Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie, since the OP attempted pings but did not sign their OP, hence the pings didn't work. (Pings only work when the user types four tildes when posted.) BTW, I am uninvolved in this matter.Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never found Felipeedit to be editing in bad faith. Felipeedit poorly uses citation conventions as laid out by Wikipedia, and shows an unwillingness to improve his/their citation skill set, but the information that is posted is always with the intent to improve the article. By using blogs Felipeedit shows a lack of understanding about what constitutes reliable information. However, many editors do the same thing. I have assigned myself the task of cleaning up a particular series of articles, the most active currently being List of 2015 albums, which means I try to clean up on hyperlinks, citations and notability. I welcome any editor who makes an attempt to improve the articles, even those who overwrite headers instead of using the appropriate format, because those editors are all trying to improve the articles. I have less patience with those who write in the Talk page asking for someone else to do the work.

With Felipeedit, sometimes I have to reject the changes due to lack of an appropriate citation, or move the addition to a new date, but I have never seen a malicious or vanity edit by the user. If the administration board wishes to censor the user until they learn to follow the wiki-rules, I cannot object, but so many users don't understand how to edit that this seems more like frustration that a regular user won't learn how to play by the rules. Mburrell (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion should be closed, with no action taken. We are dealing with good faith editor who is still learning the ropes. There is no need to punish anyone here. Widr (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

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

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

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

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

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

and here he 1 click archives without response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP making an edit to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

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

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

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

Jytdog's:

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

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[1] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[2] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[3] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[4] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[5] He was recently warned again about NPA.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[7] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

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

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[9] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[10]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Report on StanTheMan87 personal attacks

• StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The user recently behaved in an impolite manner toward me. I opposed a name change and when he saw my reasoning did not persuade him, he charged me with 'Pushing POV'. I told him that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" was regarded as personal attack. He had already said that Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE" which was weird to me, because one may have a different opinion and it does not necessarily a sign of POV pushing. However, I tried to explain how I think about the issue and presented my own reasoning but he replied that he still could tell me that I had POV to push because of 1- My reasoning and 2- Because of the details on my user page. The second one seems like a racist accusation (refer to my user page please). I took another step and tried to further explain why I opposed the change, but he did not pay attention to my last warning on taking WP:PA seriously and said:"the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise." As, I had already asked him to avoid PA, I'm sending the report here.

Comment: Two other editors had discussed him about personal attacks and throwing insults (I'm not judging these two cases as I don't have enough materials to judge and just am commenting to let the admins know about the possible background of him). Mhhossein (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting to point out this edit summary: Info-box is fucked. I cannot be bothered manually editing all the shit I added. Congratulations to user Anasaitis for fucking around with it, you absolute hero. [11]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see enough here to warrant action. Uncivil a few times recently? Sure. But I don't see this rising to the level where an Admin is going to act on anything... And EvergreenFir already previously warned StanTheMan87 about one of the instances of incivility. Unless StanTheMan87 keeps at it, I don't think anything is going to happen here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me clear up one thing, the comment "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence was regarded as personal attack" is factually incorrect. It might be ad hominem, but not a personal attack. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, the gold standard around here. Single instances are generally overlooked, it takes a little heat sometimes. Ongoing ad hominem is disruptive, however, so action generally requires demonstrating a longer term pattern. I'm not saying he is right or should get off scot free, I'm just making sure you understand the standards here. The worst of it, [12] isn't technically a personal attack, although it borders on it and is uncivil. He is being more than rude, but I think your bar is set a bit too high here, EvergreenFir. StanTheMan87 does need to back off, however, or he will be looking some kind of sanction, sooner rather than later. I'm about to call it a night, but wanted to get those points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the filer, but I agree Dennis Brown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, adjusting to new glasses and just flubbed that up. Hard to read now that they letters are crisp ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:@Dennis Brown and IJBall: As I mentioned above, he keeps accusing for pushing my own POV while I'm trying to present my own reasoning using the sources. For instance, he accused me by saying "No, of course "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. Of course. Because it doesn't fit your with your POV, so of course it is invalid.". His tone is really bothering and I'm trying to handle the case. That's why I asked him in that thread to take PA cautions seriously. I'll be thankful to be cautioned if my discussion seems like pushing POVs. Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He's only made a couple of edits since this report was filed, mainly image. These are difficult areas to judge POV on to people who aren't specialists in the areas. The diff you provided here, he is giving rational arguments for his position. Not saying they are right or wrong, but he isn't attacking and is providing a specific basis, which is something that editors decide, not admin. As for the rudeness, he does need to dial it back but I don't see anything in the last several days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis Brown. May be I have to be more patient. The problem is that he, like many other editors, don't focus on the subject and instead try to address the editors, which is not the goal of the discussion. His rudeness is not tolerated. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If "many other editors" find your person and inclinations to be the problem, could it be because there is something to it? Note that you are yourself "trying to address the editors" rather than the subject by bringing your dispute to this board.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's define those "many other editors"! Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @Dennis Brown: I don't know what is regarded as personal attack if calling an editor a potato is not considered an attack. There he said:"Arguing with an an inanimate object like a potato could result in a better conclusion than arguing with you". How many times should he throw insults so that an action is made? Mhhossein (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment insult and the tendentious presentation of opinion as fact should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. GregKaye 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [13] [14]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

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

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [15] [16] [17] [18]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [19] [20] [21]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [22] [23] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [24] [25]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [26] [27] [28].

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

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[29]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[30]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [31] [32]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [33]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [34], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [35]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [36], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [37] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [38]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [39]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [40] [41] [42] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [43], [44] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [45] [46], [47], [48], [49]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [50]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [51]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [52], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [53] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[54]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[55]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[56]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[57]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([58]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring on Albanians

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

I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ Rob^Talk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ Rob^Talk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.

We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).

While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

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

• "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .

Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support Rolandi+ is a combative, edit-warring POV-pusher who has triggered all the POV-push alarm bells in this area of the Balkans. His edit-warring and POV edits align closely to the edits of countless socks which have plagued this area for years. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scytsari

Scytsari (talk · contribs) is POV-pushing on the article Tajiks in blatant disregard of Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The issue is that is he is clearly intent on adding several medieval Persian people to the article's ethnicity gallery who are not ethnically Tajik and which do not have any references on their pages which claim so. Most of these peoples' articles do not make any mention of 'Tajik' in any context. He has reverted my removal of this OR three times, each time alleging it was 'vandalism': [59], [60], [61]. In addition, he reverted User:Khestwol's removal once: [62]. In one of the aforementioned edit summaries, he also accused me of having a personal agenda ([63]).

I explained many times on Talk:Tajiks that references would be required (on the subjects' pages) for such claims and that my removal was in accordance with WP:V. His first comment on the article talk page does not address WP:V, instead addressing a different point, and goes on to question my education before calling my removal vandalism [64]. I again reiterate that references would be required on the subjects' talk page and he goes on a rant in which he tells me to go educate myself (he advises me to read a source which I had posted earlier in the discussion, nonetheless) [65]. In between his four reverts and uncivil behavior, he has not once bothered to provide a single reference on either the talk page or any of the subjects' articles in support of his claims. This is getting ridiculous; two other users have already told him to stop adding unreferenced original research: [66] and [67]. Yet he refuses to get the point. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals – sanctions against Scytsari

• I propose a ban against adding images to Tajiks, unless he comes here and states that he understands now and that if he desires more images he will ensure beforehand on Talk:Tajiks that he has consensus and that the nationality/ethinicity is properly sourced with community-accepted reliable sources. Also, I propose a site-wide ban on using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. Also, I propose a strict adherence to WP:BRD. I propose also that violation of any of these proposals will result in a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: problem is too extensive. Propose block instead. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• These are all thoughtful suggestions, but I would suggest an outright ban from editing the page Tajiks rather than a simple images ban. He has re-added completely unsourced material four times within a span of three days, including thrice in a single day. He has done so while being fully aware that he is in contempt of Wikipedia policy. His disruptive editing has unfortunately resulted in the page being fully protected. He's shown this same battleground behavior on the page previously, as well, when he reverted another user who tried to remove the pictures two months ago. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Can you also look at the few other articles he's edited? At a cursory glance, he seems to be exhibiting a battleground behavior on those as well; in fact Callenecc had to hat one particular PA/rant of his three weeks ago. This seems to be a battleground new editor with a very small degree of clue and a very large intent to disrupt, who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps a block, and possibly a lengthy one, is what is needed. Softlavender (talk)

Good find. Judging from Talk:Kandahar, he has previously edited under 99.240.250.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has made some very battleground-like edits. On the article you mentioned, he removed mentions of 'Afghan' and 'Dari', which was promptly reverted. Also on the page Iranian peoples, he twice edited the page to insert his POV fringe claim that Iranian and Tajiks are synonyms. He was reverted both times [68] and [69]. Ironically, this is the same view he is perpetuating on the Tajiks page as well. He also removed information about Afghans from Herat twice: [70] and [71]. His first removal summary was "Learn to read, it's poorly edited and misinformation".

I took his nationalist edits on Tajiks with a grain of salt, but judging from his other edits its clear that he is WP:NOTHERE. All of his edits reflect on an agenda to 'erase' the Afghan identity and create falsities to promote his ideas about Tajiks in order to right great wrongs. This is just scratching the surface of his edits. There is also a good possibility that he is editing under different accounts or IPs. It's very unfortunate that his behavior has gone unnoticed for so long and is still going unnoticed. In light of this, I endorse a block, though I'm not sure what the appropriate length would be. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block of both this account and the IP account, and a CheckUser check to check for socks or sleeper socks. Per Elspamo4's evidence above, Scytsari has been editing under 99.240.250.20, which is already a suspected sock of two other sockmasters, listed at: User talk:99.240.250.20 -- Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Looking at Beh-nam's sockpuppet investigation, the findings are conclusive and in-line with my comments on his nationalist agenda. Most of the socks' edits are virtually identical to Scytsari's (e.g NassirAkram1440's edits on Tajiks). It seems he has been disruptively editing Tajik and Afghan-related articles for some time now. A CU and indef block is certainly in order. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (P.S. I was too absent minded to check his talk page in my earlier post; thanks for bringing it to my attention.) Elspamo4 (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Taking the lazy way out by calling in my go-to anti-sockpuppet guru, if he will take the case: Bbb23, could you do a quick check and indef block these accounts and any sleepers? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, Could you please request CheckUser, so that all other socks and sleepers can be caught in the net? If you do, I will chime in. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to request checkuser. I just attempted, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a code to change from checkuser=no to checkuser=yes when filing new reports. Maybe when it's a re-opened investigation, CU is automatic. Anyway, I chimed in. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is very bad behavior. Regardless of the SPI outcome, if we see User:Scytsari making any more edits like those he has made at Tajiks an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be justified. The SPI should be continued because it may show how far the problem extends. In the unlikely event that Scytsari responds here we should listen to whatever he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just saw this. I've had this account on my WP:Watchlist because he appears to me to be a problematic editor and a WP:Sock. Any new account that appears to be a WP:Sock to me, I put on my WP:Watchlist and/or mark it down in my online notepad; they usually eventually turn out to be WP:Socks (even if it's a year or more later). So I support whatever ban on this editor is needed, or an indefinite block for this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: An SPI clerk has just declined CheckUser and hatted a relevant discussion on Talk:Tajiks which mentions Scytsari [72], and has inserted himself into the discussion [73]. I've asked the clerk to unhat the posts: [74]. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed this previously but Scytsari was reported by another user for edit warring on Bacha bazi. His first 19 of 20 posts were on that page and almost all of them were disruptive. 4 of them were to remove mention of the Afghan ethnicity. It seems that almost all of Scytari's edits have been made to spread his POV and fringe theories. In the report filed by User:CompliantDrone, he stated "myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior". Anyway, I know we don't ban people based on suspected sockpuppetry and I'll leave the SPI on Scytsari to take course. Though, like Softlavender, I'm disappointed that the checkuser was rejected because I think the problem is widespread in Central Asian articles. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (The pot calling the kettle black) It is probably true that Scytsari (talk · contribs) is editing pages with a pro-Tajik WP:POV. However, it would also seem that Elspamo4 (who started this discussion) is editing pages with an anti-Tajik WP:POV (frequently removing references to Tajiks) which is hardly any better. In the edit reporting Scytsari for edit warring, Elspamo4 conveniently neglects to mention that the whole edit war started by their own removal [75] of long-standing material, a removal which Elspamo4 has repeated several times in the edit war [76], [77]. If any block or ban is introduced, I suggest it is handed out to both users. Jeppiz (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start with this. Firstly, do not accuse of me of having a POV when all of my edits are based on Wikipedia policies (namely WP:V). I have no connection to Tajikistan or Tajiks, or anything related to Central Asia. I have never edited on a Central Asian topic prior to Tajiks, which had come to my attention after finding historical Persians in Category:Tajiks with no references justifying their inclusion.

Secondly, I did not start any edit war. I removed unreferenced content which had been deemed problematic by myself and Akmal54 on the talkpage. I fully explained my rationale on the talk page. You reverted my removal and re-added the unreferenced content with a very patronizing and clueless edit summary: "No consensus to delete, and kindly stop the edit warring or you risk being blocked." You proceeded to use the talkpage as a soapbox and never provided a single reliable source to back up your or Scytsari's claims. Five editors (myself, Akmal54, Vanjagenije, Khestwol, Zyma) have constantly reiterated the requirement for reliable sources. I don't know if you have literacy issues or simply ignore anything which you don't agree with, but you seriously need to drop the stick. Heed our advice on the talk page and try finding reliable sources to justify these subjects' inclusion.

Your accusation that I am removing 'referenced information' for my own satisfaction is both troubling and misleading. You are referring to Hammasa Kohistani, where I removed false information which was not in the reference provided. I even explained this in my edit summary. You tried reverting my edit, claiming it was a 'false edit summary' before realizing your mistake and self-reverting. Please do not make any more baseless accusations in this thread, thanks. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz also accused me of being a nationalist sockpuppet on the Tajiks talk page. This is getting tiresome. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not accuse you. I merely point out we had a serious issue with several socks of a banned user; I have absolutely no idea whether you're a sock of that user or not but I've never believed you to be.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse, but Scytsari recently came back and his first order of business was to revert User:Vanjagenije four times on Tajiks (5 reverts in total by Scytsari): [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. His edit summaries are telling. He accuses me of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry, and accuses Vanjagenije of having a nationalistic agenda and of using an automated bot. He says 'take it to the talkpage' despite the fact that discussion has been going on in the talk page ever since page protection has been applied, and Scytsari has not attempted to take part in the discussion. He hasn't even defended himself here or on the edit warring report filed by Vanjagenije (his response to that on his talk page). Like I said, I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse when an SPI is already underway, but he has singlehandedly resulted in the page Tajiks being fully protected once again. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to block both Scytsari and Elspamo4

Having read Elspamo4's reply above, filled with violations of WP:NPA and refusal to WP:HEAR, I've come to the conclusion that both of these users Scytsari and Elspamo4 aren't here for the right reasons, and I believe Elspamo4's reply show it.

• Insisting that one is "right" and thus cannot be guilt of WP:POV is a classic warning. We all have WP:POVs, the point is that we should still respect policies.
• Second, Elspamo4's insistence that they weren't edit warring because you were right is another misunderstanding; being right is no excuse for edit warring, nor does it become less of edit warring because it's "right". I've pointed this out to the user before, their failure to WP:HEAR is worrying.
• Third, it's a bit rich trying to turn my use of the talk page (instead of edit warring) into a problem. Yes, I used the talk page of Tajiks when I saw Scytsari and Elspamo4 edit warring. When Elspamo4 argues that they are not only above rules about edit warring because they are right, but even ridicule users trying to take the issue to the talk page, it's very clear they are not hear for the right purpose.
• Fourth, completely needless insults such as "I don't know if you have literacy issues" above violate WP:NPA, bring nothing to the discussion, and are only intended to turn discussions into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

I think Elspamo4 has made a convincing case for why Scytsari should be blocked from editing any article related to Tajiks. I also think Elspamo4, through their edit warring, refusal to hear, battlefield mentality and needless personal attacks, has made a convincing case for why they should not edit articles related to Tajiks either. I support a topic ban for both users.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Further on the same time, Elspamo4 makes it perfectly clear that they will continue to edit war as soon as the page protection expires [83]. In several years at Wikipedia, I've never come across a user who has been so convinced that being right gives them the right to ignore discussions, consensus, rules about edit wars and other details that stop them from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And true to form, Elspamo4 did continue the edit warring as soon as the page protection expired [84]. The user obviously is WP:NOTHERE to cooperate with other users.Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion / PROD / redirect of mall articles under the guise of WP:COI

• Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two editors have been redirecting articles without discussion and PRODing several articles in mass. Its too many articles for me to create individual links for here, but the links can be found by looking through their contributions.

I was initially tipped off to what was happening when Jytdog first added a COI tag to Westfield Plaza Bonita. Then the same user went ahead and deleted most of what was in the article and then added a Speedy Deletion PROD before just going ahead and redirecting the article without discussion. I mean who wants tot wait a whole week for a PROD to mature, right? So I reinstated the article, but then I was Reverted by Joseph2302. So much for having a discussion.

This is not an isolated incident. There are several articles that have been redirected or have had PRODs added to them by these two.

I did remove a PROD at another article titled, Westfield Santa Anita, but it was immediately reinstated with a message telling ME to discuss, which is supposed to be against the guidelines.

Also, at Westfield Mission Valley, Joseph2302 nominated the article for deletion, while Jytdog came along and pretty much deleted most of the content, without discussion. Now I realize that articles need citations, but they should have requested the cisterns before deciding to remove content. I tried to put the information back per BRD, but Jytdog would rather edit war,

In addition at Talk:Westfield Mission Valley, Jytdog begins a discussion and then 3 minutes later leaves a message wondering why I haven't responded as a way to make it look as if I'm not discussing. Seriously, 3 minutes? Give me a break.

