), for something that historically has had little or no controversy -- just challenges a personal preference on how the articles shoudl be composed. From an admin/community perspective: swpb brings no evidence of trying to resolve this with WP:AGF. From my topical expertise: It looks like a personal gripe, and from someone who also has both Digital humanities, literature and libraries backgrounds: seems to be one that directly challenges best practices in sharing information about authors's works. Hope my feedback helps, Sadads (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I AGF'd when I first encountered MH—you can dig through his talk page if you want. That assumption of good faith was quickly erased by MH's attitude, and that erasure has been reinforced at every encounter since. I'm no longer obligated to assume good faith, when I can witness bad faith, including personal attacks and blatant canvassing. WP:SPLIT is an information page, and is required to reflect consensus, as the template says; it's not just one person's preference, as you suggest. Finally, IAR isn't an invitation to anarchy; it's a privilege, and one that MH has continued to abuse. —swpb^T 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you reverted my edits and continue to do so, when I am finding hard to find many projects to edit and you are patroling me, threatining me with ban, me, a librarian by profession and there was no discussions, after I was bold, and I never made personal attacks, I just told you that with this attitude of yours, I don't wanna colaborate with you, as I have colaborated with Sadads, Rwood128 and Taeyebaar, because I find it offensive to work with some one who is only patroling me, like you, posting threats to be cut off from editing, when I have experience with editing, blaming that I didn't raised discussion on sleep talk pages, just picking from first catch that I am controversial blasting vandal, that is only looking to disrupt Wikipedia, posting twice that I should be banned, and making personal attacks against me. Why are you treating me so elementary claiming that I am making controversial moves? I really don't wanna work with you. I made these kinds of splits countless times, and it is easier and better and we have Fantasy and Sci-Fi categories and these section-trimmed pages of David Gemmel, Stephen R. Donaldson, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Anne McCaffrey became too big. That is all. What is so hard to apprehend and understand? Why it is so controversial for these particular 4 authors? Since we have seperate categories for their bibliographies with users stating other topic bibliographies are around this size. Why the move is such a vandal thing by your eyes? Robert Jordan, Gregory Benford, Peter F. Hamilton, David Eddings, R.A. Salvatore, Kim Stanley Robinson, Tamora Pierce, Roger Zelazny, E. E. Smith, Frederik Pohl, Simon R. Green, Stephen Baxter, Glen Cook. With Taeyebaar we made the splits and work on high fantasy and during the last half-an-year, you don't raise objection, now you are hitting. Why? Why didn't you call up earlier? Half an year you don't raise objection, but now you put me on front pages. Why? I have no other comment.

Kindest regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You didn't attack me? So "rogue editor" and "roguish and obviously destructive" don't ring a bell? Or did you forget? Trust me, if I'd been aware of your behavior earlier, I'd have done something about it earlier; are you really trying to argue that I should have gone back and reverted every split you've ever done from before I noticed you? —swpb^T 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Chavdar Likov: Bibliographies and special pages in special categories like Fantasy and Sci-Fi and splitting them as was told to you is considered not so controversial edit and as a professional librarian I can tell you it is the most recommended way to show information in Wikipedia. That's all. I don't understand why you are so poisonous and so bashing and blaming and putting me in front of pages and shaming me, while you roguishily reverted 4 of these edits, when I have done around 15 of those splits, when they are not considered so controversial, when no one is talking on talk pages, and as Sadads explained to you, I can do it, there are thousands of such categories, so I think there is nothing to be ashamed off and really, it is something personal that you should spit out. Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously just use the words "poisonous" and "rouguishily" (sp.) not an hour after claiming that you don't make personal attacks? Unbelievable. —swpb^T 19:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned, I've taken a look at this. As far as I can see swpb has made a very poor case. However, perhaps The Mad Hatter should give advanced warning of his intentions, even if numerous previous edits were uncontested, and also avoid inflammatory language. Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's what happens from this, I'll be happy. I just don't believe that is what will happen. I don't know how anyone who has looked at the history can. —swpb^T 20:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Cambalachero – bias and vandalism

Hello. I would just like to inform you that the user Cambalachero has repeatedly, and by multiple users, been accused of POV pushing and vandalizing articles, particularly ones related to Kirchnerism, such as the pages Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Both Cambalachero and Jetstreamer have participated in the use of uncyclopedic language. One of the best examples of what I would describe as such would be Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner#Political image, which contains, for example:

"The Kirchnerite administration used its aligned media and the communication outlets of the state for advocacy of the figures of both Cristina Kirchner and the previous president, her husband Néstor Kirchner. This advocacy, which describes the Kirchners as leaders of a revolution, is usually called the "Relato K" (Spanish: K narrative). The political life is described as a conflict between good and evil, in a manner similar to religious faith." The last claim, in particular, is a really strange addition to what is, after all, an encyclopedia, especially when it's unsourced.

Cambalachero has previously come with statements such as:

• "The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders"

• "... I will ignore the fact that you claim in your user page to be a socialist, a political movement that is well known for harboring authoritarians and populists"

• "... They do not have conflicts of interest with Kirchner, it's Kirchner who has a conflict with everyone and everything that does not bow to her in absolute obedience."

