Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SamuelDay1 (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 21 April 2015 (→Need auick block and deletions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    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

    Disruptive sock/proxy IP

    120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

    The blocked sock [8] modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock [9] modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

    I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here [10] about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, [11] the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles, [12] [13] [14] inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

    Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me. Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with 120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs) and Mkb764920 (talk · contribs) show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The disruptive sock acting as if it could not hear me again re-inserted the same unsourced nonsense into the sentence about the lawsuit. This is the second time after my talk page explanation of 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC), linked above. Using faux, disruptive edit summaries like "sorry three revert rule" is the typical behavior of the recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs). I would like to request admin closure. Kristina451 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    administrator pls see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kristina451 she sock and violate 3RR first now want revenge to say I am socker !! Mkb764920 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PortugueseManofPeace based his sockpuppetry allegation on "semantic analysis" of the "writing style" [15] of a template I posted to his talk page. The blocked sock pretended to not know what a template is, the new sock pretends to not know what 3RR is. Mkb764920's account on ja.wikipedia.org was created on April 10, 2015 and has never made an edit. Kristina451 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 87.81.147.76 refusing to accept consensus

    87.81.147.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly re-inserted material against the conclusion of an RFC in which he participated relating to an illustration of Mohammed at Islamic Calendar. RFC concluded;

    The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
    — [[User: HiDrNick!]] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

    The editor has amended the caption of that image at least 8 times since the RFC closed. 10:50, 21 March 2015, 16:58, 22 March 2015, 11:54 23 March 2015, 16:43, 23 March 2015, 10:07, 9 April 2015, 14:53, 9 April 2015, 10:47, 13 April 2015 , 10:58, 13 April 2015

    The user is also agressive and borders on personal attacks on the talk page; Last paragraph Last paragraph - Aspersions based on other pages edited

    They have repeatedly taken this discussion to other venues such as the ANI thread on phantom consensus[16],[17],[18],[19],[20] and a discussion of general sanction templates[21],[22] on my talk page.

    Can an Admin make them go away. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [23] Is now hounding me at an ArbCom request thread. I believe they've done similar to @NeilN: but I'll leave it to him to ring that up if he feels it necessary.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SPACKlick. It was one thing when the IP confined themselves to Talk:Islamic calendar but now they've taken to derailing unrelated conversations, often with blatant misrepresentations and attacks, as shown by the diffs above. --NeilN talk to me 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now attacking user:Tarc at the talk page diff SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from archive until resolved. SPACKlick (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doorknob747