This is far more than one editor, myself, can handle. This may be a larger problem as these two may have been doing this for a far greater amount of time than just today. Please help.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here, if you read the thread at WP:COIN#User:MallExpert, you'll see this was a massive COI issue. And it's perfectly acceptable to remove completely unsourced content, per WP:VERIFY. As for the redirects, I thought it was beneficial to have a redirect rather than a promotional article with no sourcing and no verifiability, and so was bold in trying to cleanup the COI mess. Fact is that it's a COI mess and we are trying to clear it up. There's enough admins that frequent WP:COIN that if we were doing something wrong, it would be noticed very quickly. This is standard COI cleanup, and it's only you that appears to have a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These articles have been around far longer than when that single editor decided to edit the articles. And everything that that single editor added has been deleted or reverted. How is there still a COI problem then?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

COI stuff needed removing, plus basically everything in those article was unsourced, and so per WP:VERIFY should be removed. If you actually read my discussion on the redirects I created, I wanted to remove the unsourced, promotional articles, and then if they were notable then someone could replace it with a sources-based, neutral tone article. Everything I did was in good faith and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, to clearup the COI mess and remove unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• we are dealing with a widespread case at COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:MallExpert and Jojhutton is freaking instead of talking. They have used Talk twice - here asking what is going on (apparently didn't read connected contributor tags) which I responded to right away and explained and asked what the concern was here, to which they never responded.

I've asked them to talk many times (here, here, here and specifically why they were restoring unsourced content here and again here, to which they responded here at 00:14, which is almost a full hour after they first got upset. (that note just says, "Seriously? It's been 3 minutes?") I replied to that here and again no reply.

And now they filed this. I don't know why they are not talking. What is going on, is easy to explain. And I do not understand restoring unsourced content. Why are you doing that, Jo? And why, instead of talking to me at your talk page or an article Talk page, do you come here to ANI? Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you aren't going to pull this BS about me not talking. You starter a thread on one page and then 3 minutes later you "call me out" for not discussing? I don't think so. Plus pick a page. I can't follow you around to every single talk page you happen to decide to start a thread on.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's his typical practice, to ignore conversations that he doesn't like and to spread comments all over. If I get time, I'll pull some diffs, but he tends to forum shop as well. The other thing that he will do is comment about others and then complain when his conduct is criticized. His editing is very disruptive to the project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think he opened discussions at least 3 separate article talk pages. Then he complained in his reply above that he left me three messages on my talk page. I've replied on my talk page, several times. I do not know why he is making the accusation that I am not discussing.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jo, you first objected at 23:20 here asking what was going on. I replied to you four minutes later here. Instead of responding, you did all this edit warring and fighting, and never talked back. Why did you never talk back? Real question. I tried very hard to get you to talk back to me. I am still trying now. Please talk with me. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with Jytdog and Joesph's behavior, this is general standard COI editing examination and cleanup and I'm not sure why Jojhutton is trying to impede it. Spam and paid editing are serious problems on Wikipedia which need editors like Jytdog and Joesph to fix them. I see nothing wrong with opening additional threads on talk pages when an editor refuses to engage on the already open thread at WP:COIN. Meanwhile, Jojhutton's behavior could be considered both edit warring and hounding of the above editors as well as assuming bad faith. Additionally, as seen above, they have deliberately misrepresented the behavior of Jytdog and Joesph. Admins should consider a possible WP:BOOMERANG for Joj's conduct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Winner 42. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I also concur - it looks like an obvious case of advertising, marketing, and promotion - all 3 of which are prohibited by WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The so-called COI account, had only a single edit to that and to any page. That edit was reverted, but is now being used as justification to delete every article that the editor edited, even though there is no longer a COI issue Thats not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. If the editors want the articles to be deleted they should request a deletion. They do not continue to redirect the articles. Plus, if there was a question over the lack of citations, then they should have made requests for those citations rather than simply deleting everything. Imagine how bad Wikipedia would be if we deleted everything that didn't have a citation. Request one first, then if one is not provided in a fair amount of time, then perhaps the information could be deleted.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what JOJ has done here, which is trying to save content. We don't delete articles without good reason, and we don't have that here. First, the articles that are being deleted or redirected have clear notability, apparently WP:BEFORE was not done. I'm a deletionist, and even I see that this is wrong. Second, you don't move the conversation to a bunch of different venues, which is a habit of Jytdog--you pick one and discuss it there. Third, when a question comes up about deleting articles, you stop and discuss it, not continue to mass-PROD articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there most certainly is "something wrong" with what Jojhutton has been doing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you can contest a non-discussed blanking and redirect simply by reverting. A contested blanking and redirect then must go through the other channels of deletion -- either PROD/Speedy/AfD. You can contest removal of content by reverting wth an edit summary and opening a discussion on Talk, per WP:BRD. If the content was unsourced, you can request a placement of a "refimprove" or "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article, and agree with other editors how long the article can remain largely or completely unreferenced before removal of the unsourced content. An article should ideally not be gutted without discussion while an AfD is in progress -- there should be one process at a time. Per WP:PROD, you can contest and remove a PROD simply by a talk-page or edit-summary statement and a removal of the prod tag -- you should however ideally provide reasoning somewhere, not simply remove the tag; that said, a removed PROD must not be replaced, per the statement on the template "If this template is removed, do not replace it." After that, Speedy or AfD would be the other editor's next options, and you can contest those through the normal channels (there's a button to contest on the Speedy template, and !voting on the AfD). That said, I'm not sure this needed to come to ANI. You've only mentioned two articles, and the procedures I've outlined are straightforward. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ETA: Discussions about article content or fate should be on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, as per usual Wikipedia guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did only mention two of the articles here. But in fact there are probably 30 or more. The user contributions should reveal most of them.JOJ ^Hutton 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another tip: Do not force ANI readers to do your research for you. Present adequate evidence, or don't file on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Soft that the evidence presented is disrespectful of peoples time. Do not say "there is evidence trust me, now go find it" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• On first look these are high-volume, low quality edits, combined with edit warring that is destructive to the articles in question. This looks like one of those waves of strident deletion that occasionally washes up in the project. Simply deleting every piece of content for all of the shopping malls of one of America's largest developers, nominating clearly notable articles for deletion after gutting them of content, etc. because one of the editors — not the one who added all the content — has a COI, also appears to be a WP:POINT violation. I would suggest that these all be rolled back to their stable versions so that more cautious editors may discuss the matter if need be. There are also more appropriate procedures for dealing with COI. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy of all kinds is a huge issue in WP, and using Wikipedia for promotion violates WP:NOT. COI is one slice of it, and I work on all those issues across WP. The more I am digging into the Westfield articles, the more it is clear they have been peppered by editors promoting the individual malls and Westfield. It does come down to content. That is what the COI tag is for - to alert readers that the article itself might be biased, and to get people looking at them for NPOV and sourcing. There is so, so much unsourced, promotional content in these articles. Also hitting a nest of COi editing like this calls for multiple passes. That is what was happening and still is. Also, please note that Joseph2302 and I have different styles. He works his butt off on COI issues and I respect that a lot, but the torrent of stuff he deals with by reviewing articles at AfC makes him more quick on the trigger finger. Everything here is workable - the dramah of this ANI is not called for. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"He works his butt off on COI issues"- I'd question this, I've been doing a lot less COI stuff recently, only had 4 posts there in the last week. But I also believed that what I was doing here was perfectly fine, Wikipedia is not a business directory for these stores, like most of those 30 pages are. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph your work at AfC is amazing and so, so needed, and I know you encounter mountains of promotional editing there, that you prevent from entering WP. I for one am very grateful for that work you do. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the notability rules regarding shopping malls? Is there a minimum size, or is it more about news coverage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an old failed proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). Although the proposal had a long way to go before it could be workable, particularly by today's standards, some of the discussion on the talk page is useful in seeing the issues around shopping centers. Failing that I think we default to WP:CORP, and just conventions on how mall articles seem to be written. I would think that most any still-extant prominent regional mall would meet the general notability guideline, as malls are the sort of enterprises that business press loves to cover: their owners, history, construction, financing, economic success, etc. Lists and links of tenants may or may not be useful, that becomes a stylistic convention (as it does with prominent buildings), freeway intersections, etc. That sort of information can be hard to fact check and maintain, though. Mall articles can be magnets for all kinds of cruft: promotions, concerts that happen there, minor crime incidents, somebody's favorite store. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing Softlavender's comments below, it looks like the standards for malls are not very firm, and maybe it's time they were pinned down. As you say, big malls which get a lot of press certainly seem notable, and their histories are easier to cover; even if their histories are primary sources, their bare bones facts (e.g. time line) could be expected to be reliable. The pictures from the two initial examples at the start of this discussion appear to be a standard sized mall and something smaller. Unless a given standard or small mall is special for some reason, it's hard to justify its inclusion. One thing for sure to be avoided is lists of stores at a mall (except maybe anchor stores), as the retail business is notoriously fluid and would require frequent updating. Linking to a given mall's directory should provide a recent list. Likewise, linking to a given corporate mall owner's site should provide a list of their malls, so having separate articles for each of their properties regardless of size, seems excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As there wasn't a shopping-mall specific guideline, I was applying WP:CORP, but also I was also suggesting that the current business directory-like articles be removed, and when someone writes a proper, neutral tone, well-sourced article, then I'd have no problems with that. The fact is that multiple editors over many years have been spamming over 30 Westfield Group articles, and this is enough IMO to TNT these articles. Also, after I got reverted, I stopped trying to redirect articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There's an underlying content issue with business-related articles that sometimes becomes a behavior / process problem when people act on it too stridently, and that is this. Neutral, factual information about business matters — things like reporting revenue, company history, funding, a list of people and companies and products — sounds like advertising or promotion to some people, perhaps because if they're not familiar with that world they don't see it done. So if they see a list of stores, or some information about which developers got together with which investors, they reflexively delete it, assume there is COI, and lord over articles deleting sections, doing mass deletion nominations and section blanking, applying unrealistic sourcing standards, etc. When the methods become battle-ish, drama ensues. I can't say if this is going to happen here, but I do think that if any established, sensible editors oppose the deletion of a bunch of content across multiple articles it needs to be approached cautiously and incrementally, not with a "nuke it without mercy because we're right about policy" approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

while, in some circumstances, "revenue, company history, funding, a list of people and companies and products " may be "neutral and factual" - in real life and in most Wikipedia articles they almost always are presented in manner that is promotional and non-neutral.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case! I say that humorously, but one person's spam is truly another person's business news. Real advertising and promotion done by actual PR operatives (or copied by fans or overenthusiastic editors) is a lot easier to spot[85][86][87][88] and more black and white than articles that simply seem to pro-business, product-review, or business listing-like to some.[89][90][91][92]. Accusing real editors of engaging in advertising and promotion (even indirectly, by describing their content as such), like accusing them of being "paid shills", frames the discussion in an unhelpful way that does lead to battlegrounds. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether shills are being paid or doing it for free, whether they are good at it or bad at it, whether they like being identified as shills or bristle at being called out, doesnt matter. WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV are policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the hostile approach I was cautioning against! From experience I would say the majority of advert tags and complaints on business articles are inapt, many placed by editors who consider a neutral account of business facts that does not include negative stuff to be inherently promotional — too pro-business, perhaps? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon responding to your comment above and the one above that... which I am taking as relevant to this thread, and what you think may have been motivating me and/or Joseph. I agree that there is lot of inapt editing related to businesses that I think derives from the kinds of things that are generally important to people who volunteer their time here. (I am pretty... respectful of "business" in general - it is just about getting things done in the real world - getting resources together and making plans and executing on them, to make products available, provide jobs, and yes, make money. None of those are bad things to me - they are good things. ~Part~ of why some editors are suspicious of me is that I often write about that kind of stuff.) When policies and guidelines are applied according to their spirit (and of course letter) one can write about noteworthy business matters in a non-promotional manner. It is rare but possible. My point, is that my COI work is not coming from an anti-business perspective.

There is loads of abuse of Wikipedia by people who come here to try to make money - or raise money through donations - by promoting their organization/service/product. And tons of people who abuse WP for other kinds of advocacy, of which COI is just a subset. Which is what led me to working on COI/advocacy issues broadly across WP, outside the areas I like to edit. Like I said, just replying about where I actually am coming from, in case that is what you were discussing. If you weren't, sorry for the intrusion. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is no stranger to abusing COIN because of his overzealous behavior and haranguing of others. It's an issue that must be dealt with because as we've seen, he pursues COI to the point he becomes lord over WP, bullying and intimidating editors, determining what articles stay, who will or won't be exposed and there are no limits to how deep he will probe into your personal life, all the while acting with impunity while the spotlight is turned away from his own controversial editing and suite of articles claiming no COI. As others are suggesting here and at ARBCOM where the diffs will support my claims here, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse_of_COIN, it's time for Jytdog to back away for a while, if not voluntarily then with a determination by consensus. Atsme^📞📧 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the evidence: Jyt tags the article [93] and explains the COI issues on the talk page [94]. One of the account with the COI has been blocked [95]

Looking at the article before this event took place. It was mostly unreffed [96]. Often those involved with paid editing use a large number of socks. When one sees one paid editor it is not unusual to find a lot more probable paid accounts that have also worked on the same article.

We are not an unreferenced business directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is something wrong here, but it is on Jytdog. Note that in the current WP:RFAR#Abuse of COIN that Risker poined out However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the Committee this report at ANI involving Jytdog. Many of the articles involved have been present on Wikipedia for several years before there were any COI edits to them, and shopping mall articles are, often as not, considered to meet the GNG. There is a pattern of behaviour here, not simply isolated to this case. at [97], noting that the COI editor made one edit on a factual matter, and not at all on the material that Jytdog was deleting wholesale [98], and sitting ArbCom member Thryduulf commented that he would recommend that Jytdog take a break from COI or he would not be surprised to see a topic ban [99] in that area.

I don't have a problem if an article needs to be gutted and rewritten. I just did it to one that was longer than all of my featured articles. The difference is that if you are going to look at an article for problems, determine that there is first a real problem (see Risker's comment above about one COI edit), then do something to fix it. That means more than merely hanging a tag on the article if you are going to gut it outside of wikipolicy. Or tag it with citation needed, or something. You don't just wholesale delete articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no "wholesale deleting of articles". Only admins can delete articles. And you have clearly not looked at these mall articles closely, which have been subject to a bunch of conflicted editing and most importantly, are full of unsourced content - they have content problems, which is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've already addressed that a number of people have told you that you are going too far with this, including a former Arb and a current Arb. GregJackP Boomer! 20:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember the original MallExpert account, and he wrote a lot of directory entries. Seems this has become dramatically worse when the account was handed over to a new flack. Bad idea. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about process

Responding in part of Risker's comment at the bottom of the subsection below.. The suite of Westfield shopping center articles is/was full of unsourced, promotional, and I'll add here - clearly outdated - content that often violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

What unfolded at COIN, is what often happens there. The initial posting was made by an editor I haven't seen at COIN before, calling the community's attention to a problem (Malleditor), and was bare bones, citing just one article. When the paid editor posted at COIN and made it clear that this was a truly "corporate account" that he/she had taken over from another employee, it was clear to that there was probably a long-term problem that called for further looking-into. I started looking at their contribs, and in the meantime, an admin blocked the account, taking care of that account - the editor. Shortly thereafter I fleshed out the list of articles that editor had worked on so the folks who work at COIN would have an easy way to look at them. We do that at COIN - we follow up and look at content after COI issues with the editor have been addressed - we look at the content for compliance with content policy. Content is what matters. As I built the list of articles at COIN, I made a first pass over each article, tagging the article with the template:COI so that editors there would be alerted to possible NPOV/sourcing problems, and also added the template:connected contributor and template:COI editnotice tags to the Talk page, along with a brief section explaining the tag on the article. Right away Joseph started doing his thing, working off the list I had just built at COIN, and I started doing mine, which are different, on the articles one by one.

For me, it was a second pass. In each article, I looked at the history and checked contribs of some of the editors, and listed editors I found who were SPAs or otherwise likely editors with a COI on the Talk page as connected contributors, and in the articles removed unsourced content per WP:VERIFY and/or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I acknowledge did effectively gut most of them. A few of them were actually pretty decent and I barely did anything to them. Each article gets its own look. I added some content and sourcing to a few. I nominated a couple for speedy and PRODed a couple of others; I tracked what I was doing at COIN, as you can see there. I noted some that seemed apt for a group AfD and that I would have looked at, on yet a third pass.

That is the general process we have been doing at COIN for a while now for articles affected by disclosed paid editing or disclosed COI like this. (The process is quite different when there is a concern about possible COI, based on editing behavior - that is an entirely different situation)

I would be interested in feedback on that process. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts, since I got pinged above:

• Generally speaking, these situations are never "emergencies". The encyclopedia does not fall apart because someone who is (or might be) related to the subject of a specific article might have made some edits to the article. There is almost always time to actually look at the article, identify the edits by the COI editor, and determine the severity of the situation. Older articles with lots of subsequent edits may already have eradicated any problematic edits, and factual information/typo fixing/grammar does not warrant a COI tag. While we don't encourage COI editors to do even minor housekeeping, they're not contravening policy or ToU by doing so.
• The COI tag you are using is inappropriate if you do not review the article beforehand: it says that whoever had the COI is a "major contributor" to the article. Without reviewing the article history, you don't know that, so you shouldn't be using that tag.
• Editing 101 applies. Many of the articles that were involved in your recent sweep you gutted instead of marking as needing additional references, having information that needed to be updated, etc. The redirects are probably better sent to AfD instead of being redirected. (As I've noted elsewhere, malls seem to have had some weird cachet around here since even before I started editing.)
• I'm going to say this again. This is not an emergency. Take the time to review the article and the potential COI edits before doing any tagging.
• If there is a relevant and active Wikiproject for the topic area, consider asking the members to review for COI problems and let them handle the situation.
• There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that. That's what led to the uprising on the legal articles. The majority of editors in the Medicine wikiproject are medical professionals. A significant percentage of editors in the Law wikiprojects are lawyers. Most of the Mathematics project are mathematicians. They do not have an inherent COI.
• If you're bringing someone to COIN, make your statement and then let others determine the appropriate course. The line between collaboration and tag teaming can be pretty fine sometimes.
• It is absolutely going to break my heart to have to write this...but sometimes articles that have been written by people with a COI (including the biggie, undisclosed paid advocacy editing) are about notable subjects. Given our abnormally low bar for notability, even good and experienced editors operating in a topic area with which they have limited familiarity may well be unable to accurately assess the significance of the COI issues in the article.
• The Number 1 reason that we have so much COI editing is the fact that the community has avoided raising the bar for notability for years. The effect is to open the doors wide to anyone who can make decent edits and fly under the radar while creating articles about companies that don't mention revenue, employees, market share, etc.; BLPs on businesspeople and artists and non-European/North American performers that *might* meet the bottom rung of the notability ladder; and products that sound impressive - particularly technology products - again without market share, sales, significant clients, etc. We have created this cottage industry ourselves by refusing to raise the bar and then actually doing the work to keep it in place. The people who create these articles are really hard to track down (trust me on this - some investigations take weeks if not months), and their accounts aren't particularly obvious unless one has a very questioning mind. The folks at COIN are well-intentioned, but they're never going to get past what we consider to be obvious situations (e.g., the people who do actually acknowledge a COI). Even then, most of those issues don't look problematic from the view of the reader.