Such views are perfectly fine to hold – the problem is that Cambalachero is unable to keep his views out of his articles. Should someone like that really be allowed to remain the main contributor to articles about Kirchner? While the user has made great contributions to many articles here on Wikipedia, and has proven to be experienced and resourceful, his influence on Argentinian politics articles simply isn't good for anything. I have asked for both third opinions and peer reviews, which caused the reviewing user to label sections of Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as non-neutral.

Simply taking a brief look at the edit history of any of the articles mentioned unveils endless edit-warring and lengthy discussions, which I frankly think are clearly solely due to Cambalachero and Jetstreamer's inability to write factually and non-biased. I do not hold much knowledge about Kirchner or Argentine politics in general, and I've never participated much on Argentine politics articles; I am just asking – begging – for some attention to the unserious nature of Cambalachero and these articles, and some form of sanction to make it stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Μαρκος Δ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• How come in Argentina the wives are always getting into the act? EEng 06:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

First, the content issue. According to Μαρκος Δ own admission just above, he does not hold much knowledge about Argentine politics. I have improved the articles of Raúl Alfonsín and Adolfo Rodríguez Saá to good article, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa and Eduardo Duhalde are awaiting reviews, and, although they are not ready yet, I'm the editor with the most edits of Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Mauricio Macri (note that those are all the presidents of Argentina from 1983 to date, regardless of political alignment). So yes, I do hold some knowledge about Argentine politics. For those who don't, Cristina Kirchner was the president of Argentina from 2007 to 2015, and her style is similar to that of the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez. The thing described in the paragraph cited (which is referenced) is not a new phenomenon: it's a system of propaganda built around a cult of personality. I know, it's not pleasing for her supporters to say it that way, but that's what it is, that is what we are talking about here. In any case, the article is fully referenced, and I can provide any clarification required.

Now, let's see the user behavior here. The user makes a huge page blanking, I reverted it, and we head to the talk page. Common WP:BRD so far. Here, in just the second message, he accuses me of having an agenda, and here, the third one, he is already threatening with asking for moderation. Yes, I got carried away by the accusation and made a sarcastic one about his userbox that identifies him as a socialist; it was a mistake. He blanked the article again, and here he asked me to leave it that way so that he could write an alternative version and then discuss it. I told him that in those cases it is better to write the alternative in a sandbox, and we left it that way. His last edit on the matter was on May 16. I left the article with the blanking in place. As you can see in the article history, the discussion ceased until May 24. You can see in his contributions that he made absolutely no edits to create an alternative article since that point for many days, so I re-added the content a week later. A week later. He can't say I was impatient with him. It is only in June 2 that he finally makes the so promised sandbox version. We discussed about it, as I thought that the use of the word "alleged" was incorrect. He headed directly to peer review (misused, but I thought that if I pointed it he wouldn't take it well) and third opinion. He deleted my comment from the peer review page, claiming that I should not be commenting there. Robert McClenon provided his third opinion, and pointed that the use of the word "propaganda" may be problematic. Although I still thought that we should call a spade a spade, I removed the words "propaganda" and "cult of personality" from the article, as a middle ground compromise. I also incorporated the only meaningful content of the sandbox into the article, giving due credit, as it didn't really contradict anything already written (I only changed the title "Approval ratings and popular support" to the more neutral "opinion polls").

Happy ending? Issue solved? Not at all. Here he keeps calling me on having an agenda, and here he accuses me of whatever for trying to find a compromise. He also said that one of the authors was not reliable because of a quotation that he had read somewhere, and deleted all the references to the author, without discussing it first. He also did so at the main article. He deleted many other references in the process, including Mary O'Grady from the Wall Street Journal because of being right-wing. Yes, you have read well, he considers the Wall Street Journal an unreliable source. Here he accuses the user Jetstreamer of not allowing the neutral point of view (as he reverted his removal), and here he edit wars with him over my comment at the peer review page. Here he tries to recruit the user Sushilover2000 to the discussion (surely because he's visible at the previous discussions in Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), and mentions that he plans to canvass even more people. He also mentions the comment of Robert McClenon as a support to his point, fully ignoring that I had already acknowledged it and edited the problematic word out (and he knows that). Here he said that this last comment "was a plea for technical assistance" because he could not find where to ask for moderator help; read the post yourselves and decide if that is what it is.

I know, my comment about him being a socialist was wrong, and will not happen again. If you think that something else I did in this discussion was wrong, please tell me so I will try to see it fixed. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cambalachero, what caused you to compare Cristina Kirchner with Chávez?

Looking at the public image article, it looks like a pure 'hatchet job', full of trivial 'jibes' and lacking any pretence of NPOV, despite being largely a WP:BLP, btw, there is no such English word as 'Slangs', the word cannot be plural and is possibly the wrong word, if the article is going to devote a whole, WP:OR, section to criticising her Spanish, it should try at least to get the English right. I concur with Μαρκος Δ, whoever wrote most of that article seems unable to leave their political prejudices at home. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

ps Check out WP:APPNOTE, contacting editors who have contributed to prior discussion is explicitly NOT canvassing. You might wish to strike those comments. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)