    After seeking out some advice [24] I am a bit concerned about this user. I do not know the user's intentions but he/she appears to be building spam pages under their user-space [25]. When Door tried to post the "proposal" on the anime and manga talkpage he/she was reverted [26][27] twice and readded the material using an IP address [28] which I undid. I do not know if this is a pattern but it does not appear to be constructive. I am pinging KirtZJ, SephyTheThird, and Esw01407 as they were involved/observers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say I'm involved, merely an observer. However observations of the user in question have proven to be quite disturbing. Summarizing what I outlined to Knowledgekid, the user in question has proven to be disruptive on the WT:A&M on numerous occasions by treating it more like a forum instead of an actual discussion page with their borderline spam-like posts. In addition, numerous project editors including TheFarix, DragonZero, Areaseven and Juhachi have offered editing advice to the user and they have shown no attempt at taking any of it. They have also been involved in a recent edit war which included the use of an IP to game the 3RR system and have been trying to advertise the creation of numerous spam pages and look to be in the stages of linking them to the WP:A&M project in some way. Coupled with the inclusion of false information on numerous articles, I suggest some kind of action be taken here. —KirtMessage 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They edit New York City Subway articles constructively, so I don't think they're totally disruptive. That is a very narrow topic, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the nerves being frayed thing is big, editors have been trying to explain things but either Door doesn't understand or doesn't get that what he/she is doing is wrong. So in the end, it is frustrating to editors involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With the page User:Doorknob747/database/proposal, it looks like Doorknob wants to create something for WikiProject Anime that is similar to WP:AFC. Epic Genius (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I was starting to think, its a good proposal but we already have it in that form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I'm not really sure what to think. It's all just a bit odd, and it's difficult to balance good faith and well, the opposite. I think it's quite clear they need to slow down and try to fit to some degree, and I really don't understand the whole proposal thing. It's very odd a user would try to implement significant changes without some sort of long term edit history. As for any proposal, it's difficult enough to organise a group focus as it is due to lack of experienced editors and their time, we really don't need to be told someone has a proposal that they can't talk about. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What Epicgenius said was true. Also, if you want to know something I have been editing since either 2012- 2013, only reason why I increased editing was because only recently I divided to start editing more. Also, the first reverting I considered as him just saying that to post it after I created the proposal which I did. The proposal was an idea based on the fact that, there are IP users who want to creat a article that is related to the topic anime, but due to reasons, IP addresses can not create a new page. The doc pages which are precreated can be considered somewhat like a sandboxed proposed article with code. Consider it a advanced version for article request on the Wikiproject anime for IP users. Also, there was no discussion on why it was rejected after posting a link to the plan layout. Second of all, I tought that since someone removed it withought stating a reason in the first place that that person was vandalizing. Sephy did say that after I finish creating the proposal that to place it on the talk page. Now how would one place 6 to 7 pages on a talk page? That is why I placed a link. The description of the proposal could be seen after clicking the link. The users that think that this was vandalism, are not trying to look proper, I do not think none of them clicked that link, and assumed every thing on wikiproject anime talk page was the whole proposal. Another thing, it would be redundant and a east of time to copy and past what ever was on the linked page. The reason why I placed the idea of the proposal on the page was because it would give a somewhat visual feel of how the proposal after being accepted and completed will have a similar look to. Also, few edits≠bad user. There are admins that have been seen to vandalize the Main Page even! # of edits does not mean anything. The intensions of allof the edits over all and the amount of time since the account was created matters not the amount of edits. A person that may have made 2 very good edits can not be considered as being bad if compared with a admin with 340000 edits, who knows, maybe that admin after getting adminship after 2000 edits may have 320000 edits of VANDALISM! You guys are speculating me. The NYCT wikiproject is much better community of people where people do not speculate but help each other. 216.37.100.94 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also epic genius patrolled the pages and found nothing wrong. I am not accusing u of Wikipedia hounding but that's how I feel like as I you guys are after me. 😨😩☹ 216.37.100.94 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the reason behind the multiple IP addresses is because, I edit from my college campus, home, and from my celphone when I am on the subway.
    Is there a reason you can't log into your Wikipedia user account from college campus, home or the subway? It's hard to have a sustained conversation when you are split between two different accounts, a user account and an IP which probably changes. For something as elaborate as what you are proposing, people need to be able to communicate with you on your talk page which is difficult if you are utilizing different types of accounts. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For some odd reason where I edit from my cellphone most of the time, my cellphone does not like to remember the username and passwords for sites. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My fist encounter with Doorknob747 was when he inserted a link to a Facebook fan page on Anime with comments to "go like the page and followit".[29][30][31][] He also inserted the same link to several other articles under both his account and with IPs.[32][33][34]. Doorknob747, has also used IPs to insert blatantly false information into several other articles.[35][36][37] (edit self identifying as Doorknob[38]) After the incident with the Facebook fanpage, he has generally been harassing WP:ANIME with one frivolous proposal after another. [39][40][41][42][43] The editor has also made several attempts to insert blatant original research into Gundam related articles[44][45] and demand that other editors add in the sources to verify the information for him.[46]
    At best, he should be topic banned from the anime and manga topic area and probably an interaction ban with members of WP:ANIME, both broadly interpreted. He has not shown any capability to work with any of the editors there nor edit in a constructive manner. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not involved with the present issue (related to anime and manga) but I have interacted with him before. Doorknob747 (talk · contribs)'s history on WP looks to me like a failure to enculturate, something I've seen in a number of new editors recently. Door does not seem willing or able (or some combination thereof) to learn how things are already being done on Wikipedia and work accordingly. Instead he just proceeds with his own plans and methods, despite numerous comments to his talk page. In the last couple of months he's gone on a tag-bombing spree, an over-WLinking spree, insisted that article names mentioned in the opening sentence must be "referenced" to a dictionary, created several empty talk pages without putting anything on them (he apparently thought that an article or a user without a talk page was a problem of some sort), created an "award", etc. Requests for him to sign his talk page posts went on for months. And now here is this cumbersome idea for assisting IP users to create new pages, when we already have WP:AFC.
    There is also a point that no one seems willing to mention (an "elephant in the room", if you will): Door has so far shown very little ability or willingness to construct English prose at the quality level expected here. This is not confined to talk pages: See for example the original version of this article, which he created. This was so bad that I AFDd it. During the discussion period it got improved to the point where its existence is no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but... oy.