End of the day, COIN like many other areas of the project is wanting for a large enough group of active participants to address the requests that come in without it becoming dependent on just a few people. It needs more eyes, which will directly change some of the less-than-optimal habits that have developed. And we really, really need to raise the bar on notability so that we can cut off a lot of the COI/paid advocacy editing at the knees. Risker (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I really do. I agree that raising the bar on notability would benefit the project and eliminate a bunch of bad editing - including COI and other advocacy editing. (At WP:MED we apply the MEDRS standard for health content, which is a pretty high sourcing standard, and that does wonders for keeping bad content, including COI and other advocacy content, out.) Thanks for your thoughts on the COI template... I need to think about using that template differently. And I will consider the Project suggestion - that is a great idea - although that would have done no good here since the shopping center project is pretty dead, as you noted. Thank you for the advice about posting at COIN and getting out of the way. And I agree that even paid editors sometimes create articles about notable topics. (Not sure why you are mentioning that.) I agree that more folks working at COIN - sane and experienced folks - would be very helpful.

That said.... I didn't redirect any articles and I generally don't do that working on COI issues. And I don't understand why you state twice that there was no emergency. I never thought there was one. That is just strange to me, for you to emphasize. Maybe you could explain that a bit?

Most importantly, about the bullet starting with "There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that." There is some "does your mom know you beat your wife" in that. I never "accuse" anyone of a COI. I inform editors who have disclosed a relationship that creates a COI, that they have a COI and what WP:COI says they should do, and try and have a discussion with them about that - a real one, or I ask them if they have a relevant relationship, again in the context of having an authentic discussion. I always start that one-one-one with people on their talk pages, and only if that breaks down do I bring it to COIN (or if there is some big multi-article article issue that needs more help). The way you write it makes it sounds like I "pronounce" on people and I don't do that. I really ask you to hear me. I am very aware that COI is just a guideline and one that is fairly detested by a chunk of the community. I am very aware that getting people to comply with the COI guideline cannot be done with a bludgeon - by pounding on them - it takes persuasion. I am very aware of that. And I want to retain editors. I want conflicted editors to learn to comply with policies and guidelines. And almost all - literally - almost all - of the one-on-one discussions go very well. Many times editors have thanked me for treating them with respect, teaching them how to edit with a COI, and welcoming them. Sometimes those discussions explode or otherwise go south, but those are (surprisingly, depending on your view of humanity) rare. So to a certain extent you seem to talking to or about someone else - not to or about me. (there is WP:BLPCOI which is a policy handle, but that does come up a lot at COIN)

With regard to the subject matter experts you reference.... if you are talking about subject matter experts who write about themselves and their work - that is a section of the COI guideline - people who do that, have a COI per the guideline. (Based on what you have written to me before, I understand that you might define COI pretty narrowly - almost limited to people who are literally paid to edit WP - and this may be one of the things you are disagreeing with the most) If you are talking about subject matter experts who run idea-based businesses and write about the ideas that underlie their business, from my perspective they have a clear COI. But you seemed to disagree with me about that at some point as well. So - I think we might disagree especially on what constitutes a COI in WP. This part, I imagine will be an interesting discussion, and is much bigger than you or me. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why make another tag? The purpose of the COI tag at the top of the article is to warn readers that there is actually a problem with the article. If, on review, there are no COI edits that negatively affect the article (they've either been eradicated or they're minor housekeeping things within policy) or they are less than 1% of the existing article at the time you first encounter it, then you're not helping the reader - the actual target of the tag. We do not use article space to shame editors; I realise that you don't understand this, but as a reader, if the only COI you can point to is "well, this guy wrote something in 2006 which is no longer here, and that guy added the date of birth with a link"... I'd think you were exaggerating by suggesting there was a problem with the article. There are times where a good chunk of the article (if not the whole thing) is written by someone with a COI; that's when the article needs to be tagged.
• The COI tag I removed was placed by you, and based on what you have said above, you hadn't even read the article sufficiently to figure out out how much of its current content was COI. That is the kind of action I would expect to see someone to take if they felt there was a genuinely urgent or very important situation that needed to be immediately drawn to the attention of the 20 readers a day who stumbled onto the article (an "emergency"). It turns out that none of the three hypothetically COI editors had much to do with the article as it existed when you first tagged the article. The tag wasn't necessary at all, in fact, but you rushed to apply it before even having sufficient facts to justify it. This is the sort of automatic action that I refer to when I say "take your time". If it takes a few days to sort things out, it's fine. There's no crisis here.
• Ironically, I actually have a far more expansive opinion on what constitutes a COI, but it is one that neither the WMF nor a significant portion of the editing population want to consider. I've already had those discussions, and I'm not going to waste my breath having them again.
• On the other hand, I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material. A shockingly large number of these articles are unbalanced and negative, and any attempt on the part of the subject to raise concerns is beaten back, often using COI as a stick. Just as it is far too easy to get some articles into Wikipedia (COI or not), it is also far too easy to turn those articles into weapons, to load lightly-watched articles with tabloid material, and to allow editors who have too much vested in certain articles (or, as I sometimes say, to have a COI that doesn't involve money) to run roughshod over anyone who tries to improve the situation. Most of our editors are conflict-averse and just stay away. These are big picture issues.
• It is often difficult for people to "hear" how they come across. There is an element to the tone of at least some of what you write that comes across as "the sky is falling". There's also an element of doggedness (Atsme as an obvious example) where your insistence on "proving" the COI and demanding that others (including the person with COI) share your assessment of the nature and extent of the COI becomes harmful - to the other party, to you, to the impression that people have of how COI is being addressed, and in the long run to the encyclopedia. In fairness, I'm certain most people have a hard time really understanding how others perceive them; it's not just you. Risker (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am hearing the last thing from several quarters and I need to take that on board. Thanks for that. I do realize that I became shrill in the Atsme matter and the other matter that ended up at your Talk page. I know it probably sounds ludicrous but those were each exceptions to how things usually go. I also know that people end up getting defined in WP by their worst moments. And that there is validity to that.

I cannot figure out your view on COI. I understand not wanting to take the time to yet-again explain but could you ballpark point me to some places where you laid it out (board or article, time frame, subject matter) so I can go find it? I would like to understand you, and you have been here a long time and written a lot.

Thanks for explaining about the "emergency" thing and the issues with the tag. I hear that and am taking the "COI" tag objection on board. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

fwiw [Special:Contributions/1066media this editor] is working on Westfield, is a SPA, and is someone I would generally approach and ask about their relationship with Westfield. I will do that, if you all want to watch. Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (strike, too weird. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC))

• Questions: I have two questions: (1) If it is there, is there a way of leaving in the history of the mall in the article? (That won't get outdated; historical facts are historical facts -- it may lack updating but the history will not change; plus it is useful info for the reader.) That is, if the article details some history, even if currently inadequately referenced or unreferenced? Likewise for any other neutral putative facts that are not now definitely incorrect. (2) Is there a way of differentiating COI SPA mall-editors from non-COI SPA mall editors? It's possible that some editors may simply have a specific interest in malls -- either the malls in their area, or malls in general, or malls of a specific corporation (obviously the latter is a bit of a red flag, and DUCK should probably apply). I personally think malls are boring and non-notable, but I think the same about a lot of food articles that are on WP, so I'm probably more inclined to let information stay unless it is clear promotionalism and/or against Wikipedia policy, or unless at AfD the specific subject proves not to meet notability guidelines. Anyway, just thinking aloud.

(Also: I think the unfortunate issue at hand is that when met with such a large subject area, Jytdog feels the weight of so much overwhelming COI to address on WP that he's doing what he perceives to be the best he can by overly rapidly 'cleaning up' the large swaths that very few people are looking at or helping with. Is it an emergency? No. Is anyone else looking at or helping with these very large but under-the-radar low-profile subjects? Rarely, but there needs to be some kind of way to alert people that he needs help in the area. It seems to me he is attempting to close out one large subject arena so he can move on to others. So much COI, so little time .... which is understandable.) Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi softlavender. not sure what you are asking about on the first one. On the second, for current editors, I would first look at their contribs and see if they disclose a relationship - people often do in edit notes or in talk or question boards off the article and its talk page. if there is no definitive (and I mean definitive self-disclosure), i just ask them if they have a relationship with the subject at their talk page. If they clearly say they have none, i warn them about SPA and advocacy (since it was SPA promotion that called my attention to them) and let it go. For no-longer-active editors, the same process, except you can't ask them.... And thanks for the understanding in your last remarks. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to emphasize what Risker has said:

• There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that. I can't say it any better, and can point to In re Alappat as an example, where you followed an editor who you initially came into contact with on an alleged COI issue.
• That's what led to the uprising on the legal articles. Exactly. You need to slow down when you have multiple experienced editors in a distinct field tell you that you are wrong. I don't edit in the MEDRS field because I don't have the background to do so. I tried that once, in the Climate Change area, doing everything wrong. I did WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:STICK; WP:DICK. I ended up being sanctioned by ArbCom and indef'ed (by Risker), and later had a chance to come back, then later to get my restrictions removed. I now stay away from areas that I don't have expertise and I listen when others talk. No one is asking you to stay away from legal articles, but you do need to listen more.
• The majority of editors in the Medicine wikiproject are medical professionals. A significant percentage of editors in the Law wikiprojects are lawyers. Most of the Mathematics project are mathematicians. They do not have an inherent COI. I don't try and correct someone like Doc James on medical issues or sources. He is a subject-matter expert (SME) and I don't have the needed expertise to dispute his point of view. PraeceptorIP is a SME on intellectual property law. You do not have the needed expertise to determine if something is OR or an accurate summary of the opinion/literature. Ask, don't tag and demand. And don't follow him around tagging every article he edits.
• Please listen to what Risker and Softlavender are saying, they are giving you good advice. GregJackP Boomer! 17:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar: Shopping mall notability

[edit conflict] (Hi, I wrote and attempted to post this before or while Wikidemon posted the above on the same topic; I'll leave it as I wrote it.)

I think a lot of clarity needs to be hammered out here in terms of what constitutes notability for a shopping mall(s) on Wikipedia, and what sources qualify as references, and what constitutes puffery or promotionalism. This seems a fairly insular topic (it doesn't have the scrutiny or referencing that individual companies, businesses, or corporations have), and obviously there is some disagreement about all of these issues by several editors here -- whether they have expertise in the topic or not. At some point, for instance, the various individual malls owned by Westfield in the United States were deemed notable enough for Njbob to create a navbox of them in 2009: Template:Westfield United States. I'm not sure the discovery of one minimally active declared COI editor, or even two or three, constitutes a rationale for gutting and/or AfDing all of the articles just because they currently lack the standard of referencing that most WP articles would benefit from. The relevant Wikiproject is apparently (the fairly inactive) Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, so I am going to post a notification of this discussion on the talk page there to see if any project members wish to opine. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender attention of the community gets called to articles in any number of ways - the activities of the declared account (shared by more than one editor) has led us to look at these articles carefully. What has turned up so far is that many of them were created by a SPA and have been subject to promotional editing by IP and some named editors. But what matters is that they are (now "were" for some of them) full of unsourced, promotional content much of which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The point of the COI tag is to call attention to content - to NPOV and sourcing issues in the tagged article; almost all of the articles had problems with both. Content is what matters at the end of the day. Absolutely. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender you are absolutely correct. The real puffery and promotionalism goes unnoticed more often than not while basic information is targeted because of the notability of the subject. For example Red_Bull, and Red_Bull_GmbH. Are we seeing puffery? Promotionalism? Undoubtedly. It looks like one big advertisement for the company and its product yet editors will strip credentials and certifications from an internationally renowned doctor as puffery. It doesn't make any sense. Until we get those issues resolved, we will continue to see issues here, at AN and at COIN. Perhaps it's time to update GNG? Atsme^📞📧 17:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CORP says ... please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, .... Some people argue (on this page and on AfD pages referenced above) that malls are inherently notable because they replace traditional town squares, which have been important as cultural and economic centers throughout history. I think that's a very good reason why the abstract concept of a mall, the development of mall architecture, and the prevalence (rise and fall) of malls are notable, but not necessarily any individual mall. Malls are pieces of managed real estate, like apartment buildings. Unfortunately the current level of emotion here would probably hinder the creation of a good standard for mall notability at this time. The WikiProject should have been a good place to develop such a standard, but that seems unlikely to happen given the dearth of activity there. Nevertheless, we could try. Would that actually resolve this incident, though? --Unready (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Personally speaking, I believe that there are huge swaths of the encyclopedia where we ought to be significantly increasing our baseline for notability; it's a considered opinion based on years of dealing with conflicted editors, horrible and unbalanced BLPs where the subject (if they dare to complain) is trampled on, school articles whose main purpose seems to be giving students a place to troll their peers, seeing experienced editors fight to keep articles about barely notable subjects for what are obviously personal reasons, and just plain a whole pile of dreck. On the other hand, the community has repeatedly shown itself to be very inclusive in certain topic areas that I'd wipe out in a heartbeat. Personally, I don't think there are very many malls that are notable. The community has repeatedly said that most of them are. I've gotten over it, and I suggest that others get over it, or take that argument to the notability guidelines or to the AfDs that have been started. This discussion doesn't belong on this noticeboard, though; I'm also pretty sure it doesn't belong on the COI noticeboard either. Conflict of interest and notability are two separate concepts, even when a conflict of interest involves a borderline notable article subject. Indeed, that's one of my biggest concerns with the actions that were taken over the last few days with respect to malls: the opinion of one or two editors has supplanted the longstanding opinion of the community about this particular topic area, without seeking to actually change that opinion. I suggest that this subsection be closed and the discussion redirected to where it belongs, which is clearly not here. Risker (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Malls are the new schools?> Seriously? I can see why people fight to include schools, but shopping malls? I have travelled pretty extensively and can say with some confidence that in most malls it is not possible to tell what city you're in - and sometimes even what continent. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What he said. BMK (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Malls aren't the new schools. They've been around and being considered more or less notable since at least 2005. It's just you've never noticed them. I can think of at least 15 malls within an hour's drive that would easily pass GNG. (That probably says more about the ridiculously low bar that GNG sets than it does about the malls, though.) In some places, they're amongst the location's major employers and highest-revenue businesses. Again, that doesn't mean *I* think they're notable. But to reiterate, articles about a lot of malls have passed AFD since at least 2005. Risker (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2006-2007 I spent many hours tracking AFDs on shopping malls and posted a table of results at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers), a proposed (but ultimately failed) notability guideline. There were then hundreds of "superregional " malls, over 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area, in the US, and tens of thousands of regional and smaller malls, right down to the strip mall 4 blocks from my house. The superregional standard was one used by the industry, and not some arbitrary term or size picked by a Wikipedia editor. The superregional malls include some which receive national coverage. They were rarely if ever found not to be notable in AFDs. Some editors in discussions at AFDs and at the talk page I mentioned felt that large malls were not eqvilane to corporations, since they had a definite geographic location, while corporations were basically a cloud. They also functioned like a downtown business district in that they were a venue for other corporations to make money and for people to shop or congregate. Then as now, many editors just like to create articles about some particular subject,(God bless all the trainspotters and those who like roads, hamlets, long-dead nobles, insect species,actors, musicians, generals, Congressmen, warships or sports figures) and it is unreasonable to assert that all mall article creators must have a conflict of interest, or that any article which says how big a mall is, where it is what company owns it, and what its anchor stores are is "advertising." That is setting a higher standard for one type of subject than for others.It boils down to the existence of independent reliable sources with significant coverage (and each of those words gets quibbled and sophistry by those with a grudge against or a liking for a particular subject area). Major malls can have significant economic and even cultural impacts on their regions. Tagging poorly referenced or unreferenced articlae about malls is the proper course, and a large-scale campaign of gutting the content,then PRODing it, or sending it to AFD in its gutted form is disruptive and should lead to a topic ban. Edison (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Two hidden sections (this added for ease of editing only)

Seeking boomerang for GregJackP for BATTLEGROUND: Hidden by consensus below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GregJackP is apparently a well-liked editor and does good work elsewhere, but he has taken a disliking to me, has lost his sense, and is turning WP Into a WP:BATTLEGROUND pursuing whatever bee he has gotten in his bonnet. I am asking for a warning to him to stop this battleground/NPA-violating behavior. He and I got off to a bad start at the Bad Elk v. United States but worked through the issues there; I forgot all about it but he's apparently still upset about it. What happened there was there was poor content in the article that he was defending to the death; I opened a GAR and a case at ORN at the same time to break that OWN behavior, but that just inflamed things; I withdrew both shortly thereafter and we worked through the issues at Talk here and via exchanges of edits. That was in mid-May/ He is apparently still angry, as ever since then he doesn't miss a chance to attack me, and in pretty ugly ways. He has this notion that I am incompetent in legal matters, and constantly says to me (to paraphrase) "I am a lawyer and you are not so shut up and go away". I am the first to acknowledge WP:CIR and while I am not a lawyer, I am plenty competent to edit articles related to intellectual property law. For example instead of working out content in a dispute at Bowman v. Monsanto Co. he just attacked me personally here and here and here and here and here. There is new and very expert editor, User:PraeceptorIP who has been making many of the mistakes that new, expert editors make - namely falling astray of WP:SELFCITE and giving UNDUE weight to his own ideas (both of which get into advocacy/COI issues), as well as adding WP:OR, unsourced content to articles. I deal with editors like this all the time in my work at COIN. That behavior is generally fixable with time and attention, but GregJackP carried his battleground there and interjected himself. That is some of what the diffs above were about, but he carried his private war with me to PraeceptorIP's Talk page, and attacked me and told Praceptor to ignore me here and here and here and here. Just ugly, and arguably setting PraceptorIP on a bad path here in WP. He did the same sort of thing at my Talk page, interjecting himself into a discussion with another editor and making personal attacks here. He did the same thing out of nowhere at the Beepi article here and here (where he was wrong, and the paid editor with whom I was talking gladly worked with me) There are more, but this is already almost tl/dr. I have asked him several times to stop this behavior - here and here and here and several other places, which he ignores and just presses on with this behavior. I told him I would eventually bring this to ANI, so am doing it now. As i mentioned, his participation in this ANI is just more of the same. Please warn him to not use Wikipedia as a battleground and lay off the personal attacks. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) To respond briefly: I'm not angry, never was, about Bad Elk v. United States (and a related article, Plummer v. State), although I had concerns about his conduct, as did others. At Bad Elk there had been consensus on the content and Jytdog had a case of WP:IDHT. His response to our asking for consensus to remove sourced material was to start a Good Article review, here. He starts a discussion at WP:ORN here]. Then he threatens DR here. Only after I filed an ANI on his conduct and forum shopping did he calm down, stop forum shopping, and actually listen to what other editors were saying, such at Minor4th (at the Bad Elk talk page); Guy Macon (at WP:RSN) and (at WP:ORN). Opening up discussions in multiple location is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I have never told him to "shut up and go away," if he is going to claim that, he should provide a diff. As to his claims of personal attacks? [100] Stating that my position has consensus is not a WP:PA. [101] Responding to his repeated comments about me may be testy, but it was not a personal attack. [102] Pointing out that he misquoted another editor is not a personal attack. [103] Pointing out that four lawyers disagreed with his position on a legal article is not a personal attack, especially where he was the only one taking his position. [104], ditto. For some reason, Jytdog has the idea that PraeceptorIP is a new editor, although it has been repeatedly pointed out that Praeceptor has been here as long as Jytdog (and at the end of the first year both were here, Praeceptor had over 400 edits and Jytdog had only a single edit). He needs to quit denigrating Praeceptor, who is an acknowledge expert in the intellectual property law field. I did tell Praeceptor to ignore Jytdog, who was harassing and WP:WIKIHOUNDING him. On Jytdog's talk page, I advised Bloodofox to let the matter drop after Jytdog had falsely accused him of being involved in socking (and being exonerated by checkuser) and after Jytdog would not initially strike his false accusations. That's also not a personal attack. On the Beepi article, Jytdog appeared to be trying to WP:OUT another editor who had already disclosed a WP:COI. He has a tendency to try and out others and has been warned by Risker to stop harassing people and trying to obtain this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no., [105]. I don't know why, but Jytdog seems to believe that anything that is pointed out to him is a personal attack. It's not. For example, he got upset when it was pointed out that an article that Praeceptor (correctly) labelled as using the Bluebook style, did in fact use that style [106], [107]. I'm not following him around, I work on legal articles. Always have. He doesn't get that for some reason. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC) GregJackP, almost everything you wrote above is inaccurate. All I am after is two things - for you to stop following me and interjecting yourself into discussions with others, and to discuss content with me, and lay off discussing your views on me. Please change your behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) OK, let me see if I understand you correctly (on the "two things" that I counted as three). It's OK for you to claim that I have made personal attacks when I have not done so, and remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to call someone with the same amount of time as you on Wikipedia a new editor, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to harass editors and attempt to out them to the point that a former ArbCom member warns you about it, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to forumshop and generally be disruptive about legal articles, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. For the most part I don't go to GMO articles and work on those, nor to Biotech articles, nor to Medrs articles. I work on legal articles, and when you show up I'm not going to leave, especially when you are alone against the consensus of a group of other editors. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) None of those things was on point with regard to your behavior. Beepi is not a legal article. The discussion on my talk page you jumped into was not about a legal article. This thread has nothing to do with law. You are just hounding me. And i see that once i mentioned three articles below, you immediately went to each of them and marked each one like a dog pissing. It is just ugly behavior, GregJackP. Really, you seem like an otherwise sane editor. You heard BDD say that I am too. So wtf? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) OK, two of the articles were moved to their proper names per MOS:LAW#Article titles. And let's look at In re Alappat, which you linked as an example of PraeceptorIP's editing problems. First, you labelled as an essay, which it is not. The article generally follows the style guide for SCOTUS articles, with a background section, procedural history, the case opinion (including dissent), and a subsequent developments section. It is clearly not an essay. Second, you tag it as original research, which again, it is clearly not. Competence is required, and while I am sure that you have competence in GMO and Biotech articles, it is clear that you do not have it in legal articles. I'm sorry, but on one of his edits where he was labeling an article as using the Bluebook citation style, you could not recognize this and got upset when several lawyers told you that it was Bluebook. The same thing happened on Bowman v. Monsanto Co. where four lawyers, two of them in that specialty, told you that material was not WP:UNDUE and that it belonged in the article. I understand that this is not your area of expertise. I have offered to help, and stand by that offer, but to be honest your approach towards others who disagree with you leaves something to be desired. I have gone to legal articles that you have brought up here because I'm concerned about the quality of the articles. Nothing more. GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, Guy Macon was part of that original dispute at Black Elk and seems to also have kept a grudge, disappointingly. The first case you link to Guy, I did wrong and acknowledged it and was warned. The one ANI case of the many crappy ones that have brought against me where I did wrong - I actually lost my sense there for a while, and like I said, acknowledged it. But dead horse and just ick for you to bring it. The second one is about the Black Elk case, which was closed with no action as pure dramah and we worked things out at the article, as I described above. I am disappointed with you Guy. GregJackP's behavior is not OK and you should not be defending it. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) You are assuming without evidence that I "have kept a grudge". I regularly post links to related archived ANI discussions when someone posts to ANI. I made no comment one way or the other concerning the merits of your ANI posting. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Since you took the time to post at all, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the merits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) He did post on the merits. He linked to prior occasions where you have harassed others and it was taken to ANI. Please read what a personal attack is and is not. I have not personally attacked you. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) No, he said he did not comment. Specifically said that. I know you think you have done nothing wrong GregJackP, but I believe the community will support me on this, and I hope you will be open to hearing it, as I was when I lost my head. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC) To be specific, I linked to all relevant archived ANI discussions that I found. If I had found a related case naming GregJackP, I would have posted a link to it. I don't post "related" links on ANI to support one side or the other. I do so because I researched the past ANI history of the dispute and could save others reading the case a bit of time. GregJackP's "He did post on the merits" claim is factually incorrect. I am leaving it to the reader to interpret the prior ANI discussions along with and diffs posted as evidence and make their own conclusions as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I misunderstood then (and have struck my comment). I thought you were commenting on the pattern of behavior that Jytdog appears to have in the WP:COI area. GregJackP Boomer! 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) It is rather remarkable how often Jytdog brings others to AN/I for battleground behaviour and disruptive editing. The Banner talk 17:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. We have landed in Bizarro World. Jytdog is one of the most battleground editors I have come across on WP. Note that a Ctrl + F search of this page reveals that his name appears 40+ times. He is the subject of multiple ANI's and now an Arb request. I have been involved tangentially in a few of Jytog's disputes with other editors, in an attempt to mediate a compromise or resolution. In each instance, it is Jytdog (alone) pushing a point against a consensus, refusing to consider all other editor's explanations. As a lawyer, I have been disappointed with many of Jytdog's edits and discussions on legal articles - I'm not saying he's incompetent, but he does have difficulty comprehending and utilizing legal citation and also has trouble interpreting legal opinions as well as a stubborn/ownership style when it comes to his opinion about sources. I will look for diffs in a while, if requested. Minor4th 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Minor4th I invite you to actually look at my edits to say Mayo v Prometheus here or Myriad here. And what I have said about Praeceptor's editing is accurate. He was giving his own POV UNDUE weight at Bowman when I encountered him and he is adding loads of OR to articles based on his own authority (which is considerable in the RW, but that is not how WP works) - and check out this. That is very typical expert newbie editing. Most importantly, you have not commented on GregJackP's behavior - his following me and around, interjecting himself into discussions I am having with third parties, and denigrating me, is BATTLEGROUND behavior that is not appropriate. I am not out to "win" here and I have had great collaborations with other attorneys in WP like Edcollins; I just want GregJackP to fly true and stop acting in such an ugly way. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Minor4th By the way, I've read patently-o every day for years. GregJackP had apparently never heard of it. (and note that I didn't argue from authority at RSN, as we don't do that in WP. I argued from sources, which is what we do here) None of us know everything. It is not a big deal. But having a law degree doesn't mean you know much about IP law per se. Not having a law degree doesn't mean you don't know a lot about IP law. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Jytdog - your two replies to my !vote are making my point exactly. Minor4th 22:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) That is surprising to me. And that is still not commenting on GregJackP's behavior. But thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. I'll begin by saying there actually are many instances where Jytdog is an asset to the encyclopedia but the negatives are beginning to overshadow the positives. If we were to block or iBan every editor who has/had an issue with Jytdog, we'd be left with only a handful of editors. As demonstrated in this case and at the ongoing case at ARBCOM, there is clear cause for concern. He blames everyone else and refuses to analyze his own behavior. I think he is finally running out of strikes. I don't follow ANI that closely but I can't recall one instance where Jytdog hasn't triggered the Boomerang after being brought here for behavioral issues. It's an excellent tactic to draw attention away from one's own transgressions. Atsme📞📧 18:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't ask for a block or iBan. Point missed,Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. This enormous and completely unrelated thread seems like a clear attempt by Jytdog to hijack this thread and misdirect attention away from his actions that are being questioned by the OP, by throwing someone under the bus who neither started the thread nor said anything untoward or battleground-y in it (so why it's called a "boomerang" thread is doubly odd). I would like to request Jytdog to collapse this thread and also the reactive/responsive one by GregJackP below. Having people that regularly comment on our behaviors, positively or negatively, is part of Wikipedia. If you want to request an IBan, do that, and do that elsewhere. If there's anything boomerang-worthy on this entire thread, I think it's this thread. Therefore I would suggest that you withdraw, move, or collapse it. I attempted to collapse it just now, but that was reverted by BMK. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC) @Softlavender: The behavior of all participants is traditionally subject to scrutiny on AN/I threads when it's closely and clearly related to the initial report. That is the case here, and that is why I reverted your collapsing. (BTW, when you collapse something, you need to sign it, so that other editors know who did the deed.) BMK (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) May I ask you how to sign a hatting? I have rarely if ever seen one signed, nor recalled how they did it. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Sure, when you make the collapsing comment, just end it with the regular 4 tildes, that's all. BMK (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose I'll say that I don't have a particularly good opinion of GregJackP, and I believe that he feels the same about me (he recently tentatively supported an RfA candidate simply because I had opposed the candidate [108], and said so in his initial "Neutral" statement). I can't speak for why he's not my A#1 fan, but for my part it seems to me that GregJackP is more interested in stirring up drama than he is in actually improving the encyclopedia. Be that as it may, I don't think that his behavior is such as to warrant a sanction, although if he keeps on in the way he is heading, it may well come at some time in the future. For me, that time is not yet. I can fully understand that Jytdog may feel differently about it, but that's how I see it right now. BMK (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) example happening right now Some time ago, i tagged In re Alappat as essay like and OR. (it looked like this when I tagged it and looks much the same now). And left a note on the Talk page. In response to my linking that above, GregJackP scooted right on over to that article, removed the tags, and when I reverted and asked him to respond on Talk, he came to talk and wrote this: Removed, and noted that initial editor is following the general style used by WP:SCOTUS for case articles, not written as an essay as claimed. WP:CIR and note that the editor accused of being "new" by Jytdog had over 400 edits in 2008 before Jytdog made his second edit, and that he has created 10 times more articles than Jytdog has. That statement is 100% ad hominem, and does deal with the substance of the tags at all. This is Wikipedia, not a law journal or blog, and this is exactly what I was complaining about above. This is not a way to behave in Wikipedia. I am asking folks here to give GregJackP a warning that this behavior is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from COI and legal articles for Jytdog: Hidden by consensus below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is clear that Jytdog does not understand or doesn't hear statements experienced editors and admins tell him to back off. I propose that the community topic ban him from the WP:COIN board, from acting on WP:COI actions, and from articles on legal cases, broadly construed for six months in order to give him a chance to evaluate his own actions. In many cases, editing in a different area can lead an editor to be productive without constantly being in conflict. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support. Jytdog's behavior in this very ANI thread is a pretty good illustration of his manner of dealing with other editors and his failure to consider his own behavior at all. I support a topic ban from legal articles and a ban from taking COI-actions and engaging in COI-related discussions. Minor4th 22:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support When I originally created this thread I had no idea how wide spread the problem really was. This behavior seems to go beyond just deleting information and a misunderstanding of COI. It appears that Jytdog has a problem with the Wikipedia process as well. This is a clear indication that Jytdog should be topic banned from these issues. Not doing so will only create more ANI reports and more drama. JOJ Hutton 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose This is clearly a WP:BATTLEFIELD tactic, which should not be rewarded. I don't know what will happen below, but the supports above this are all from editors who have been on the opposite side of disputes with Jytdog, and are therefore strongly involved. I am not in any way involved in this. BMK (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose per BMK and per WP:Boomerang. This is very wrong-headed indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose I believe the cleanup work of Jytdog on these articles was correct (as other editors have suggested above), and all the rest of the evidence about other things seems like a battleground mentality over content disputes. From what I've seen, Jytdog's work in COI is invaluable, helping many new conflicted editors understand their COI, and how to contribute within it. Let arbitration rule on the arbitration case, but I believe that in general, Jytdog's contributions to COI are positive, and the main objections have come from users who've had issues with them elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) (reinstated after being removed, I assume accidentally, by @Wikidemon:.)Joseph2302 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Please take this elsewhere — this was a discussion about a specific incident involving content removal from a bunch of articles, and some amount of edit warring, under a claim of COI. Now we're getting off track talking about legal articles, the COI notice board, etc, which really sidetracks things. An editor, however much you disagree with his actions, defending himself against something on AN/I, would rarely be a good reason to uphold a topic ban on an unrelated subject. I see nothing about the current incident that would support a topic ban or any other sanction. What is happening elsewhere really belongs elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Comment It was suggested in a recent ArbCom request that Jytdog's behaviour be addressed at AN/I. The case was denied because it hasn't been through the normal course. Perhaps this section should be reopened in a fresh thread. petrarchan47คุก 00:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Comment Jytdog has said they're taking a break from COI things for "a bit" [109]. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Yep, as suggested at Arbcom, til that is closed and this too. i can listen, ya know. :P But please continue. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose This is an extreme sanction for an editor who has already said he was backing off on COI, the very reason this had been proposed. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose - per BMK. This thread is already out of control. Boomerang the boomerang of the boomerang? Also attempting to prevent strong COI work doesn't help resolve anything. --Unready (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to Jytdog and GregJackP

Before this discussion goes any further off the rails, how about the two of you, informally and voluntarily, just agree to try to steer clear of one another for a while? There is too much mutual battlefielding here, and you would both be best served by just dropping it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme, Jytdog, and then GregJackP in defense against Jytdog's unwarranted boomerang proposal, have hijacked this thread with their own unrelated agendas and grievances. I suggest we hat their obvious digressions (they can take them elsewhere and start their own threads apart from this one) and return this discussion to what it is about: the fate of this large group of mall articles, and the appropriateness of two editors apparently tag-teaming to gut and/or AfD them, for reasons that may or may not follow WP guidelines. The way to settle the matter is not to boomerang someone who neither started the thread nor said anything untoward or battleground-y in it. I don't believe Jytdog should be removed from the COIN board (he does good work there), but nor should he blatantly misdirect a thread questioning his actions by throwing an uninvolved person under the bus. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have taken the liberty of doing so, at least on the J-G threads. If someone wants to move those two threads to their own thread outside of this, that's fine, but they are completely unrelated to this thread. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with going back to the original reason for the discussion, the various malls. As long as he's not making false accusations against me that I have to respond to, I'm good with just continuing to work on legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, BMK reverted my hatting. Do people think the two interminable and unrelated "proposal" threads should be hatted or moved elsewhere, or not? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the threads are hijacks and completely obscure the point of the OP's thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to have several threads ongoing simultaneously dealing with, essentially, the same issue. We're here, let's try to get things settled here.BMK (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same issue at all, or even anything related to the same issue, and in fact has nothing to do with the OP issue -- Jytdog does not even mention GregJackP's behavior or points in this thread, which have been very mild and prudent. It's an absurd attempt to hijack this thread about mall articles by attacking an editor who neither opened the thread nor did anything whatsoever actionable or even questionable in it. I understand from your !vote comment that there is antipathy between you and GregJackP, but don't let that blind you to that fact that the boomerang sub-thread is a completely trumped-up and irrelevant side-show that belongs in its own separate thread (if anywhere), because it does not even reference this thread or anything in it. If you look at the time stamps, GregJackP had made exactly two brief comments to the OP's thread [110], [111] before Jytdog posted his lengthy and unrelated "boomerang" sub-thread [112]. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be hatted or closed or moved. Both sanction proposals have roughly zero chance of approval unless one of their subjects flies off the handle here, would not stand if anyone declared them approved, are irrelevant to and distract from the discussion, and do no good for the editors proposing them. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was willing to walk away from it, but I have a problem that I make two minor comments on the original topic when Jtydog posts a wall of text alleging all sorts of BS. Beyond My Ken, exactly how are any of the links he included in this statement "he just attacked me personally here and here and here and here and here" a personal attack? Since when is stating that I have consensus a personal attack? Or responding to his repeated passive-aggressive behavior - now that's a personal attack? How is pointing out that he misquoted another editor a personal attack? Or explaining that when 4 editors are in agreement and you're the only one that isn't - how is that a personal attack? Or explaining consensus yet again - is somehow a personal attack? I was just as happy when Softlavender hatted it off, but I'll be happy to let the community look at all of the material. Should we notify everyone that has been in a conflict with Jytdog? Or should we hat this off, again? GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As per your usual behavior, you can do whatever will create the most drama, if that's what you wish to do. But if you WP:CANVASS -- that is, notify editors only on one side of the issue -- you will be called on it, and will risk facing sanctions for doing so. On the other hand, if you hat these discussions again, I will unhat them, for the same reason that I unhatted Softlavender's hatting, because the behavior of all parties is subject to scrutiny once an AN/I report has been open. I know you didn't open this one, but you certainly entered it like gangbusters, blasting Jytdog immediately, making your position crystal clear, and making it quite obvious that you are a strongly involved editor, not in any way an univolved commentator. If you think that you now can back away with a discussion about consequences, you're mistaken. BMK (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay people, enough. The encyclopedia will benefit from *everyone* taking this down a couple of notches. Risker (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BMK, we've got three out of four people so far here who think they should be hatted or moved, (plus Tryptofish at the top who agrees the sub-threads are de-railing the discussion, and the two people in the proposal !votes themselves that agree they should not be there); that's a consensus so far, and Wikipedia operates by consensus. Perhaps the two of you (GJP and BMK -- and that goes equally for you GJP; you are the one who began stirring the pot just now above) could take the advice offered by Tryptofish to GJP and Jytdog above. Both of the silly proposals have been roundly opposed, and they are both clogging up the thread and distracting from the issue at hand. They can be moved elsewhere if they are that useful (but they probably aren't as evidenced by the snowing opposes). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely willing to walk away, just as I stated earlier. I don't know (or care) what BMK has against me, but I'm not the one that created the additional drama here by unhatting this. I'm perfectly fine with doing other things instead of responding to bogus accusations against me. GregJackP Boomer! 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Propose hatting the two un-called-for proposal sub-threads (which hatting already has consensus), plus also this good-faith "Suggestion" subthread, so we can all get back to resolving the issue at hand. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I did the first one. I'm involved in the second one. Makes sense to me not to hide the third until the second is done. --Unready (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  OK, I did the same on the second one; I was not involved in that one. Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm late to the party, but I would be happy to steer clear of GregJackP and am OK with the hatting of both threads. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of the article Utigurs

• 78.159.147.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Utigurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to bring to your attention the behavior of user 78.159.147.70 toward the article "Utigurs". He has been deleting almost the entire article (including parts supported by academic sources) several times after 11/07/2015 without any real explanation.