    Does all this add up to a WP:CIR case? Or WP:NOTHERE? I feel strongly that Door is acting in GF, that he intends to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't think he understands very much about what the encyclopedia is expected to be and how we're supposed to improve it, despite his having been editing for most of a year. And IME, such a degree of English incompetency does not get better with a few talk page warnings. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no mention of his poor English skills because it was obvious that English is not his native language. —Farix (t | c) 23:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I thought we were dealing with a child editor but then thought of this as well later on. I think that it can be summed up here that Door isn't listening to what other editors have to say either because the language barrier is too great or that it is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be possible, but look at Doorknob's style of editing. They make edit summaries like "jdbdhdbd" and "spongebob", for, you know, edits not about "jdbdhdbd" and Spongebob. Also, it looks like their vocabulary isn't that large. Even non-native speakers of English can be fluent in the language, and it's entirely possible that he's not a college student, not that I think Door is lying. – Epic Genius (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a native English speaker but, the edits with grammar mistakes was done on my Nokia Lumia Icon. Also, just to let you know, the Nokia Lumia Icon's onscreen keyboard is very sensitive to sweat; the Nokia Lumia Icon is known to get warm or somewhat hot. Also, on the cellphone I edit in desktop mode, so typing can be a little clumsy. Also, it very hard to scroll thru a edit source textbox due to a bug in its browser, that is why I do not go back and check spelling when I edit on he cellphone. Right now, as you can see, this edit has good grammar because, I am editing on my laptop. Most of my edits are made on the cellphone.  :( Doorknob747 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but if your tools don't permit you to do a good job (or to log into your account!), then you shouldn't use them to edit Wikipedia—particularly not in article mainspace. But the concern applies on talk pages too, since good communication is essential to the collaborative work that is supposed to be our norm. And there is more to writing college-level expository prose than grammar. Jeh (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And now this. I'm not sure what he thinks he is trying to do, but he is definitely not helping. —Farix (t | c) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get an admin to look into this? Im not sure what to do here, I am seeing editors getting fed up though with all of these things building up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doorknob747 has also done things like this which don't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever.--十八 08:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nommed for deletion on Commons. Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actions of Wikiproject anime fits in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding perfectly at 85%. Doorknob747 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding is generally a charge brought against one person. When a whole bunch of people find problems with your editing, it's likely it's not them, it's you. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor may be a problem. He left me a inaccurate "warning" message on my talk page, so I took a look into his contributions, and they're a combination of really silly (a new redirect, sending "withought" to "without"?), apparently incompetent (adding photos captioned by the name of the photograph, where the name is something like "WP 20150325 19 55 28 Pro"), and useful (correcting misspellings), providing information (apparently accurate) for subway articles. I didn't get very deep into the list, but the impression I got was... I dunno... a sometimes helpful but incompetent quasi-t*****. I'm not making any accusations, this is strictly a very superficial and preliminary evaluation, but it does seem to say that it's worthwhile keeping an eye on his edits, because some of them are definitely... um, not very helpful. I don't know if it's WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE or something more (or less) serious. BMK (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem, everyone relax! Admin WilyD removed my speedy delete request for the utterly ridiculous redirect of "withought" to "without", so now he's going to be responsible for Doorknob747's incompetent and incomprehensible edits from now on! Let's all wish him a fine old time, and we can all go and have a beer. BMK (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His most recent edits are troubling. The "good" ones do nothing visible, while the bad ones mess up the part in quotation marks at the top. Going by this and this, he uploads videos/photos and then "finds them a home", which I find a bit puzzling. Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the admin believe that this behavior is a positive thing for Wikipedia than so be it, but it should be taken into consideration how many editors are noticing and being effected by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (It was a joke. As far as I know WilyD has made no general comment concerning Doorknob's edits. BTW, I'm now convinced that this is a WP:CIR problem, and not trolling or WP:NOTHERE.) BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a contested redirect speedy deletion, so it should be sent to WP:RFD. Epic Genius (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please do, BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually have been trying to enroll in a wikipeidia test educational course where they teach you how to edit Wikipedia. But recently the educational programs are all buggy an many users claim having a hard time enrolling in, I am enrolled in to of those Wikipedia teaching programs as a student but, the instructors ar4e too lazy too teach like the test program at Wikipedia University, which was good, but I enrolled on the last day of the course so I got a F.  :( Someone here needs to make another one where we users can learn about Wikipedia. U guys can see what I am talking about when u go to my contribution page, and on the top it will say this user is part of these two courses, and those two courses have sleeping instructors! Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Will there be a good Wikipedia education course like Wikipedia university had?  :( Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone here be my and another users instructor in Anke now(2015)?Doorknob747 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You signed up for courses named "Education Program:Test/Anke-now" and "Education Program:Example University/Test (test)" neither of which had filled in any information, and you didn't think that just maybe Sputniza, who is both an instructor and student in both had set them up to test the program? Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How to edit Wikipedia: 1. Find an article you are interested in that needs help, 2. Fix it. No proposals, no uploaded images, just start slow and then go from there please. If you need to use your sandboxes to test your edits and look at what is already in the articles. In most cases articles suffer from sourcing problems, ask for help with one article at a time that's what I did and many others have done as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cant do that then im sorry per WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:NOTHERE Wikipedia is not the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Jeh (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!Doorknob747 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not take its advice as a list of "rules" which you then feel compelled to enforce by another round of tag-bombing. Jeh (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But, technically those pages could get more catagories, and also capacitors fall under components of circuit boards, digital logic, flip flops, voltage manipulation, and etc. are related to capacitor. I do not know the category name for those categories and that is why I placed that tag there. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just STOP any activity concerning categories on Wikipedia. You are making unnecessary work for other editors. You clearly do not understand enough about how categories work (or about how they are used) to enable you to form valid opinions about them. In this case, "Capacitors" is a subcategory of two other categories, which in turn are subcategories of... etc. Many of the things you suggest that are "related to" capacitors can be found in other "branches" of this "tree". Just because something is "related to" or used in something else doesn't mean we put it in the same category with the something else. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FreeatlastChitchat

    The problems with this editor continue. In the most recent ANI last month, Toddy1 observed: "FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam..." —This modus operandi is now on display at the Rape jihad article, which FreeatlastChitchat seeks to "gut" without establishing consensus following failure at two recent AfDs (one launched by him days after the completion of the previous) to delete the article.

    Edit-warring behavior consists of repeatedly blanking entire sections (he has never attempted to improve any part of the article). Difs (I'll dispense with fancy page templates since I'm not accusing him of 3RR and thus time-stamps aren't that important, but suffice to say that all of these have occurred during the last week): [47],[48] (edit summary berates others to explain themselves on the talk page despite not having appeared there himself to seek consensus),[49] (claims, ad nauseam, that sources are not reliable despite being unable to establish such a consensus on the talk page or at the AfDs),[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57], [58],[59],[60].

    Addendum: I've been adding to these as the days roll by. ChitChat has now reverted at least five different editors to blank a section, even after being warned against section-blanking. As of 4/16, section-blanking represents 100% of his editing activity at the article.

    I placed a level-3 warning at his TP on the 13th (after reverting his edits when he was at 2RR); he responded an hour later by submitting the article to AfD again (see link above). It was speedily kept, and he immediately resumed reversion. The warning was not acknowledged.

    In light of this unchanged pattern and demonstrated imperviousness to repeated warnings (his talk page history is a rash of warnings, including another added today concerning the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, a topic I have no involvement in) and persistent unwillingness to listen to counterarguments, I am suggesting a block for a length of time to be determined (last block was 24hrs), and a topic ban from Islam/Muslim/Jihad-related topics for a length of time to be determined (and that should be broadly construed to also include India/Pakistan conflicts, both contemporary and historical). Pax 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly I have no Idea why my entire editing behavior is under attack here. But even then I will explain my behavior and why I have warnings on my talk page. Wall of text is ahead so bear with me please. I will start with my block for 24 hours for warring on Islam. Unbeknown to me I was being tag teamed by four sock puppets. When one left off the other would take up the warring.So yes I lost my cool and I was banned for 24 hours. However due to the warring bhaviural evidence was found to administer a check on the guys who were engaging me and they were found to be a puupet farm.Here you can read about the long term abuse by the person I warred with. I would like to add that the material the puppet master wanted to add was controversial and was removed(by another editor, not me) as soon as his puppet farm was made redundant. So if I am to be blamed for a past block now, I would like to know the rationale behind it.
    Now we come to the warnings which I have left open on my talk page. The first one is about the role of Shah Jahan(a minor prince) in the Mughal Empire. He has nothing to do with religion, the dispute was about who killed him, Islam, or muslims had nothing to with it. Furthermore you can see that even though my edit appeared to be "controversial" it was only bold and the edit was not without reason. The discussion about the edit is ongoing. So if this is something I am going to be blocked for I would like the blocker to provide me some rationale or a precedence about the block.
    Lets now talk about the Indo Pak war of 1971. This is an article which I have edited only twice the entire time I have been on Wikipedia. I was merely correcting sourced info. If you look here, you will see that the real warrior who was reverting everyone has been blocked for making a ton of reverts on the article.This edit is also not about Islam or muslims as both Bangladesh and Pakistan are muslim countries who follow Islam. If someone thinks that this issue is Islam related they should provide some rationale. So if this is the reason I am going to be blocked I would like to inquire abouts its reasoning too.
    The fourth warning on my talk page has not been left by the user dawndusk even if it may appear that he has signed the warning. It is actually the user reporting me who put the warning there but did not sign his name so that the next guy commenting will sign his comment and it will look as if the next guy warned me. This is clear here. Although DawnDusk has been trying to get the same material put back into the article so it will be in his favour for me to get a ban. As is clear from his comment below.
    We now move onto my edits and reverts on the article rape jihad. I have tried to voice this on the talk page but the user reporting me does not seem to be in the mood to discuss. I reverted /deleted/removed content which says that Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was included in rape jihad. The reasons for my removing the material were that firstly the entire page dedicated to the scandal does not mention the word jihad even once. Secondly, the newspapers which reported the scandal have not 'once' mentioned the word rape jihad as being the motivation behind these attacks. I have read almost 895 news stories by now and I have not found any mention of this being a religiously motivated attack. The only source given for this being a rape jihad is an opinion piece from the ultra right, ultra conservative, highly islmophobic gate stone institute which has been deemed not good at the reliable sources noticeboard. I tried to get this through in the talk page where one other user agreed with me and removed the material (after the user reporting me had reverted me), while one other user also agreed that that the source was controversial but said that it "doesn't appear to be quite as controversial as you're(referring to me) making it out to be." His objection was that the source I had given to prove that gatestone was islamophobic, prejudiced and known to misrepresent opinions as facts, was in itself not good enough, although such an attitude is clear from the article archive at gatestone. After this the user reporting me here did not discuss any further, he just gave his opinion which was directed at an uninvolved editor who had just pointed out that gatestone is not reliable. He said "When an editor leads off with a false statement, it becomes hard to take anything else they say seriously. You claim "in both cases the recommendation was not to use" and yet the first link you provide contains no recommendation. The second link consists of two respondents who dissemble over it being "partisan" (which is an arbitrary claim anybody can make about anything). In any event, such are not binding. Aside from notability, what makes a source reliable is that they are not peddling bullshit. Soeren Kern's article is corroborated by the other sources in the article, therefore this aspect of the discussion is moot." He then reverted me and two other uninvolved editors who removed material from the article. If an admin is going to block me for this, then I would like him to describe what I "should have done". I have only one revert in the past 24 hours while the user reporting me has two, one on my action and one on another uninvolved editors action(we both removed the same unsourced material and he reverted us both).
    To be frank I don't know why someone's personal attack on me is being used here as an opening for a report. If someone is reporting me they should at least have the moral fortitude to open the debate with what I have done wrong and then leave me be instead of attacking me personally. They should just point out what infractions I have committed and let the admins make the decision. Inclusion of a personal attack at the very onset of the debate makes it look as if that "special" person knows everything and as they have said something personal about me then it must be true. This is kinda rude.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chitchat, your past M.O. has been to characterize legitimate warnings leveled against you as personal attacks and vandalism (of your talk page). Whether or not a recent detractor was later revealed to be a sock-puppet is immaterial as to whether or not a sanction eventually levied against you was justified. (In my opinion it was lenient, as you offered, then as now, every evidence of being unwilling to change and continue being impossible to work with for multiple WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE reasons.) As far as sourcing for the article goes, I am not going to argue that with you here as it was within the last week center-stage at the AfDs, at which you failed to establish consensus. Pax 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Are these article titles neutral? on a related matter that isn't the sort of thing ANI normally addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Let me point out something that's really damning about FreeatlastChitchat: in addition to getting into edit wars on the page, which he should know better than because he's been blocked for it in the past, he went against policy by creating a new AfD 5 days after the one closed. In addition, for whatever reason, he recreated an old AfD about the article to make it look like the most recent decision was to delete it. Propose a topic ban for Islam related articles until he demonstrates that he can drop the WP:STICK the same way JoeM up above received one. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this board supposed to be reserved for reports only? Why are thread style personal attacks being directed at me? DawnDusk and PAX have the same agenda as is clear from the AFD on rape jihad and TP at rape jihad as am I supposed to reply to every baseless accusation of these two guys who want me off the wiki so that they can enter whatever they want into an article? I don't mean to be squeamish here but this guy has accused me of being a vandal for no reason using a report which started off with a personal attack and even then I took time to prove that I am editing boldly, not vandalising. He then posts another personal attack on my defense comment and now what should I do? and why am I being accused of edit warring here? WHY not just put a simple 3revert report and let an admin figure it out? Is it because these two know that multiple uninvolved users have been removing the same material that I removed, which only these two users want to add. So I would like to know when did proposing an AFD become a bannable offence and when did three users doing the same thing count as an "edit war" on part of only one of them. I will not be replying to thread style personal attacks anymore, until an admin mediates this discussion after taking a close look at rape jihad talk page and keeping in view the comments made here, here, here, and here by completely uninvolved editors.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that some of the editors are/were participants at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which otherwise has no editing history overlap that I am aware of with Rape jihad article prior to your participation in the AfDs) the potentiality of covert canvassing of meat-puppets has not escaped my mind. A bunch of quacking ducks just randomly show up during the last two weeks and begin carbon-copy section-blanking this sleepy little article while providing exactly the same specious cookie-cutter edit summaries as you do? Pax 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So please start a SPI so we can get this over with. I have been saying from the get go. If you see me reverting more than twice, report me for 3Rvert and show some diffs, if you see me socking, report me for socking and start a Checkuser request I will endorse it myself, if you think I am canvassing, report me for that and show some diffs. Posting your opinion about me with unrelated diffs which show nothing just cuz I remove unsourced material from an article which you are fond of is kinda rude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been edit-warring for many days on that article and others, despite repeated requests to stop and establish consensus. Doesn't even need an AN3 report; an admin could block you right now for edit-warring. A slo-mo edit war designed to evade 3RR and coordinated with a tag team is still an edit war, and you are continuing to edit war even as we speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Since FreeatlastChitchat is continually edit warring on Islam-related articles, I propose the following remedy:

    1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, broadly construed.
    2. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban.
    3. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by:
      1. discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or
      2. appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee
    4. If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter.

    Amendment #1

    Section 1 is changed to:

    1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed.

    - Esquivalience t 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jytdog

    On the Conflict of interest noticeboard, Jytdog told Dr. Joseph Shaw that, because Dr. Joseph Shaw was Catholic, it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw to edit any article relating to Catholicism. See here.

    Then, on the COI Noticeboard, I posted a message, saying that it was a conflict of interest for an LGBT Wikipedian to make edits saying that conversion therapy was "pseudoscience", See [[61]].

    Jytdog then posted a message on my User talk page, in which he said this:

    "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:COIN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Basing a claim of conflict of interest on a protected class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc) is a personal attack. I am giving you a very strong warning to not go there. Others may wish to take stronger action. I have removed your posting at COIN"

    I asked Jytdog, if it is ok for him to claim that it is a conflict of interest for a Catholic to edit pages about Catholicism, why is it wrong for me to claim that it is a COI for an LGBT to edit pages about homosexuality? I did not get an answer.