Thank you. 93.152.143.113 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Winner 42: any comments on your end about this IP? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @IJBall: Not particularly, just came across them while Huggling a few weeks ago. It looked like drive-by vandalism at the time, mass changes from one term to another with the removal of sourced content are almost always vandalism, but now I am not entirely sure. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of the article Huns

Hello,

The user 78.159.147.70 has deleted newly added information on the article "Huns" supported by academic sources. He didn't really explain why.

Thank you 93.152.143.113 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Diff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note that IP 78.159 has done it again, though I really can't tell if there's anything "untoward" going on here. It's removing sourced content, but I don't know if it's questionable content being removed or not. I suspect the bigger issue here is the lack of communication about said edits. I suggest one of the regular editors at these two articles try to discuss with the IP on their Talk page, to see if that gets anywhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "sources" without actually providing the sources or an explanation is helpful editing. Anyone who wanders into Balkans and has a edit summary that a source is is not reliable, while changing what a source allegedly says (namely the century of a map and the earliest mention of the name) raises red flags. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

disruption is spreading

The same editors have taken the dispute to a third article, Kubrat, which was brought to RFPP. I've fully protected the page for a week to stop the insanity. I don't claim to know what's going on with Eastern European history, but we're getting into serious disruption territory and there's obviously a larger issue here. KrakatoaKatie 22:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a week. First, next time WP:AIV is faster than this is, especially when you don't make simple diffs here. Edits like this are unnecessarily aggressive and borderline uncivil for fairly benign editing to me. This edit largely is removing a source under the false edit summary of "Per sources". There is no "source" that justifies removing a source. Let's see if we get a response or is this another of the line of line of editors in that space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [113] and was blankly reverted on sight [114]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [115] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [116]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [117] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [118], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [119], User talk:Koala15#No [120], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [121]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [122]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple copyvios

• The19trier (talk · contribs)

I've encountered copyright violations in numerous recent edits by this account, in articles they've created and those they've contributed to. May be more widespread than I've found thus far, so I think their edit history merits overview, and may require copious reverting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a week and given them a stern warning that if they do this again once the block is up, they'll be indeff'd. I've also warned them that if copyvio makes up the bulk of their edits, the block will become permanent without the possibility of a second chance. I don't have a lot of sympathy for copyright violations because most of us should already be familiar with having to re-write sources (ie, re-write without it being a close paraphrase), as the majority of schools impress the importance of avoiding plagiarism in their schoolwork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm... I'd like to keep this ANI thread open a little longer. I'm now worried that there might be some self-promotion here since a lot of their edits tend to center around material from one specific person, a Stephen Zhang. A look for their username gives off the strong impression that they are this person, which means that they're essentially here to put their work in Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't made the connection to a specific person--woe if it turns out the copyright issues go back the length of their history here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah... they've been doing this since 2010 (as that is a partial copyvio of this, both with their own work and with other people's work. I think that I'm going to turn that block into an indef. If they are Zhang (who is apparently a professor) then they should know the importance of copyright violations and plagiarism. There's no excuse for this to have happened at all, let alone since 2010. They haven't made a ton of edits, but this is probably one of the most basic foundations of education and research: do not steal other people's work verbatim. (Copyvio is essentially stealing in my eyes.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've indeff'd them and gave them a pretty big speech on their page. Bluntly put, researchers and professors have no reason to not be aware of plagiarism/copyvio to some extent. I'm aware that research does involve borrowing other people's work, but the emphasis there is on borrow because that implies that they're still attributing the original work and that the idea would be that whatever they created would essentially be a new work written in their own words. Any material taken verbatim from other places would be quoted and sourced. This editor did not do that, so indef. (Sorry for the speech, but I really, really feel strongly about copyvio.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider your rationale useful for the broader readership--I'm a published writer who doesn't need to be convinced of the gravity of the matter. I don't like the preponderance of plagiarism and copyright violations, and have no patience for it. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A new report needs to be placed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and if the editor shows interest in actually assisting us there, then that's something we can consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Fauzan - Islamic Golden Age

User:Fauzan is maintaining a biased narrative on the Islamic Golden Age wiki that gives entirely too much credit to Islam itself and dismisses the foreign contributions to this historical period. He maintains a source of scientific aspiration on material that is dubious at best (ex. "Ink of a scribe being more valuable than the blood of a martyr" - which is not sourced to Islam nor was it a virtue for the caliphates) and does not use neutral explanations which include "could have," "may," etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.252.148 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You should provide related diffs. --Zyma (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(as a general note I think that there may well be editor bias at times in Islam related topics as per examples here and here. GregKaye 18:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC))

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

User:InfoLeak, who has only edited the article in question, obviously has a WP:COI and refuses to recognize that Wikipedia is not a memorial. InfoLeak has persisted in restoring unsuitable material, so I have no choice but to request a block. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

Wikipedia Administrator

The Wikipedia page "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr" was Originated and Created by Username: Infoleak who is Oscar's Son (Family)!

Username: Clarityfiend has repeatedly Vandalized and Deleted entire sections of commentary without any authorization or knowledge of the subject.

Therefore, I have to Request WP Administrator Block of Username: Clarityfiend from further editing of content to WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

InfoLeak (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. This poorly attributed paragraph length quote potentially goes against WP:COPYVIO. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So InfoLeak is reporting himself as the son of the article topic. And the article history shows a WP:3RR violation. And InfoLeak has started an RfM. And I'm just gonna stop there. --Unready (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Five bucks says we get a legal threat from him before talk page access is revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking him. He's pretty much been doing this for years and from what I can see, he's been basically asserting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article since he signed up. I don't see any specific warnings, but he's been making edits similar to this since 2013. The question here is whether it should be permanently or just temporarily. Clarityfiend, offhand I don't see where you tried to explain the reason for your removals in the past, but neither do I see where InfoLeak has asked for any explanation- and his tendency to treat the article like it was "his" genuinely bothers me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The one thing that does give me pause is that he knew enough about policy to post to the edit warring noticeboard, which gives off the impression that he does have some limited awareness of policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually no, I do see where you made some edit summary comments in 2013, so there is some explanation on your part, Clarity. It'd have been better if it was a talk page but it is enough to where Info would have been made aware that this did not fit policy for some reason and the onus would somewhat be on his part to contact you to ask why these changes were done. At no point has he actually done that before seeking punitive action against you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I posted a link to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for the editor. I'd suggest giving a chance for them to actually review the ideas there and see if they will acknowledge it. They can still watch the page and interact via posts to the talk page like most COI situations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've also posted a longer warning, telling them that if they revert to the prior version they face at least a temporary block. (And a permanent one if they continue after that.) I've also asked them to refrain from directly editing their father's page and to go through a training program as a sign of good faith. So now it's up to them. I have to admit that their ownership/COI overtones aren't exactly promising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I would suggest replacing "permanent" with "indefinite". Mr Potto (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, and there appears to be a spurious "If someone is" phrase in there. Mr Potto (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'd started typing out a longer explanation, then checked here and saw Ricky's post, and then started writing something else partway through and forgot to remove the last part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've just noticed that the title of his book is "OSCAR RANDOLPH FLADMARK, JR. Biography By Gary L. Fladmark," so InfoLeak clearly feels some exclusive authorship of the article. The article is also an orphan, which makes notability questionable, even with all the local paper references. I'm kind of wondering if the purpose of the recent edits is to be able to generate and print pdfs for the 60th anniversary of his father's death, which kind of addresses WP:MEMORIAL even more. --Unready (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original poster has filed a badly formed Request for Mediation, asking the MedCom to block User:Clarityfiend from edits toOscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.. The fact that that isn't what mediation is for raises competency concerns. Since he has also requested this WP:ANI action, the original poster is also forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence? Really? You expect contributors with less than 300 edits to know all the complex ins and outs of Wikipedia dispute resolution policies? I think not. It seems to me that InfoLeak's problems are mostly due to an almost complete failure of anyone to actually explain to him how Wikipedia works - though I note that Tokyogirl79 has at last began that process. [123] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject looks notable from the current contents, and the user is trying to provide free knowledge. How about talking him through WP:COI and being neighbourly instead of this drama? Guy (Help!) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Strike that. My bad. The article has referenciness, but the sources are crap. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of suggesting sending this one to AfD – if it's notable, AfD will probably figure it out, and if's not AfD will figure that out too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. You're right. This guy doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Is it permissible to Afd this during an ANI, or is it better to wait for this to wrap up? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing that out that if you indelicately AfD the article on the 60th anniversary of the subject's death, you're probably going to amplify the reaction. This is an editor who has devoted his entire experience on Wikipedia to writing and maintaining his father's page. --Unready (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say under these circumstances it'd be best to wait a couple of weeks and try to look for sources. Unready is right - nominating it right now wouldn't be the most tactful way to go about this. If the COI here wasn't so strong (meaning that I don't really want the guy directly editing his dad's page) and it hadn't been in the mainspace for so long, I'd suggest sending it to the draftspace. However considering that non-involved editors are pretty much the only people left to edit the article are people that might stumble upon the page (something that is far more unlikely to occur in the draftspace), it'd be more beneficial to keep it in the mainspace during the waiting period. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• It'd also be good to have a little cool down period to look for sources since that way it wouldn't be seen as a knee jerk reaction. In any case, I am finding some profile listings in some museums. However I almost never edit articles on soldiers that aren't notable for some other reason, so I'm not entirely sure that this would really be something that would give a ton of notability. It might be a sign of notability but then it could also be a routine database listing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Tokyogirl79, I have posted a few additional comments to your posting on the InfoLeak talk page which should help you in your search for additional information regarding Wikipedia page.2602:306:CC4B:B989:2C1C:8F30:AAD8:2DE4 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that InfoLeaks's purpose in creating the article was to create a book about his father, because that's the first thing he did after completing the article. Hence he doesn't want anyone messing with it. OK, so that's one problem. The second problem is his attitude, which is going to get him in some form of hot water if it doesn't radically change. The third problem is the notability of the article subject itself. Does anyone know the notability guidelines for soldiers? Is this article an AfD candidate? If so, who is going to do the honors? Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine and all but I think WP:THERAPY is relevant in that whether or not the editor will take this personal is not really our concern. Does the article pass Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People? If you think so, improve it. If not, list it for deletion. Either InfoLeaks will pay attention and be helpful or the editor won't be but that's not for us to solve today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted every point I made. I said that InfoLeak's purpose in creating the article, and his attitude, are the problems. I also asked for someone else (not me) to decide whether the subject meets the relevant guidelines, and if not to nominate if for AfD (as noted, I'm not going to make that call). In any case, InfoLeak has disappeared from here, which is not really appropriate after filing an AfD. If we don't hear from him one way or another, perhaps this thread should be closed before it boomerangs on him. He's making far too many missteps for his own good and needs to calm down and learn (perhaps at the Teahouse) before he shoots himself in the foot. Softlavender (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous AFD nomination, disruptive edit warring and removal of sourced content by User:Vrac

Request speedy close of disruptive and meritless nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn by Vrac (talk · contribs), opened less than a full day after Vrac's previous AFD on the same page was closed as "keep". It is also clear that Vrac has not been editing the article constructively but has been removing content only to support his position that it should be deleted, which strikes me as an inappropriate and WP:POINTy attempt to WP:GAME the system, and I think at least a warning is in order regarding that editing as well.

After the first AFD was closed, I moved it to the standard List of artists from Brooklyn and Vrac immediately set to removing content from the list, regardless of whether the linked articles contained sources.[124],[125] Worse, he continued to remove entries even after sources were added within the list showing that they were based as artists in Brooklyn,[126],[127],[128] consequently edit warring with myself and Northamerica1000. This is all on Vrac's claim (as best as I can figure it out) that someone cannot be listed "from" somewhere if they were born elsewhere or subsequently relocated (all different and not mutually exclusive meanings of "from"). This is contrary to standard practice with "people from FOO" categories and lists, but more important Vrac has shown no inclination to even discuss that he has a different interpretation or to comment on the sources offered despite explanation of the disagreement and invitation to explain himself,[129] instead insisting he and he alone is correct with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness.[130],[131] Certain entries Vrac has now removed five times within the past day without even commenting on the sources presented.[132],[133],[134],[135],[136]

After Northamerica retitled the list to List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn to try and avoid Vrac's insistence on what "from" can only mean,[137] Vrac then nominated it for deletion a second time on the frivolous ground that the title change means it's somehow a different article,[138] and that it now violates NOTDIR.[139] Again, this was less than a day after the previous AFD was closed. Thanks for your time in looking into this. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it unreasonable to expect that an article with the title: "List of artists from Brooklyn" contain a list of people who are actually from Brooklyn. I've repeatedly suggested that users find reliable sources that say the individual is from Brooklyn before they add a source, which in some cases they have not done. For each of those cases I removed, I provided a source saying that the individual was not from Brooklyn. All of this is documented in the edit history of the article.

As for the article "List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn", having an article of people "residing in" a particular place, in my opinion, goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such I created an AFD for it. The article had fundamentally changed, I don't see why a new AFD would be prohibited. I won't comment on Postdlf's behavior, it's all there to see in the AFD's, article history, and article talk page. Vrac (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I will say one thing about edit warring. WP:UNSOURCED and WP:V are clear about sourcing, the WP:BURDEN is on the user adding the content, right? None of the sources Postdlf added said the individuals were from Brooklyn. Doesn't that mean that Postdlf is edit warring? Vrac (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would normally !vote "weak delete" because Vrac does have a point that there are no other "list of artists who have resided in [foo]" articles (sounds like WP:OL). However...the fact that the same nominator re-nominated the article not even twenty-four hours after the previous discussion was closed as "keep" smells of WP:IDHT; which, IMO, overshadows everything else (for that reason alone, I would !vote "speedy keep"). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not the same article. What is more fundamental to a list article than its criteria for inclusion? I could also argue that renaming the article was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the issue of adding content that fails WP:V, and thus keep the members of the list as they were. Vrac (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: I have a question about renaming, having never been in this situation, is it ok to rename an article, in this case fundamentally changing it, less than 24 hours after an AFD? There was no consensus at the AFD to rename it to the name it currently holds. Vrac (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note This is a matter of standard list-title style plus first-sentence clarification. The standard Wikipedia titling style and naming convention for Lists of people [associated with] Place X is: List of people from Place X. The first sentence then clarifies that as "This is a list of people born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Place X." The title (and usually Category as well) uses "from" because that is the most felicitous and easiest way to put it. The first sentence clarifies what the parameters of the article actually are. Of course the article is not going to include someone that was neither born in nor lived in Place X for more than 6 months, but likewise nor is it going to exclude someone born in Peoria who then moved to Place X and resided there for a long long time. We can't uproot and change all of Wikipedia because one editor objects to article and category naming conventions. If this editor keeps disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, he needs to be stopped, either with a T-ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I can create an article called "Foo", then write a first sentence description that says "this article is sort of about foo, but not really, and since I put it in the first sentence, I can put whatever I want in the article, even if reliable sources disagree"?

Here's the problem: to name this article to reflect its contents, it would have to be called "List of artists that Postdlf associates with Brooklyn". It's a form of original research. Here's an example: Postdlf wants the name Andrea Zittel on this list. This individual is not from Brooklyn, she's from California according to the NY Times, and according to Andrea Zittel herself, and here is a NY times article about her studio in CA. I'm guessing many would associate her with California, many with New York. Who's right? They both are. But where is she actually from? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not Postdlf's opinion or someone from Joshua Tree, CA. And reliable sources say that Andrea Zittel is from California. From WP:V: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. @Softlavender: Is that an ambiguous statement? And I'm not trying to uproot Wikipedia, I'm trying to have a "List of people from Brooklyn" contain a list of people who are actually from Brooklyn. Is that really so unreasonable? Vrac (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Vrac, you can argue the point all you want, but you do not get to set Wikipedia article naming conventions or article content conventions, and you do not get to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We get that. It doesn't matter; you don't get to disrupt Wikipedia just because you don't like something. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your right, I don't get to set article content conventions. The policy was already decided by consensus: WP:V. Do you get to ignore policy by tossing out WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Vrac (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You've illustrated well my complaints about your conduct here. You are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish your interpretations from policy requirements and so consider yourself entitled to revert anything you disagree with, and you've left your explanations so opaque that your responses don't actually respond to what has been said to you. You're just insisting. Which makes me wonder if it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue, that perhaps you think unless a source uses the exact phrase "X is from Brooklyn" we are unable to verify that they are eligible for a list of artists from Brooklyn, no matter what those sources might otherwise say is their connection to Brooklyn. That you are also insisting that List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn is "fundamentally different" than List of artists from Brooklyn then makes sense, if you are so tripped up over the precise words used as to fail to be aware that the underlying meaning is the same. Despite at least three editors now trying to explain that to you. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let the AFD run it's course Vrac's right, Wikipedia's not a list of things , so this list has to go. If the artists are notable on their own, give them their own article. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for close of AFD

We still need an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. It qualifies for WP:SK because it was started by the same nominator less than a day after the previous AFD was closed as "keep", even regardless of their otherwise disruptive editing. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To summarize This case hasn't attracted much comment, not a word about the edit warring accusation, so I'm going to respond to each charge for the record then I'm moving on to other things.

• edit warring: Postdlf reverted 1 2 times before going to the talk page, by then the article had already been changed into to “have resided in Brooklyn”. (An incarnation which I have not edited). I provided reliable sources that justified each removal, the WP:BURDEN was on Postdlf to engage and justify. I reminded Postdlf of that here (not that I should have to remind an admin what WP:BURDEN is). So WP:BOOMERANG on this one.
• disruptive editing: Renaming and fundamentally changing an article during a content dispute, in a cynical attempt to avoid the content issue and make the square peg fit into the round hole, is the very definition of disruptive behavior. It's easy to throw around disruptive editing accusations when you disagree with someone. I was expecting some kind of discussion, and I would hope that admins know the next steps are discuss, RFC, or at most dispute resolution before unilaterally doing what you want. Not exactly a BOOMERANG because user:Northamerica1000 renamed the article, but you get the point.
• spurious AFD: The original article I AFD'd was called “Brooklyn Artists”. After it closed as keep Postdlf renamed it to “List of artists from Brooklyn”. Then NorthAmerica1000 renamed it to “List of artists having resided in Brooklyn”. Note that I did not AFD the “from Brooklyn” article, nor would I have. “have resided in Brooklyn” is just plain silly and clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Excluding involved parties, there are 3 delete !votes and 2 keep !votes at the AFD (one of whom would have voted weak delete if not for what they see as a re-nomination), so I'm not the only one who thinks this “have resided in” article is problematic. Should I have opened an RFC myself instead of AFD? Yes, but the burden was on them and I don't appreciate getting railroaded. Slap me with a fish, but a block is more than excessive.

There are other instances of false accusations and dubious behavior by Postdlf in this drama, but I'm not going to stoop to their level by crying “mommy” at the playground because someone stepped on their shiny new toy. Someone wanted to edit war rather than discuss, someone else changed the article so they could get what they want, and now they've coming whining to ANI because someone called them on their b.s. It's all very WP:LAME. I'm not naive enough as to expect I would get a lot of support in an admin forum over a dispute with admins, but threatening me with blocks and topic bans instead of addressing the underlying policy issue is not cool. It could all have been easily solved with an RFC, the result of which I would have been more than happy to abide by. Vrac (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sumit naithani SD - trip #2

I previously brought Sumit naithani SD to ANI [140] in December 2014 for persistently ignoring guidelines on image uploading. The user probably has at least 100 warnings on his talk page related to this. I am not so much requesting sanctions as just close scrutiny and guidance by admins, in the hope that sanctions could be avoided. I also note that many of the images he's uploading are watermarked with "SD", the last two letters in his username. [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] This seems self-promotional and it contravenes WP:WATERMARK. He's also causing more work for the folks who haunt the image realm of Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sumit naithani SD was ever told about watermarks so I've placed a note on their page. However at a quick glance there are over 100 of these watermarked images in use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Complicating the issue is that these are not free images, but fair-use images ostensibly meeting WP:NFCC. Adding personal watermarks to copyrighted images seems to be extremely questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, NeilN, and for your notice on the editor's talk page. I will point out additionally that the user has never edited in talk space, has created a number of articles on films of of questionable notability, and I'm not even sure he has ever remedied any of the problems he has been notified about. On May 4, he was notified by DPL bot that there was a disambiguation problem at Ek Thi Reeta that still hasn't been resolved. So, there are a few questions about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually given how long this seems to have been going on, I'd be inclined to indef and wait if they communicate after that. Watermarking fair use images is unacceptable and those need to be deleted, unless someone objects. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was leaning toward deletion myself but posted here to attract some knowledgeable opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Watermarks amounts to derivative works based on unfree images, which is not on. I have blocked the account for now at least until he starts engaging with others. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks one and all for the assist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog and JzG: Doing a spot check, it seems that all images from December 10, 2014 onwards have watermarks. I don't see any objections to deletion here but am unsure what deletion process should take place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just mass-deleted all the images and unlinked them from the articles. Let's not do this again any time soon! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Troll at Reference Desk Talk Page

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

---

An IP-shifting troll has been disrupting the Reference Desk talk page with anti-LGBT posts wanting to start a discussion of which of the Reference Desk regulars are LGBT. The troll has been reverted every time.

The only available diffs that I have are the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=671240035&oldid=671169112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=671259731&oldid=671253422

The remainder of the troll posts have been redacted, and so are only available to administrators. The Reference Desk talk page has been semi-protected, which is a necessary evil. The IPs include 118.151.84.89, 49.48.186.106, 83.251.24.242, 201.221.132.69, 179.252.79.108, 95.21.5.210, 78.84.73.220, and 182.74.40.46. (That’s quite a range of IPs.) What I am asking is: First, can the IPs be blocked or range-blocked temporarily for when the talk page comes off semi-protection? (Also, the IPs, if not blocked, can still troll elsewhere in Wikipedia.) Second, would a carefully constructed edit filter be able to block this sort of nonsense from other IPs?

This doesn’t appear to be the same as the blanking of the Reference Desks yesterday, which was a different sort of disruptive editing (simple vandalism), and was done using throw-away accounts rather than shifting IPs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is best here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't have a block button. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user is hopping to different IP ranges geolocating to Japan, Spain, Latvia etc so simple IP block or even rangeblocks won't help. Short-term semi-protection seems to be the only accessible remedy until they get bored (and WP:RBI/WP:DFTT) are the best strategies to get there sooner). I rev-delled their most recent edits (except for the two I missed), so at least they can't simply revert war, and will keep an eye out for them once the protection expires.

Don't see what else we can do, but leaving this thread open for the moment in case someone has an explanation of how the user is IP hopping so widely, and a better way to address it. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I had someone write an edit filter to deal with this, but he disappeared last time we tried to implement it, so it never got out of the testing phase. Maybe it's time to revisit it? here is the original request and let me ping @Samwalton9: since he worked on it for us. --Jayron32 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-enabled the filter (Special:AbuseFilter/683, originally created by Od Mishehu) - we'll see what it picks up. Sam Walton (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't read the post or investigate properly; the filter was for a different issue (removal of sections), but I could probably draft a new one up for this vandal. Sam Walton (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As to how the IP is hopping around, could it be open proxies of some sort? The IP is back, and I have requested another semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that he's hopping to disparate countries it almost certainly is open proxies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Smirtovic

Hi, I would like User:Smirtovic to get a topic ban from creating new articles.

I noticed that this editor has articles now at AfD and looked at his talkpage with several PRODs and AfD notices (which has been removed) and when looking at his contributions he does not have many articles that has "survived" and those that is there no are mostly at AfD in progress. I dont think this editor has insight in notability guidelines.

To show some examples in [150] this diff from 2013 he says he created Tom Siwe that was put up for deletion here yet he has created same article again, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Siwe (2nd nomination). Other articles created and now deleted includes FC Aesch (CSD A7 after he tried removing the speedy tag), Eldro Diacoşki (first PROD, then removal of BLPPROD without adding source and then deleted after CSD G7). Current AfDs are Matt Carter (footballer born 1997) (this AfD) and Tom Siwe as mentioned earlier (after he removed speedy again and he has also removed the AfD notice on the article).

Also the article for Matt Carter was created with copy-n-paste content (see [warning diff).

Editor has previously been at ANI here under a different username.

Not sure if this enough for a topic ban, but I thought it was best to inform administrators about the situation and let some one else decide. Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - indefinite, until such time as the editor can show they fully understand our article notability requirements. GiantSnowman 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have re-notified the user about this discussion after he removed the last one, hopefully he will respond. However a quick glance at their talk page history shows they unfortunately just blank any comments. GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• We generally consider the removal of a notification as evidence of it being seen. Chillum 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I know, but I thought a notification from an admin might have a bit more weight and encourage them to join the discussion... GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have not looked deep enough to endorse a ban at this point, possibly later. I will point out though that I have just closed this AfD as a speedy delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Danish_football_transfers_summer_2015. One of Smirtovic's recent creations. Chillum 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Given that this user seems to only have one form of communication which is page blanking I support a topic ban from new article creation. This user is clearly doing it wrong and refusing any sort of help. Chillum 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake, there was in fact a single occasion this person spoke to someone on their talk page: "fuck you, - mikrul". Chillum 17:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support topic ban - Clearly lacking the knowledge to create new articles. A waste of time for everybody cleaning up after them. JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and this timesink may indicate that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support an IAR competence indef block instead. I doubt there would be any point in a topic ban. They'd just ignore and continue sown this path they were to be blocked anyway. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, Chillum, JMHamo, Miniapolis, and Blackmane: How are the views of an indefinate block instead? User:Smirtovic has refused to discuss and has removed two ANI notices on has talkpage. He has also continued with poor article creation, now Marijan Ćorić at this AfD. A topic ban would probably not keep editor from creating articles. Qed237 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And just as I wrote that he removed an other AfD message from an article (not his first). Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I handed him a 24h block solely for that. No prejudice against making it longer including indef for the larger longer-term problem. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks, do you mind revoking talkpage access as well for attacks like this? Qed237 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I had already sided with an indef block over a topic ban. So I endorse Chillum's action. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Given the abuse the user has given since being blocked I have extended the block to indefinite. The duration is indefinite, meaning once the user decides to communicate in a reasonable fashion it can be reconsidered. As always I welcome feedback. Chillum 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.alrasheed evading block with Saudi IPs

User:Thomas.alrasheed was blocked on 26 June for vandalism, for making sneaky and false changes. Since then, a handful of Saudi IPs have been doing the same thing at the same articles.

These are the involved IPs:

• 14 July 91.147.158.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 5.41.92.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 37.16.140.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 July 95.185.219.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12 July 5.41.33.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10–11 July 95.185.127.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6, 13 July 37.16.146.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 July 93.169.136.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 July 93.169.59.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 93.169.12.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 78.95.255.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 78.95.244.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.169.155.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.168.23.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 June 5.156.128.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–29 June 78.95.146.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24–25 June 93.168.204.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19–23 June 91.108.164.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The question is how to stop this guy? Do we protect articles, or block IPs, or set a few rangeblocks, or set a filter? Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced rangeblocks would be helpful looking at the IP ranges, edit filter might be the best way to go depending on the contribution changes, page protection is onyl other viable option . Amortias (T)(C) 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Thomas.alrasheed registered his account on 25 June but the problem started months before with other Saudi IPs, interspersed with edits by an IP from UK targeting all the same articles and doing the same vandalism. Another IP from the UK, Special:Contributions/80.42.129.101, vandalized by inserting the surname Al Rasheed, the same as the registered account.[151] So this guy has access to both UK and Saudi IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• 9 January 2015 – 212.215.223.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 95.184.30.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 212.215.223.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 January 2015 – 212.215.236.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 January 2015 – 212.215.205.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 January 2015 – 94.97.218.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31 December 2014 – 94.97.169.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 December 2014 – 94.97.178.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 December 2014 – 185.5.153.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2014 – January 2015 – 89.187.100.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(Non-administrator comment) I agree regarding the edit filter. This seems too broad to warrant mass page protection; I can't see much of a pattern to his targets at all. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:61.239.157.9

I'm reporting the disruptive editing of 61.239.157.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I suspect also uses the ff sockpuppets/alternate IP:

• Colelockdvger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chaptislerbe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki))

For several days now, he/she has been changing the cast billing on Korean film/TV series articles with no edit summaries/explanations, despite his/her edits (re billing order) being inaccurate according to those film/TV series' official websites and Korean Movie Database/IMDb/Hancinema profiles. I posted on the user's talk page and the talk page of Scholar Who Walks the Night to open discussion (alongside links to support my edits), but the user refuses to respond in any way except reverting my edits with no explanation.

As for the Nam Joo-hyuk and Who Are You: School 2015 pages, there is currently edit warring going on with those articles on whether Nam is the series' first or second male lead, and again my edits (which in Nam's case, aimed for a compromise instead of a definitive conclusion) were reverted by the same user.

• Scholar Who Walks the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Royal Tailor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Who Are You: School 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plus Nine Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• High Society (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nam Joo-hyuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if the user is some fan who'd rather have his/her favorites come first in the cast billing, or simply a troll, but I thought this warrants a closer look (or even page protection for Scholar and Who Are You). 125.212.121.249 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Tamsin Kendra for Terms of Use and COI violations

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

This account is used as part of a scam that has been reported multiple times to OTRS. Relevant tickets are #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121, plus the latest one #2015070210016402 which finally produced this information. I have some additional off-wiki data that I can share, however I would probably be skirting WP:OUTING so I will not, at least not here. I apologize for using information that is not readily accessible to most editors, I hope one or two folks with OTRS access can verify that these are related. There are also two relevant threads at AN and ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Something_new:_COI_extortion
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me

The methods of operation here as far as I can tell are to a) create an article, then demand money from the subject and mark with {{db-g7}} if not produced; and b) to trawl AFC looking for declined articles and demand money to get them accepted, claiming they have "special rights". The userpage of the account above is included in emails sent to targets of the scam and used to give credibility to the idea that the editor is an active member of AFC with 16,000 edits registered 10 years ago, which is of course not true since the account was created a month ago and they have exactly three edits. They have also apparently included links to administrators' userpages claiming to be them.

Now that we have an actual target account, I would like to propose a formal project-wide ban for this user (or users) for violations of the terms of use and WP:COI so they can be blocked on sight. I would also like to request an off-SPI CU, so that perhaps a few more accounts and related articles will surface. I honestly don't know if this is actionable based on the evidence and the lack of edits on this account, so if there is no consensus for this at least I'd like everyone to be aware that this is happening and how. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No objections to the block. The details of the OTRS tickets are noted. An off-SPI checkuser investigation is already underway. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a couple of these through OTRS so we might have some more accounts we can use to pool SPI data. I'll go ticket digging. Looks like blatent undisclosed paid editing so that looks like our trumpcard. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket #2015061010024265. Admins will have to gather the username in question as I cant see who the author who requested deletion was. Amortias (T)(C) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Amortias. Since I'm not consistently onwiki right now (traveling), if you'd be so kind as to email me the ticket numbers, I'll make sure that the CU team is reviewing the whole lot. Risker (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access at this time, but per confirmations above that the tickets are valid and investigations are proceeding off-wiki, I have indefblocked the account here for apparent violations of community standards and terms of service. I would like to request that someone on the OTRS and CU teams update the block once details are appropriately gathered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the WMF Office aware of this incident, and has the above evidence been forwarded to them? MER-C 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That aside, it would be worth broadcasting this somehow to editors site wide, perhaps via a banner? As much traffic as AN and ANI get, the vast majority of editors would not be watch listing these pages. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@MER-C: Not this specifically, in the past I have forwarded what information I had to Legal but they never got back to me as to what they did, if any. @Blackmane: I think the best thing we can do is make sure admins examine any G7 deletions by new accounts with a bit more care, and also be on the lookout for new accounts fiddling with AFC submissions as well. Although they likely don't use the AFC tools, perhaps a filter can be written to detect when an article is created in mainspace by a new account that already exists in draft form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anyway to prevent new accounts from nominating articles to AFD? kinda how autoconfirmed works is what I had in mind Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet 7000

POV editing, soapboxing, likely sockpuppetry, censorship, subjective terminologies, manufacturing of "controversy" related to singer/actor Tina Barrett.

First encountered Internet 7000 at Tina Barrett where they created a "Controversy" section and populated it with the following insufficiently sourced statements, which are also not even close to appropriate encyclopedic tone. (We are not a gossip rag, and statements like "wisp of chiffon", "prize assets" and "protected her modesty" are completely worthless to an encyclopedic article as vague. Does "modesty" mean "genitals", for instance?)

• "On 8 April 2003 at their Seeing Double (film) UK premiere, Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."
• "On 8 April 2003 at their Seeing Double (film) UK premiere, Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall dress which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."

I warned the editor that their submission was inappropriate, and then opened a perfunctory discussion on the article's talk page, which the editor never responded to.

Similar edits were made in related articles, Seeing Double (film) and S Club 7:

• "There was a little controversy at the UK premiere when Tina Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."
• "On 8 April 2003 at their [[Seeing Double (film) premiere Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall dress which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape and it just about protected her modesty as she attended ."

User has resubmitted this basic content again here via 31.185.158.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (UK-based, ISP: PlusNet Technologies), which was then "refined" by Internet 7000 here. Normally we would call this sockpuppetry.

Most recently we see new soapboxing amid sloppy editing "on 8 April 2003 at the UK Premiere of their Seeing Double (film) , Barrett wore a kinky red Grecian Dress designed by Scott Henshall." along with undiscussed and unsourced resubmissions at some of the articles, like here at Seeing Double.

I don't know exactly what the user's mission is, but it's clearly POV, edit-warring, soapboxing, etc, which is underscored by earlier edits like these where they remove references about Geri Halliwell's nude modeling and explain it away with comments like, "Their were pornographic pictures of Geri as a glamour model which was inappropriate and I deleted the link because of it." Surely we do not practice censorship at Wikipedia. Their motives are unclear since they do also seem interested in detailing things like nude swimming. Anyhow, disruptive, they don't discuss, etc.