    Something needs to be done here. If I'm wrong for calling it a COI for LGBT editors to edit LGBT-rlated articles, then somebody needs to call out Jytdog for telling Catholics not to edit Catholic-related pages. Or, if Jytdog was right to tell Catholics to stop editing Catholic-related pages, then Jytdog needs to quit telling me not to base COI claims on sexual orientation. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like it's about that specific user's COI, not a blanket statement about Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The case at COIN is about the executive director of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, who clearly has a COI on that article and brings a clear POV on things Catholic. I suggested he follow COI in editing all things Catholic and he readily agreed. No problem.
    The COIN case brought by the IP is based purely on a claim of another editor's sexual orientation (and I have no idea if the claim is true or false and don't care). This is spurious at best and a personal attack at worst.
    I know we cannot siteban IPs, but I reckon we can block them. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation). I really don't see how rollback was used correctly in this case. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    claiming that someone has a conflict of interest (and please read WP:COI for what that means here) based on something like gender/race/sexual orientation alone is, in my view, essentialist, biased and ugly. A personal attack. This has no place in WP, in my view. I have a hard time seeing how it is not and you don't give a reason, Erpert. Would you please elaborate? Thanks. If the consensus is that I am wrong I will self-revert and apologize. It will be interesting, to see how folks view this. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it: "in [your] view". IMO, the IP's statement wasn't malicious, and I think you came at him/her the wrong way about it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a proper use of rollback. However, the IP mis-read the COI issue with that one specific Catholic user, and made a false analogy to alleged COI's of gays. A proper analogy would be if a given user was the head of an organization whose mission is either in support of or in opposition to "conversion therapy". Either way, that could be a potential COI, depending on how careful the editor is about maintaining NPOV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP began editing on April 3 and hit the ground running, with apparent full knowledge of the ins and outs of this place. Could the IP please tell us what other IP numbers he or she had edited under, so that we can have a complete record of their edits, or what account name they used to or usually edit under? BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. I used to edit under the username Kyleandrew1. I took a long break, then started editing again without an account. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Since you have an account, you really should edit using it. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't. It's been so long since I've used that account, I don't know my password anymore. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A brief history on why I posted this item on the COI noticeboard: After I had made a series of edits to Conversion therapy, I was told that I was about to run afoul of the three-revert rule, and that I should instead take this issue to the noticeboard, rather than engage in an edit-war. Since I did not want to edit-war, I immediately attempted to post a discussion about this to the NPOV noticeboard (because I think it violates NPOV to call conversion therapy "pseudoscience" or to call conversion therapy supporters "fundamentalists.")

    But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP.

    That is why I posted the discussion on the COI Noticeboard. My purpose was not to attack anyone, just to bring to light what I thought was an NPOV violation. If I couldn't post to the NPOV noticeboard, I thought I would post my concerns to the closest thing to the NPOV noticeboard. I thought that the COI noticeboard was the second-best place to post. I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese, who self-identifies on her own user page as LGBT, to be editing articles relating to LGBT topics. Just as Jytdog thought that it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw, who is Catholic, to be editing any Catholic-related article. (And Jytdog [told Dr. Joseph Shaw, specifically, not to edit any Catholic-related article].)

    In my post to the COI noticeboard, I said that I thought that the discussion should really be on the NPOV noticeboard, and I invited registered users to move the discussion there. This continues to be my position. Since some of you agree that my post to the COI noticeboard was appropriate (and not a personal attack on Roscelese) I am re-posting it. If anyone wants to move the discussion to the NPOV noticeboard, please do so. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed conflict with minor refactoring. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see a source for the claim that the term "fundamentalist" is pejorative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP article Christian fundamentalism says, "The term fundamentalist is controversial in the 21st century, as it can carry the connotation of religious extremism, even though it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative" and the source for this is [1] 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Robbins, Dale A. (1995). What is a Fundamentalist Christian?. Grass Valley, California: Victorious Publications. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
    • the IP has reposted at COIN, which is aggressive, to say the least, as the matter of whether it is a personal attack is not resolved. I will not continue the edit war, but someone else should remove it until the matter is resolved.
    Please also note that while the IP writes above, "I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese",
    the posting actually says "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". So now we have just plain lying at ANI. Beating a horse: in my view, basing a COI case (heck even an NPOV case) on sexual orientation alone is a personal attack, in my view. The IP is editing aggressively and continues to misrepresent the Catholic COIN case and their own posting. Bad news. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The two applications of [{WP:COI]] are completely different. Dr Joseph Shaw declared that he is the chairman of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Jytdog's application of [{WP:COI]] is 100% correct. The IP's (Kyleandrew1) is incorrect. They could conceivably suggest bias on Roscelese's part (not that I'm saying this is the case) but that would require evidence of bias with diffs. Suggesting that Roscelese has a COI with respect to LGBT articles would suggest that, per WP:COI, that she represented in an official capacity for all members of the LGBT community, which is obviously not the case. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying issues

    No one posting here has supported the contention of hypocrisy with regard to my actions at COIN with regard to Latin Mass Society of England and Wales compared with the IP's posting. In my view that was just a COATRACK over the real issue here, which is the IP's post at COIN and my removing it as a personal attack (see my diffs above for what I did). It seems to me that the community should first decide if the post was or was not a personal attack. If the community says it was not, then the issues brought there can be discussed at COIN, and we don't need to go into them here. The second issue is whether I was too aggressive in pursuing my judgement that it was, and following NPA which says "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." So I'd like to suggest that the community focus on those two questions, which are somewhat separate. Restating them:

    • 2) Was I too aggressive in treating the post as an NPA violation and thus removing it and warning the IP against making personal attacks? I could have closed it as spurious (as i originally did), responded and discussed, or ignored it and let others respond or not as they chose. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    discussion