There are other issues as well, for example in Dec 2014 Binksternet warns the user to stop adding excessive plot details at A Perfect Getaway per WP:FILMPLOT. The user waits, then expands the plot again to over 700 words with more content about the "naked"ness of the characters. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User is definitely behaving disruptively. I agree with this Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 23:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you see prose like "wisps of chiffon" etc, you can be pretty sure it's copy vio. In this instance, copied from here. I have rev-deleted the copy vio from S Club 7, Tina Barrett, and Seeing Double (film). Sorry folks, this means the above diffs don't work any more -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More than copyvio, this person is sharing his leering view of the world via Wikipedia. It's distasteful and trivial, the things that are important to him. It would be a better encyclopedia without his contributions. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dianna has already warned him/her; let's see if s/he takes the hint. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Obstinate reversions by User:JesseRafe at Jahlil Okafor

(moving discussion from WP:AN) User:JesseRafe has been paring down the Jahlil Okafor, which may have been overly detailed. As the primary editor, I am aware that I may have written more details than might have been optimal so I have not argued much about his edits. However, at the conclusion of his edits, I felt his reduction of the images from his high school career from 15 to 6 was not necessarily optimal and have attempted to restore the article to a total of 8 such images. We have been warring about whether a 6-image version or 8-image version is correct. Since that there was only one other discussion this year on Talk:Jahlil Okafor by July 2, I posted a centralized discussion on the issue at WT:NBA at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, where I felt many interested parties would be watching. I also left notifications at a few other talk pages that a centralized discussion would be held at this location. Since then, several discussants have contributed thoughts on the images at issue. Epeefleche, Rikster2, DangerousJXD, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and BU Rob13 have all contributed to the discussion. JesseRafe has not participated in the centralized discussion, but seems to feel that a comment at Talk:Jahlil Okafor in the section where I pointed out the centralized discussion was an adequate response. Currently, two images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) remain at issue. I have summarized what I believe to be the opinion on these images in this edit. I have repeatedly notified User:JesseRafe via edit summaries that it seems that these two images are supported by something resembling a consensus. After weeks of debate, he has still not participated in the centralized discussion, but continues to revert my edits. Furthermore, it is my opinion that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is about the best picture we have of the subject and his insistence upon its removal is not helpful to the reader. I have warned him not to keep reverting to his version at User_talk:JesseRafe#Warring_warning. Having warned him not to keep reverting, I am now asking for assistance here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony's claims in the edit summaries that he has consensus to keep the images are also not fully accurate. That discussion does not have a very clear consensus, and probably needs closure from an uninvolved editor or admin. Either way, the warring behavior in that article is inappropriate. As a side note, this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob, at the time I posted this edit, there was a reasonable consensus regarding File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG, which JesseRafe keeps trying to remove, but I welcome a neutral closure regarding the two images at issue, which is why I have brought the issue to the attention of the admins.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the consensus, but I also don't think it's clear-cut enough for someone close to the issue to be able to claim a clear consensus in their favor without a neutral closure, personally. That comment was meant to encourage a neutral closure, not claim any wrongdoing on your part. ~ Rob^Talk 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The above was moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like JesseRafe acted against consensus, at least from my perspective. BU Rob hit the nail on the head. I thought that we should keep the image of the face but remove one of the images from the high school section. An image of Okafor in a Duke uniform would be helpful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's likely a subjective issue to determine how many and which images are needed, and perhaps can only be decided by a pure count of !votes, but quick glance seems to indicate it's a weak consensus at best. The edit warring by TonyTheTiger and JesseRafe needs to stop. Take the high road, and let another editor make the changes, if any are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Update The discussion referenced above, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, has been closed by Ricky81682, who also update the article based on the outcome.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I closed the WT:NBA discussion, closed the related Talk:Jahlil Okafor discussion and changed the page back to the June version that was being discussed at the talk page. There's a number of changes that need to be done to update the page but hopefully those will not involve arguments about the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If the only warring that is going on is between the new version with 6 or 8 images, why did the page get reverted to an old 15 image version that no one was arguing for? That seems to be a step backward and the current debate is really over whether we should include 2 specific images in the new version. There is not really a debate about most other changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• It appears that Ricky81682 has revisited the editing of the article and left both of the contentious images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) out of the version that he has "restored". It seems that almost all respondents feel that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG should be in the article whether it be a 6-image or an 8-image version. It seemed that Epeefleche, Rikster2, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and myself have supported the image being in the article (here or in the previous centralized discussion). Meanwhile, DangerousJXD, JesseRafe and BU Rob13 seemed to oppose that specific image or versions of the article including it. Ricky81682, can you explain why you have restored the 6-image version and not included this particular image, which is probably our best representation of what he looks like. The image seems like it would fit in the upper right of the junior year (where I had it in the 8-image version). Can you comment on this particular image, since these were the two contentious images and you have made no attempt to clarify the omission of this image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to clarify if I have misinterpreted you, Ricky, but I believe his closing statement made clear that he's reverted to the version that most closely represents the consensus on image density and expects talk page discussion regarding specific image choice. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. I originally went back to the exact JesseRafe version proposed before but it seems like significant text was edited out which wasn't reflected there. The discussion was not, in retrospect, formatted ideally in my mind. On the basis that the two final reverting versions were similar in their text lengths, I presumed that the one I finally reverted it to was the one that reflects the consensus supporting the text cuts and the consensus from the WT:NBA on the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I got no issue with File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG being in the article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)O.K. I have started a discussion on the images that were at issue there. DangerousJXD can you respond there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've commented there. Obviously, I'm involved now so I wouldn't be the closing admin down the line. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT right in Croatia

Hello everyone!

Almost a year ago LGBT rights in Croatia article was a victim of homophobic campaign, and I am sad to see it happening again. Almost a year ago, a particular user got banned as he was making numerous changes not just to this article, but to many other articles concerning LGBT rights. Few days ago I have noticed identical problems happening again, but with a different user called user:sdino, who funilly enough has received warnings for the same things as the user in the past. It might be a coincidence, but it is interesting how both users are from Poland, and declare themselves to be anti gay marriage, very religious, and obviously homophobic. Now, I am not interested in their personal views, but Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of political campaign. This user has made numerous changes to this article in the past days, had removed big portions of it, and has inserted a pie chart, translating Croatian into English wrongly, just to make a point. He claims 45% of people in Croatia are "extremely" against same-sex marriage, but this survey states they are "strongly" against it. This is exactly how the problem started the last time. I argued that we don't need a pie chart for this as there are numerous surveys, and will be in the future so I cannot see the point of having just one pie chart for one survey, and ignore all the others, Which brings us to my argument that we shouldn't really have pie charts for surveys anyway, as it would just create a mess. This might not seem like a big problem, but few days from now we will see this user changing terms, using different words, trying to present LGBT movement as "promotion of homosexuality" etc.

He will make more changes just to create an illusion how people in Croatia hate LGBT individuals, and I would appreciate some help so we can stop this right now. Many people contribute to LGBT right in Croatia article, and have done a fantastic job, so why let anybody spoil it for their homophobia? Thank you very much for reading this. 11raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 has obviously chosen to go to this board instead of discussing itthe problem that has arisen. I am open to discussion and have put a substantial amount of effort into discussing the matter with User:11raccoon1. I would also like to be informed of this, because I was not, even though the header on this article states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." – Sdino (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week. Sdino broke 3RR and was up to seven reverts over three days. If they restore the pie chart again without gaining consensus on the talk page, they will receive a block. Number 57 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have reopened this thread. Sdino appears for all intents and purposes to be a single-purpose account whose only role on Wikipedia is to promote opposition to same-sex marriage. I would appreciate it if a few editors would review his contributions to see that they meet NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  hmmmmm. i wouldn't say they're single-purpose. they've edited a decent amount on other things relating to european politics. they definitely do have a lot of edits there, though, and i can definitely see some POV-pushing. poli 23:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem editing on alphabet pages

One user, editing now from two different IP addresses, 2404:E800:E61A:6F8:C8C4:5996:BE48:C3FB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 132.188.112.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is repeatedly adding/reverting the same type of poorly sourced claim to about 20 different articles on south and southeast Asian alphabets. The user has not engaged on talk pages (despite efforts), and in this third round of edits, the user claims to have already discussed the edits in the edit summary. They have been warned for edit warring, and although they have not technically violated the 3RR yet, the number of articles that this user changes at one time makes cleanup tedious. I've reported this here because although it's not a clear-cut case of 3RR/edit warring, it's problematic and could slip by if we're not paying attention. agtx 13:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also have attempted to engage this editor on one of his talk pages, notifying him of the location where previous discussions of his chosen issue have taken place (discussions which, btw, indicate that current consensus is overwhelmingly against him), yet he refuses to discuss and continues to just revert.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The editor also is using a third IP 2404:E800:E61A:6F8:4564:582C:C04C:9D53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do his damage, inserting the same edits and using the same edit summaries. There may be even more socks we haven't caught yet.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is no response to these complaints I recommend a block of all three IPs (the IPv4 and the two IPv6s) of at least a week. If they branch out to more IPs then we would want to semiprotect the alphabet articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I've just blocked the latest one (2404:E800:E61A:6F8:4564:582C:C04C:9D53) for 24 hours, but no objection to wider sanctions if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Again started the same activity

A person with the IP address 77.102.106.5 has again stated his activity of restoring Talaash (Colors TV series) article, and than redirecting it within 1 minute. I had complained it before also, and the result was no action against that person. Now it's the second time. I request to block that user. ЖunalForYou ^☎️📝 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

IP didn't appear to have been notified so I placed the standard notice on their talk. Zarcusian (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has been edit-warring with itself (using the same account), recreating and then redirecting the same article, over and over (13 times so far): [152]. Has done the same thing with other articles, including various seasons of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, and Code Red (Indian TV series) -- see Special:Contributions/77.102.106.5. Appears to have become more or less a Vandalism-only account, and probably needs as long a block as possible, in my view. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack and vandalism at Referential Integrity

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

---

119.111.33.59 vandalized the page twice: [153][154] I then reverted the IP: [155] They responded with a gross personal attack, then proceeded to vandalize the page further: [156][157][158][159] I have contacted them and warned them, and it seems that they've been warned and blocked in the past for vandalism. GAB (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have suggested semi protection but there are some IPs that contribute constructively so WP:RBI is basically the best option here .Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

IP "Robb Auber"

125.63.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 125.63.73.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (seems to be the same user) keeps adding a red link (Robb Auber) to the list of people surnamed Robb see here although there is no article on this person and the person is not surnamed Robb. Now they also vandalize pages that refer somehow to Robb or to Auber, see their contributions. Kraxler (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both for 31 hrs because these IPs are probably shared. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Suastiastu

Hello, I'm here to report the behavior of user:Suastiastu on pushing POV in the article Joko Widodo and pushed the article into the brink of edit-warring. His/her edits more or less violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most of his/her edits are negative and sounds like a smear campaign. The evidences are (here and here and here). He/she seems to ignore his/her talkpage and the article talk page after my attempts to invite him/her to address and discuss the editing disagreements. I would like to ask for a third-person/editor opinion and senior editor arbitration about this problem. What should we do to solve this...? Thank you. Gunkarta  talk  10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User: Louis Belasco

Reporting User:Louis Belasco starting an inappropriate edit war on Zola Budd removing her married name from the article. His only response, via edit notes, is he doesn't like it. On my second revert edit notes I urged him to check out WP:3RR but apparently that didn't work. I'm now going to try to find the template to warn him more directly. Trackinfo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User notified of ANI discussion. Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started a conversation on the talk page, which is where both of you should have gone. If I see one more revert from either of you on the article until a definitive consensus arises, the page might need to be protected. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So no admin is going to any action against Louis Belasco for reverting this section multiple times and removing section headers in another report here, after this was filed? Sorry, an order sending the kiddies back to the talk page is not enough. John from Idegon (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't block without giving a final warning of exactly what will get them blocked. Zzuuzz has done the deed. As for the article, experience has shown that if you go to WP:AN3 without any talk page discussion, at best you get no action and at worst you get a boomerang. Hopefully consensus will now form on talk and this will all blow over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie333, but in this case, what you usually do is not effective. This dude gets called here, right or wrong, and his reaction is to repeatedly blank the report at ANI, and when that is not disruptive enough, starts blanking things in other places on this board? The thing complained about by Blackmane is only the tip of the iceberg. Check out this guys short history. Looks pretty much WP:NOTHERE to me. "Married names are stupid". "Fuck you, John. Your not the boss of me". Two gem edit summaries. "He was racist against people who didn't speak French." on the bio of a Quebec politician. Behavior mimics a 10 year old. Someone needs to be warned they cannot behave the way this guy does? No wonder we cannot keep decent editors. John from Idegon (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not dish punishments out to people. If he carries on, he'll get indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps this qualifies for the indef. agtx 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 60 hours (before seeing this - came via a request at WP:RFPP). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Prasenjitmouri

User:Prasenjitmouri has all the telltale signs of a spamming sockpuppet. Start with some token edits. Wait until auto-confirmed. Create a token user page so it's not redlinked. Create a redirect where an article will be placed [160] (redirect to avoid NPPs from seeing the article). Upload a fully formed promotional article with lots of references [161] (quality of the refs are not important so long as there is lots). Do other random stuff so you don't look like a single purpose account. Problem is (besides the spamming and socking) their busy work involved dumping in Fictitious references. [162] Reference talks about a person, Bianca Nickleberry, not the place Nickleberry, Texas. [163] Article talks about a current turntable, not the 1980s Mister Disc. [164] are not about Audio Visual Warning Systems. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed classic signs of what yiu describe, Duffbeerforme, but it's cicumstantial evidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung. The fake references are not circumstantial evidence. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've witnessed similar behavior. User:Prasenjitmouri added a blank "Bloomberg" reference to SearchLock (see diff: Special:Diff/668136021/667376998) after it was nominated for deletion, and has not cooperated in helping me track down the issue number (since there is no mention of Searchlock in any online bloomberg publication), yet has had plenty of time to go on a "oneref" and "citation needed" spree on other articles. The Morningstar reference does not technically exist either, as it's from their automatic archive of Marketwired, a standard anything-goes press release website. Misleading. Wieldthespade (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Wikipediaw

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

---

User:Wikipediaw (contributions) has been editing a large number of articles, but based on a fast check all is vandalism. The typical moderatum includes randomly changing numbers in lists, orders of entries, or countries, making entire lists wrong and useless. He has been warned several times (see User talk:Wikipediaw), but simply moves on to a new list when the heat rises in one article. Here are the 5 most recent articles he edited:

• Random country switch: [165] (see "wdr_2011" citation in article; page 210 under East Europe)
• Random country switch [166] (Sofya Zhuk from Belgium?!)
• Changing to wrong country: [167] (Nazi Germany was a period and rule; see Weimar Republic)
• Random country switch [168] (Mikael Ymer from Finland?!)
• Random country switch [169] (Martina Hingis from Slovenia?!)

This is the pattern throughout. Indeed, his very first edit ([170]) involved the exact same. Although these changes may seem minor and some are reverted fast, in other articles things have been so messed up that it will take a lot of time to correct it. For example, in Global Peace Index (a featured article!), the list is now completely wrong because of a large number of edits by him (50+ edits!) and a few earlier by IP user:2602:306:BC57:480:9227:E4FF:FEED:D0B1 (contributions; he was also blocked twice). You can compare the current heavily vandalized list with the correct from before the vandalism started here (this is also noted the article's talk page). Interestingly, these two users also follow the same editing pattern, often even in the same articles, and both seem to have an interest in East European countries. When the mistakes introduced by user:Wikipediaw are reverted, he often reverts back as a review of his edits show. So, how do you deal with this? Is there an automated process than can mass revert all the mistakes he introduced (I did comment on this on talk page of Global Peace Index)? Regards, 62.107.216.149 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be at ANI, WP:AIV should be able to cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not too familiar with these processes. Should I just copy-and-paste the above and move it over there (modified to fit their format)? Thanks, 62.107.216.149 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, given the scope of the damage it won't hurt to have more eyeballs watching out. I'll raise it at AIV anyway, I think this is an immediate indef block until they reply and give some explanation.

GPI is a problem this is a sledgehammer version, to go all the way back to May. I've re-added some text changes since then that looked OK. If anyone is more familiar with the figures, please check them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My point (a very minor one) is that there's just not much to discuss here, it's "everyday" problem editing. Even if they're well intentioned (the Berlin olympics changes could be an honest mistake), then they're not changes we want to keep. AIV can usually cope with that OK. Thanks for raising it though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

AIV is not reliable, as too often the random admin will cop the "user not sufficiently warned" excuse, even when it's obviously a bad-faith user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I guess the "sledgehammer" version is good for now. At least that list appears correct now, which I assume is of high importance in a featured list. The GPI numbers are available online at least back to 2010 (I'll have to look for 2009/08), and I'll go through everything and add the citations. This will take some time and I may not be finished checking everything today. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

COI editor should probably be blocked

I happened to come across Donnie777 (talk · contribs) today. The account has existed since 2010, does not have a large number of edits, but all of the edits appear to be either to Serial Killers Ink, or to spam the latter in other articles, such as [171], [172]. In some cases, the editor has edit warred to force links that cover this website's sales activities [173]. I suspect a conflict of interest and/or outright spamming to promote this site's artwork sales. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Kindzmarauli:, have you talked to him about this? I can't see anywhere that he has had the WP:COI or spamming policies explained. The Taboo edits were from 2012, that's a little stale, and the rest of the edits seem scattered out over the years too. The COI and spamming policies that we have today do not allow us to punish someone for edits that were not violations of policy when they were made. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The spamming policy has been in place since well before that account was created. You really want the spamming policy explained to someone who (to me, clearly) seems affiliated with SKI and is spamming links to Wikipedia to advertise their store? This is a slam dunk. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just AfD the article (zero notability), remove the site-wide spam, and report the user at WP:COIN. There's probably no need to block the user unless he persists after that or starts socking. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Report on FkpCascais personal attacks

Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report.

It all started with this edit [174]. The edit is very simple. The RS listed on the article page states the following: "For Military Frontier, the king decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.". I wanted to include that in the article since the article is written in a simplistic way and it neglects the formal and the administrative aspect of the Military Froniter. The user FkpCascais reverted me without stating the reason([175]). In the second revert he stated the reason:"Removing controversial claim. Also, can we know to what exact period (year) the source is refering to?" ([176]). First of all the claim is not controversial but a direct quote from the reliable source listed in the article. This is already a sign of POV pushing. Another claim is that we can't know the exact period the source is referring to. This just proves the user did not even read the source as the year 1850 is clearly stated at the beginning of the passage, so yet another made up claim and another revert with no valid reason. My edit was initially supported by user Zoupan, who participated the editing that article for quite some time. He made several corrections to my edit and left it in the article. After FkpCascais objected he stated we need to discuss it on the talk page, so I turned to that discussion with my source.