    • In my view 1) is yes and 2) is maybe ( I don't think so, but the community might).
      • 1) In my view, the core claim brought by the IP - that because of Roscelese's sexual orientation, they have a COI on subjects related to sexual orientation that the community needs to manage - is a personal attack, and an ugly one at that.
    The IP has thrown some smoke around this by claiming that "But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP. " While it is true that NPOV is semi-protected, the claim that the only option the IP had was COIN is baloney because:
        • a) they know how to create an account and have an old one from 2007 ( Kyleandrew1); and
        • b) they wrote in the post: "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". Not ambiguous.
    I'm willing to acknowledge that others may not view this a personal attack, but may see the IP as simply confused, or may view this as a case where there are possibly COI issues that the community would need to take action to manage. The latter would surprise me.
    • 2) But this is where question 2 clouds the water a bit. If I had let it stand, the community could have talked through that (or not) at COIN. But in my view the post was a violation of NPA and we don't let that stand. It is fine for the IP to question my judgement here. I do expect that the community will agree with me and tell the IP here, that "yes, we don't tolerate that kind of thing here" There are two levels to this. The first is bias based on sexual orientation. The second, is claims of COI being thrown around in content disputes, personalizing them through the personal attack of a COI claim. (there have been some ANI posts related to that lately, in which I have been involved, and that might be making this extra intense for me, in particular) But we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously the conflict of interest assertion was utter bunk. It's precisely like arguing that black people shouldn't edit our article on Martin Luther King (because of his role in the civil rights movement), or that women shouldn't edit our article on Gloria Steinem (because she is a feminist). Or, in the other direction, like arguing that white people shouldn't edit MLK, or men shouldn't edit Steinem. The question is whether or not the IP could be 'innocently' ignorant enough to make the assertion in the context of an LGBT editor without crossing the line into intentional offense.
    Extending the maximum possible excess of AGF, I might be willing to grant the presumption of 'unintentional' offence once. That wouldn't mean that the IP's comments were appropriate or acceptable for Wikipedia (or any public forum), but that the comments didn't cross over the line of WP:NPA because the intent to be offensive wasn't there. In other words, the comment was objectively offensive, but the IP was too ignorant to realize it. That doesn't mean that the offensive post should be allowed to stand, however. Whether hatted or removed entirely is a judgement call; I'm not sure what I would have done there, but I can certainly see how it would have been a magnet for trolling. And the IP's behavior since then confirms that you made the right call.
    Once the IP was advised that his post was considered an attack, he was out of excuses. There was no justification for him to restore his comments (twice) – which he had been formally advised would be considered personal attacks – to the COIN. The I-wanted-to-post-to-NPOVN-but-couldn't excuse doesn't hold water, either. Even in his third addition (second re-addition) of his report to COIN, he didn't strike the nonsensical and offensive claim that LGBT editors have a conflict of interest, but re-asserted it: [62].
    You did good, Jytdog. This IP should be blocked or topic banned, not allowed to waste any more of our time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, ToAT. Thanks too for acknowledging the difficulty of the judgement call (so rare at ANI)... am interested to see what others say too. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i apologize for asking this Roscelese but i don't know you nor your stance on this. it would be helpful to me at least if you stated your position on the questions. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, "you shouldn't be editing because you're gay" is a personal attack, yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry i reckoned you would say that, but it is not for me to put words in your mouth. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe what I just read. Jytdog actually publicly stated that Catholics can't edit articles on Catholicism and LGBTs can't edit gender articles or the like? If that holds true, then medical doctors can't edit medical articles, biotechs can't edit articles on biotechnology, women can't edit BLPs about other women, scientists can't edit articles about science and so on. Show me that policy and list of restricted editors. I can understand recusing oneself from editing a topic or subject because of a self-proclaimed bias, dislike or hatred but this is ridulous. If it even remotely holds true, then Jytdog should be restricted from participating on COIN because he has a COI declaration on his user page. Curious - is there a quick way to look up the number of times an editor has appeared on AN and/or ANI as either the accuser or the accused? Atsme☯Consult 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your summary of the issue is incorrect so perhaps it's good that you can't believe it. Jytdog stated that Dr Joseph Shaw shouldn't edit the article Latin Mass Society of England and Wales because Shaw is the chairman of that society. It was an IP, not Jytdog, who said that someone shouldn't edit Conversion therapy because they were gay. Ca2james (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ca2james, your summary is not correct so before you make spurious allegations against another editor, please get the facts straight. I didn't provide a summary, rather I expressed incredulous amazement and followed it with a question. Note the question mark at the end of my sentence. I couldn't believe Jytdog even asked Rosc to state a position. He started off with an apology but if you have to apologize before asking a question, you shouldn't be asking it. He closed the discussion as (→‎Conversion therapy: spurious. closing) as well he should. [63] As for Shaw, Jytdog didn't just advise him to not edit that one article or its spin-offs, he added the following restriction in his final paragraph (my bold underline): if you edit other articles related to Catholicism, please limit yourself to their talk pages, and introduce yourself. [64]. My comments stand as stated. If Shaw is restricted to Talk page editing, then the same should apply to every other chairman, owner, department head, and so on down the line including department heads in every university department, research labs, pharmaceutical company, religion, political affiliation, and right on down the line as it relates to their respective industry or research topic and the like. Example: a physician who chairs the oncology division at a hospital could not edit anything related to cancer, hospitals, drugs, treatments, etc. To begin, WP:COI is a behavioral guideline, and a non-admin sure as heck should not be imposing a TB on another editor or pick and choose what topics another editor can edit based on their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, or professions. Atsme☯Consult 02:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My summary was accurate as far as it went; I didn't see that Jytdog had asked Shaw not to edit Catholic article pages directly, and thank you for pointing that out.
    Now that I know this, I think that the request should be evaluated with respect to COI and clarified, and if consensus is against it, Jytdog warned. I'm not getting the sense that this is what you think, Atsme; what were you suggesting be done? Ca2james (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My only concern is that more caution should be exercised in these matters. It has taken on the appearance of making up the rules as you go with a splattering of bullying thrown in rather than providing clarification and following the PAGs currently in place. That's why supplemental essays are popping up everywhere. Making up rules as we go leaves the door open to abuse, be it inadvertent or deliberate, and that is what needs to be avoided. Jytdog may have misinterpreted something, I don't know, it's hard enough for me to understand why he does certain things and I actually don't have the desire or time to figure it out. Most of the time he's right on, but when he's not it is usually quite noticeable...perhaps even glaring. I would think Shaw is deserving of an apology and retraction of the restriction regarding all topics about Catholicism. Jytdog is accomplished at striking comments he didn't mean so it shouldn't be an issue for him. X-) Atsme☯Consult 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you, @Atsme:. If we tell the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society that he can't edit any articles relating to Catholicism, that's unduly harsh.
    It would also be a stricter COI policy than even the reputable encyclopedias have. I'm looking at an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Henry Ford was the author of an article on Mass Production. Now if the head of Ford Motor Company can write an article on Mass Production, then the head of the Latin Mass Society should be able to edit an article on Catholicism.
    BTW, I don't think anyone has notified Dr. Joseph Shaw that there's a discussion going on about him. I'm going to post a message about this on his talk page, so that he can weigh in. I'd like to see what he has to say. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A third issue here