FkpCascais kept objecting. He stated this "Now regarding your source (page 157), are you aware that it is not really a source for what you pretend here, but it is just Rudolf Horvat citing verbatim a decision from the Sabor? Was that decision acepted by the Austrians? Did that decision came into effect? You need a secondary source confirming that. We already saw secondary sources which told us how Croatian Sabor claimed Military Frontier, but Austrians rejected that.". This is a serious objection since he states I'm misinterpreting the source and that the subject of my quote isn't the king, but the Sabor. This is of course false and my quote clearly states the king as the subject. He further went to claim that I need a secondary source when in fact I provided a secondary source (another user will later provide the primary source).

To show that he is wrong in his claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king, I asked him to provide a quote from the source, and provided a quote from the same passage that states the subject who makes the claim from the initial quote: "kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers". Also the initial quote clearly states the subject: "For Military Frontier, the king decided...".

The user did not accept the argument and refused to provide a quote(1) for his claim that the Sabor is the subject. He went on with his claims that "You don't even understand what your source is... That is just a proposal from the Sabor, not a fact." He went on providing sources that speak of the administrative aspect , while the discussion is regarding the formal aspect. He is deliberately deluding those two aspects is a single vague word "control".

I again asked for the quote to sustain the claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king. He refused to provide the quote(2) and kept repeating the claim: "Regarding your source, simple grammar knolledge is enough to see that Rudolf Horvat in that entire chapter is just putting in everything that was ageed in the Sabor, that is why your "sourced citation" is in quotation marks. That is why it is primary source, and all you can do with it is just say Croatian Sabor claimed that."

Not to go to too much details he kept repeating the claim and refused to provide any quote to sustain it, although the passage we are discussing is only 2 pages long and although I already provided the quotes that are speaking of the subject. I stopped with the discussion with him and asked another editors to join so we can resolve that.

Tzowu had joined the discussion, found the primary source, agreed that the subject is the king and he made the edit. However, that isn't enough for FkpCascais since he made the following personal accusation "Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". No I'm not he one POV pushing, the source clearly spoke of the formal and administrative aspect and Tzowu had already introduced that in the article. FkpCascais is the one who is POV pushing and now when he made this personal accusation, I'm making this report.

The second thing. FkpCascais had made an edit in the article in such a way that he manipulated the original quote from the source by adding vague terms, unsupported by any source. I reverted that and he went to edit warring over that. Again, his claims are false and the other user participating the discussion is agreeing with that.

Third thing. After Tzowu made the edit by entering the claim from the source, I restructured the text without adding any claims. FkpCascais went on reverting me by repeating the claims about the Sabor being the subject. He reverted me although I haven't introduced that claim to the article, but Tzowu.

He is reverting everything that doesn't fit his point of view, although it is supported by sources. He keep misinterpreting the sources and when asked to provide a quote to sustain his interpretation he refuses. He keeps edit warring with that kind of behavior and the final straw was the personal attack against me. I had to made this report.

The article Military_Frontier and the talk page [177], discussions start from "Austrian vs local control". Detoner (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Does the phrase TL;DR ring a bell? I actually read it and I can't seem to find the actual personal attack(s), just a content dispute gone haywire. That may just be me, though. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the long post. I'm aware I could have written it more clearly. The personal attack is at the bottom of the talk page. To repeat it:"Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". This has already entered the article and I'm being accused for POV pushing although the other editor had introduced that to the article. So this is a clear personal attack. I didn't made the edit and I'm being accused of POV pushing because I agree with the edit. I haven't really bothered to make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard, and because other editors had already agreed and introduced the source to the article, however I made one now along with the case of personal attack. I will also note that this is not the first time for this user to behave in this way. On Nikola Tesla article he also behaved in this way by using unreliable sources and rejecting everything that doesn't agree with his personal opinion. I really do not have the time to deal with him so I left that discussion, but he appeared on Military Frontier as well. Also I invite Michael_Cambridge to this discussion since he had been participating the Tesla discussions for a longer time than me and he had also warm about the behavior of this user. Also, may I ask you something. How did you managed to read this report and make your own post in just 5 minutes, not to mention the discussions. Detoner (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No personal attack took place. I note that in your very long post you accuse Fkpcascais of POV pushing. By your own logic, you appear Ito have made a personal attack. Work it out on the talk page, because if everyone who edited in the Balkans area was blocked for accusing someone of POV pushing, I doubt there would be any editors left to edit. AniMate 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I made a report which is different from stating personal accusations on talk pages. And yes, I reported POV pushing which had escalated to personal attacks. I already stated I didn't make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard. I agree with you, but the thing is that this POV pushing had escalated to personal attacks, and this is not the first time this had happened to the discussions this user is participating. I did not accuse the user of POV pushing on the talk page not even once even though I plead at least 5 times for him to provide the quote which he had refused. Instead he kept repeating that the source says something without providing any quote. I think any reasonable person would lost their nerves with this kind of attitude. This is an experienced user and he obviously knows he can get along with this kind of behavior on that talk pages. How else would you describe the behavior where someone claims that the source says something but refuses to provide any quote and ignores all quotes that disprove him. Well if you think that kind of POV pushing is allowed, then ok, but I made a case of the POV pushing that escalated to personal attacks and I ask of the admins to protect me from those attacks. I already left one article because of the behavior of this user, and I'm on the verge to leave this one as well. Finally, yes I made a report about the POV pushing, and not an accusation on talk page. Let's not accuse everyone who makes a report of POV pushing that he is making a personal attack. How else is someone to make a report of POV pushing? And lastly, this is not a report of POV pushing, but the report about personal attack, and the POV pushing is the context. And let me see if I got it right. The other editor makes the edit. I repeat it on the talk page, and I'm being accused of POV pushing. That is not a personal accusation to you?Detoner (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. He is unable to drop the stick and accept that reliable scholar sources do not agree to any of his ideas. He was among the group that caused immense troubles and drove people to exhaustion at Nikola Tesla talk-page... As he couldn't make Tesla more Croatian, he is now trying to alter borders and history, but tough luck for him, this is an encyclopedia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of personal attacks by this user. His accusations are totally false, and like he refused to provide a quote for his earlier claims he is now doing the same thing. He makes accusations without a single edit of mine to sustain them. Please protect me from this kind of behavior. The case is pretty simple. Another editor had made an edit (supported by RS) and I had repeated it on talk page. Then this user accused me of POV pushing. Now he is calling for a block. I'm thinking of returning to editing via IP, because I can't handle this any more. I haven't yet seen a case where a certain editor is deliberately lying the source says a certain thing and when confronted by a request to provide a quote, he refuses it and goes to personal attacks. Detoner (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets end up this charade OK? For anyone interested in seing what is going on, everthing is explained here: Talk:Military_Frontier#Proposal_1. This user claims Military Frontier was part of Croatia and all he has is ONE source in Croatian which doesnt even say what he wants it to say, while I provided 5 English-language reliable sources CLEARLY saying Habsburgs ruled directly Military Frontier till 1881 and only then part of MF was incorporated in Croatia. For God sake, it is widely documented historical period with plenty of English-language sources and this user is unable to find even one confirming his claims, and how many more I need to find? BTW, all other participants agree with me, and no one agrees with him, so what he wants besides a boomerang? FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, the other long time editor of that page had agreed and the source itself is reliable and listed in the article page. The edit had already entered the article and not by me. Why are you making personal attack towards me, when I haven't entered that to the article? Detoner (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

After knowing all we know from English-language reliable sources presented in discussions regarding Habsburg control of MF, your controversial edit is extremely disruptive and clearly POV-pushing. Also, anyone can read your discussion with Tzowu on your talk-page (section Reply) and see how he is not agreeing with you at all, and he is actually opening your eyes, but you keep ignoring everything and everyone. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Again false and again without any reference to any edit to sustain that. He agreed with me by stating that "Certainly the Croatian Military Frontier formally belonged to Croatia, or the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier (as it was called) to Croatia-Slavonia." and by entering that in the article: "and despite the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land with separate administration,[15] there was no merger of the Croatian-Slavonian Frontier with Croatia, but further separation of them.". The second quote is directly the quote I pointed to. Please stop accusing me of POV pushing because I haven't made the edit to the article. Detoner (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yet another big spam from a well-known troll called Asdisis, Michael Cambridge, now Detoner.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if we should jump to that conclusion yet. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This user Detoner is WP:NOTHERE and his only purpose here is to add Croatia to Nikola Tesla article. Since his attempts didn't went well there, now he is tring to mess up the article about the administrative unit of the Austrian Empire Tesla was born in, the Military Frontier. His edits and his behavior at discussions are clear and pure WP:TE. He even now continues to battle at Tesla talk page pushing the same POV it was Croatian land he was born in (see diff) despite numerous editors having reached consensus there after tons of reliable sources were analised that he is not right. He just continues his crusade here and will not stop despite all evidence against. Senior editors User:MrX and User:Chetvorno can say the painfull reality that has been dealing with this disruptive user. Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked just because of the same attitude this user is having, I see that Detoner is even worste because knowing it all he just continues on and on with same arguments and no sources, it has been ludocris. We really shouldn't allow such nationalistic single-purpose accounts here on our project. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

He is so obsessed with it, that even in comments he cant avoid not to continue to push it again and again despite tons of sources and consensus already established that MF was not Croatian, besides that diff I pointed out, another clear case of that is this one as well (diff). He says " it is hard to believe that the Croats were a minority in Croatia" despite knowing perfectly well it is not Croatia but MF we are talking about there, but he ssimply cant resist not to spread the POV that MF is Croatian. I am not good in reporting at ANI, but this seems clear WP:TE of the worste kind, every single intervention here, every single comment he insists on it, despite having been presented with numerous reliable sources clearly saying otherwise, consensus having been reached, having no sources, and absolutely no one supporting him. How to stop such a nationalistic warrior? Please help. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The report made against FkpCascais by Detoner is accurate in every detail. In my dealings with FkpCascais, he seems to discredit any Croatian source. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless of the language it is written in. A section of the Military Frontier was indeed a part of Croatia and it was known as the Croatian Military Frontier, as evidenced by the following maps- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1848).png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1868).png. Nikola Tesla was born in the Croatian Military Frontier. In the face of all the strong evidence to support the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia FkpCascais still refuses to believe it. FkpCascais' POV pushing, personal attacks and discrediting of reliable sources is way out of line. Appropriate disciplinary measures need to be taken immediately.Michael Cambridge 04:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Hello, this is Asdisis. I was blocked because I kept battling this user and his disruptive behavior. He is a long time editor who knows how to push his stand and I think Detonar will finish up like me. It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with FkpCascais ends up being accused of POV pushing and in many cases reported. He managed to ban me and another ip user who happened to came from the same city I come from. Later he admitted his mistake about the user when he saw that the user doesn't disagree with him. He also made 3 more puppet accusations, all false. One was against Michael Cambridge, the other 2 against ip guys, where in one case he admitted his mistake and in another case he made a report that was rejected. If you go to discussions you will see the behavior and that other editors are disagreeing with his rampage. Also he has friends among admins. I'm surprised no one of them had already supported his cause. Also I agree, he is deliberately lying and making up claims and accusations. I'm sure he is doing that right now. Also I see there is an oped puppet report against Detonar. I'm sure FkpCascais has something to do with it. So to sum it up, everyone who doesn't agree with him is being personally attacked, discredited as pov pusher and reported. I'm sorry I haven't made this kind of reports because constantly repeated lie becomes the truth, and I became discredited because of the constant personal attacks by FkpCascais, which led to being banned for no reason at all. If I was banned then FkpCascais should also be banned because he is demonstrating the behavior worst that mine. He is accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him.Detonar you will finish up banned so I suggest you leave him in his rampage. There is nothing that can be done against long term editors who know the rules and how to POV push. Also the personal attack against you is very clear. Also I add the KIENGIRs post about FkpCascais here: "Fkcapcais seem not to like any source with Croatian roots". I was often being accused of being Croatian although I haven't declared myself not even once, as if being Croatian is something wrong. I haven't even once accused Fkcapcais of being Serbian and editing Croatian articles by entering his POV. He doesn't know anything about Croatian history. A while ago he claimed Military Frontier is a crown land and now in the discussion i see a claim that Croatia had their own kind in the Austro-Hungary. Imagine if I were to claim that Scotland has their own king. He has been POV pushing for a long time and that has to stop. I don't thing a week of ban would suffice.82.214.103.10 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evading IP

Earlier this week, Materialscientist from the 85.211.x.x range for repeated insertion of unsourced future air dates into ongoing anime episode lists and articles. I had previously |brought this user to AN's attention before, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, WP:IDHT and a British IP) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists) but no action was taken at the time. Currently, this user is serving out a block under the IP 85.211.136.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they are not at 85.211.205.28 (talk) and continue to insert unsourced future air dates despite being under a block. I've already alerted Materialscientist to this new IP, but he may be away at the time. This IP editor has had a long history of switching IPs and inserting unsourced information into anime articles for several months. Some articles had to be semi-protected for the duration of their seasons. However, despite all the complains about this user's activities, the user has never responded, and in fact double down on their problematic edits. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Now operating under the ip 85.211.142.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to TheFarix (feel free to removed when remedied): I believe in your opening sentence the word "from" should be "blocked".(?) Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A "relative" owning an article

Burridheut (talk · contribs) persistently removes referenced material regarding Spiro Koleka belonging to the Greek community of Albania. Here are some of his comments (diffs): "Do not use inaccurate information on purpose, not on this page.", "Removed text about Greek origin. There is no historic/official evidence that this Spiro Koleka has any greek ancestry. On the contrary, he could not have been a politburo member if that was the case.", "You are editing my article", etc. He claims that "I know better his origin as he was my family member! I will report you for spreading separatist propaganda with your Wikipedia edits.". I have presented WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to him. Compare this diff.--Zoupan 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste content after move

Christian75 (talk · contribs) first moved a template, then copy/pasted code into the old page. This is bad.

Original page: Template:Recent changes in Chemistry

Moved to Template:Recent changes in Chemicals (note the diff is -mistry vs. -icals)

Then c/p code [178].

One hour earlier I already noted that that the name change was not a good idea: [179].

I have tagged the new page (created by the move) for Speedy T3, duplicate code. Surprisingly/stunningly, Christiaan75 removed the speedy tag [180].

What is needed now is to restore the page history (attributions, mostly mine). Also, given that the editor is making disruptive edits afterwards, some measurement may be needed to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: See the talk page of the template. And your edit summary says "[...] I won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway". But its not your user page. The WP Chemical projects have all the chemical articles (which use the {{chembox}}). I moved the template because it was named chemistry, but didnt contain articles which are related to WP Chemistry, but only articles related to WP Chemicals. Therefore, I created a new template which have recent changes for all articles in Category:WikiProject Chemistry articles but you insist to undo it. Why? Please explain.

I removed the speedy deletion request because I didnt think it should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." I am not the creator, and I hope you will undo you recent edit Christian75 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. You did not discuss a single edit. The move was disputed, and you knew it beforehand. The copy/paste is not allowed at all. The code was copied, so it's deletable. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've functionally reverted to the pre-war edition. Christian75, please observe the following statement in the license. "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties...". You didn't attribute the source of the template code, so you committed a copyright infringement. Don't repeat. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend and DePiep: The talk page got a {{copied}} (but after I made the template, but the talk page is now deleted when Nyttend moved the template back) (The edit summary said something like "from chemicals" which I realized wasnt very helpfull but should have been more clearly. Btw, the template was created by DePiep with the edit summary "from RC in Anatomy" - IS THAT OK? and DePiep please comment my comments and not just say "Wikilayering". Christian75 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

On attribution, you're right; I'm sorry. But on general issues, still please don't copy/paste content from one place to another, if for no other reason than that it's confusing. It's easy to see that the older template was created from Template:Recent changes in Anatomy, since the previous edit involved moving that template to a different title. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "chemicals" changed. I thought that they are what they are.

Anyway, the name change seems like a really terrible idea. BMK (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

FrozenFan2 (talk · contribs) just violated the WP:NLT policy with this edit. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While FrozenFan2 has been walking a very thin line in regard to personal attacks and troublesome editing, the edit referenced here is not a legal threat. It's a wish for something legal to happen to other editors and is a very immature personal attack. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The user's comments do qualify as a legal threat under Wikipedia's definition, and he's also posting unsourced BLP stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement is "I need to know what you name is because your going to get sued pretty soon!" That's a legal threat. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

They said they wanted my name so they could sue me. It isn't a wish it is a demand. For the record FF2 was notified of this thread and then removed the post here MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Demanding the identity of an editor and threatening legal action - that's an indef. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) That is indisputably a legal threat, not a particle of doubt about it, and combined with their history of disruptive editing -- primarily adding unsourced or very badly sourced information to BLP articles even after having been warned about it, but also including several recent WP:DIVA "retirements" during which he continued editing ("one last edit", "just one more edit", "my last edit on Wikipedia" etc.) -- this editor is overdue for a sancttion. Check out the history of his talk page (which is a bit difficult because he deletes everything immediately after it is posted) abd you'll find warning after warning, as well as some well-intentioned advice from a number of editors, which has been entirely ignored. BMK (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You know what? My mistake. I was looking only at the edit summary and not the talk page comments. Yep, that was definitely a legal threat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

I think their talk page access should be revoked per this edit summary and this edit. A very frustrating user now going bonkers. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• As a side, no one bothered to give FF2 {{Ds/alert}}, so I have done so in case FF2 returns to editing (and unblocked), but the alert was promptly removed in the second diff Callmemirela linked. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

His English is so bad, he could have been blocked on grounds of incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that even remotely possible to block someone based on their competence? I can stand typos but not every-day mistakes, such as not capitalizing I's when talking about yourself and so on. His English is better from what I have encountered in the past. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Yoshi123Yoshi

This editor appears to be an single purpose account pushing a fringe point of view about Standard penetration tests in that article and in Boring (earth). He seems to be here to right great wrongs and is not here to help write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. A number of editors have reverted his edits and posted on his talk page, but he continues as if he he didn't hear what they said. If he doesn't start to contribute in a more productive and less biased way, I believe he should be blocked from editing indefinitely. BMK (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)