    There is a third issue, here, which is why I brought this discussion to the noticeboard. The third issue is: Was Jytdog making a personal attack when he said that Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI because he was Catholic? I saw on the no personal attacks page, it said that it was inappropriate to attack someone because of their religion. Of course Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI with the Latin Mass Society because he was the Chairman. But did Shaw really have a conflict with editing all Catholic-related pages, simply because of his religion? FYI, one-quarter of all Americans are Catholic (as well as over a billion people worldwide), and I'm willing to bet that a lot of the pages relating to Catholicism are edited by Catholics. It seems that Jytdog may have inappropriately singled out Dr. Joseph Shaw when he told Shaw not to edit any Catholic-related pages. If so, Jytdog should be called out for this, and the WP community should apologize to Dr. Joseph Shaw, and tell Dr. Joseph Shaw that it's ok for him to edit Catholic-related pages. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    as has been discussed above, Dr Joseph Shaw is head of an organization that advocates for the latin mass, which is a contentious issue in Catholicism. He has a COI with regard to that article for sure, and a very strong risk of advocacy for all things catholic. i asked him to follow the COI guideline, which means making edit requests instead of making direct edits, and he swiftly and easily agreed. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's argument is specious, for the reasons given by Jytdog: the COI was obvious. I'd also point out that subject himself, Dr. Joseph Shaw, replied on WP:COIN that it was "absolutely fine" by him to adhere to the restrictions recommended by the WP:COI policy.[65] Given this, one wonders why the IP contiues to pursue the matter. BMK (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure, I made my point clear in my earlier comment. So to reiterate, the answer is: Jytdog applied WP:COI correctly. Your argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (non admin)) I dont see eye to eye with Jytdog on many topics. But in this case he is 100% correct that Dr Joseph Shaw has a COI problem on Catholic topics. The IP's accusations are without merit. The Dr can help on Catholic topics best by following WP:COIADVICE. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    that was decent of you albino. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that, in this case, the editor in question has a COI related to Catholicism. It isn't because he is necessarily "Catholic," per se, but because he is a recognized leader of a group which has direct ties to a minority view and position regarding Catholicism. Granted, maybe the phrasing of the statement could have been a bit better, with a statement to the effect that the editor is the chairman of a group which clearly promotes certain views relating to Catholicism, but, hell, we all make typos. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In that same regard, a physician who is Chairman of the Board of Plastic Surgery would be prohibited from editing articles about plastic surgery? An attorney who is President of the Young Lawyers Association couldn't edit articles about legal issues? A biotech who heads up the Dept of Biology at a university couldn't edit articles about biotechnology? The acting Head of the Department of Plant Sciences at a university couldn't edit articles about plants? You can't be serious. The guy isn't the Pope for Pete's sake. What are you thinking? Atsme☯Consult 01:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure exactly what this is about Atsme, but unless I misunderstood you, a week or so ago you were contending that I had a conflict of interest because I had worked in the pharmaceutical industry a decade ago. Did you change your mind about this or is there something else that I'm missing? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just don't understand.
    I haven't entirely understood all the arguments here, but I'd say the Chairman of the Board of Plastic Surgery has a COI with respect to reimbursement rates for plastic surgery procedures, but not usually when discussing the best procedure for performing a face lift. I probably wouldn't want the head of an advocacy group editing about related topics not because of COI concerns, but because of advocacy ones.Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Best place to start is here [66]. To clarify your comment about the COI issue I had regarding you, it was about disclosing your COI declaration because my COI essay was about that very topic and since your participation affected the outcome of the MfD, it was appropriate for you and other editors who had a COI declaration to simply make the disclosure known if you hadn't already. In Shaw's case, Jytdog basically TB another editor from editing all articles on Catholicism and restricted him to Talk Page discussions which I believe was inappropriate. I've already said what I came here to say, and now I have work to do elsewhere. Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 03:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum shopping

    I wouldn't consider it forum shopping simply because he has this opened here at ANI and something related at RSN. ANI doesn't handle content issues only conduct issues. RSN doesn't handle content issues only content related issues.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another errant conclusion on your part, Serialjoepsycho. The IP in question is forum shopping because his goal is to allow the person in question to edit freely without the constraints of COI. He's tried it at COIN, and failed, he tried it here, and failed, and then he tried it at RSN, where he failed as well. That's not unexpected, since he's just wrong. He's also admitted to sockpuppetry, which all-in-all, makes him totally unwelcome here, considering that he's here to push a pro-Catholic point of view, and not to edit an neutral and factual encyclopedia.
    Incidentally, what are you here for, user named Serialjoepsycho? Why is it that I suspect it's not enhancing the encyclopedia?
    (See, this is why I've always said that I would make a terrible admin, because if I had the bit, I'd block this guy on the basis of the name alone, along with the couple of comments I've seen from him. My concern would be making the site a place where an encyclopedia can be worked on without people who choose usernames like "Serialjoepsycho" getting in the way. I'm kinds result-oriented that way.) BMK (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    boomerang

    IP has been blocked for a short while purely for edit warring at multiple venues. It would logically follow that if the same behavior resumes when the block expires, that sanctions could be increased. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    With the post above, I am seeking a block against the IP. This editor is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but instead seems to be interested in picking ridiculous fights. This is separate from the two issues on which I am seeking clarification above. These misrepresentations are a violation of the TPG and are part of other disruptive behaviors:

    • misrepresentations of what happened at COIN in in the IPs original post here
    • here where the IP lied and wrote " I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese," when the IP's post at COIN said "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". That is not "might" - it is a definitive claim.
    • throughout this whole thing, where the IP has claimed that COIN was his/her only option b/c as an IP he/she cannot post to NPOVN - the IP has an old account and clearly knows how to make one.
    • On top of that the IP is edit warring at Conversion therapy. The IP was warned but removed it claiming "removed defamatory content" and was later warned again by Jeraphine Gryphon (who self-reverted when she saw that the IP had already been warned).
    • The user behind the IP is showing him/herself to be WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been so long since I've used my old account, I don't know my password anymore. Sure, I could have made an account, but IPs have the right to edit Wikipedia. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    note - I had originally included the list above under the "a third issue here" section and subsequently moved the list down here. The IP had replied in the midst of my list, while the list was still up there. when I moved it down here, i moved the response out of my list and into a response. The IP's post is not a response to the boomerang but just to the line-item about the IP's issues with not being able to post at NPOVN. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear, I didn't use rollback on either revert - you can tell since there are edit notes both here and here. i just ignored the characterization of them as rollback - i should have clarified it for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. The IP already had multiple chances to do the right thing. Instead, he re-added and expanded on his wholly inaccurate and wildly inappropriate claims of COI twice, then carried on with his disruptive nonsense by starting this discussion with a misrepresentation of Jytdog's actions. He's taken several lengths of WP:ROPE, and he's repeatedly tied it in knots and then set fire to it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My claims of COI were not wholly inaccurate, nor were they wildly inappropriate. @Erpert: said, "I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation)." 70.128.120.202 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you still don't get that your comments were wholly inaccurate and inappropriate is clear evidence of why a topic ban or block is called for. Doing it once was ignorant, making the same claim multiple times (at COIN, earlier in this thread, and now) is wilfully offensive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @70.128: Please don't get the idea that because I oppose a block for you at this time, that means that I think your comments were appropriate. They most certainly were not, and can easily be construed as constituting a personal attack. I just happen to think that we should warn about a first instance of this kind, and hold the block for if and when such behavior continues.
    There is no proper analogy between asking Dr. Shaw to follow the COI rules and your saying a gay person has an inherent COI on gay-related subjects. We don't ban Asians from editing Asian-related subjects, or blind people from editing article related to sight and blindness. We would, however, ask the head of the National Widget Manufacturers Association to make her conflict of interest explicit and follow the COI policy in regard to editing articles about widgets. That is the difference, and it's one you're clearly not seeing. I can't tell if that's deliberate or not, but you best understand and accept it, because it's the way things work around here. BMK (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Post-boomerang

    This appears to be the same person as 70.128.116.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who got a 2 week block for disruptive editing in early February, then Acroterion gave a month-long block in late February. In early March they started editing with 70.128.117.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was blocked for disruptive editing by Gilliam. They got around the block by moving to 70.128.120.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So, there's a block evasion/sockpuppetry problem too. I haven't dug very deeply; there might or might not be an older account behind this. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, we have a confession. I would recommend longer blocks, and/or a rangeblock, for this editor. Jydog is blameless. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Started SPI on these IPs. Esquivalience t 20:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag-team edit-warring on Rape jihad counter to WP:BRD

    Three new or newish editors (FreeatlastChitchat, RatatoskJones Xtremedood), with edit counts of less than 700: [68], [69], [70], have since April 5 been tag-team edit warring to remove a section (now titled "Rotherham") of Rape jihad that has been there since December 2014 [71] (retitled in February 2015) and which as of now has 8 citations. I've started a BRD consensus-establishing section on the Talk page and tried to encourage the editors to present their cases rationally and establish consensus before wholesale deletion, but they continue to edit-war and remove the section. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand (and beyond reverting the wholesale deleters twice have only made a grammatical change to the article); however I do have a personal opinion on edit-warring against BRD. I would appreciate the article being locked (with the Rotherham section restored/retained please; it has been deleted again as of this moment), until consensus is established that it should be removed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We have been through a debate about sourcing. The entire section has only one source, the gatestone institute, the rest of citations have been copy pasted from the original article and do not mention rape jihad, the word jihad, holy war, struggle for God, Islamic jihad and in no way do these 7 other citations give the impression that the said sexual abuse is part of any "jihad" or motivated by religion. A discussion here was carried out to acsertain the reliabilty of the single source on which the entire section is based and it was established that source as unreliable. Having ascertained the source was unreliable the material was then removed by me, and as it was unsourced other editors also removed it whenever it was restored. I do not think that once consensus has been established about unreliability of a source , a second consensus needs to be established before removing the material from an article. If there is any policy which says so I will be glad to hear of it. To be frank this kind of editing cannot be classed as warring anywhere, they are just a bunch of editors removing unreliably sourced material and to be honest the people who restore the material should be taken to task for putting unsourced material back , but I do not like reporting people as I am prone to bold editing myself. So, in a nutshell, the material has been established to come from a single unreliable source and has therefore been removed. An editor who wants to restore it must provide rationale as to why it should be restored.
    Further more I have not been warned on my talkpage that this discussion is ongoing, badfaith I dont want to assume, lets just say it was forgotten "by mistake"
    FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were pinged in my OP, and also told in the BRD discussion I linked that I would file a report unless you self-reverted, which you have not done. This ANI is not solely about you, but about the fact that the article should probably be locked with the complete version until consensus is established per BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not being picky but this is written at the very top of this page. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.You may use subst:ANI-notice to do so. Anyway, as I said I don't mind this, what would like to ask however is that who will determine what the 'complete' version of the article is? The reliable source noticeboard says that the 'complete' version is one without anything from the gatestone institute. So what evidence is there to support your POV that gatestone is included in the complete versionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender, if your issue is with these editors, you need to notify them about this discussion on their user talk pages as FreeatlastChitchat says. A ping is not sufficient as per the orange notice at the top of the page when you edited this complaint that says this step must be done. I have left messages for RatatoskJones and Xtremedood. If this issue is about protecting an article, maybe you should be making your case at WP:RPP. Liz Read! Talk! 11:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed a section of a highly controversial article (twice voted for deletion [72] [73], barely got a no consensus on its third iteration [74]) that completely failed to mention the topic, and only had a single source [75] attached that actually mentioned the topic of the article (once, in the title, nowhere in the text). The source used has now been brought up to WP:RSN three times, and has been all but laughed out of the room every time. User:Раціональне анархіст then added a second source: an op-ed that barely mentions Rotterham. Here User:Раціональне анархіст attempts to defend their (first) source: [76]
    I see nothing but assertions made, as well as some troubling comments:
    "The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes."
    "Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view"
    I've now added a citation needed-tag to the section. Hopefully more editors will look at the page, as it's one of the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only "controversial" due to the antics of you and ChitChat. But I must congratulate you upon being ahead of your cohort in actually forming your very first edit to the article which didn't consist of a wholesale section blank. (I've reverted it for being a sneaky attempt to bury the important link to the main Rotherham article.) Pax 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? First, removing the main article link was a mistake, but your motivation for removing the "citation needed" tag ("You do not have consensus that those sources are unreliable.") is utter nonsense. Your refusal to defend your sources is also noted. I hope the administrators are looking at your behaviour. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So removing the main article link was a mistake when it was the only part of the section you were removing, but it wasn't a mistake when you blanked the entire section (including the main article link) multiple times. Got it. Pax 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't calm down and WP:AGF, I suggest you remove yourself from the article until you've composed yourself. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I am not a part of any tag-team edit war. I simply made one edit, of which I felt it was necessary to remove content as the suspected perpetrators of the crime did not utilize religious motivations. It is racist to say that their ethnic origin has anything to do with religion. It would be like saying every white-person who rapes does it out of Christianity or a crusade, which I believe is fallacious. FreeatlastChitchat and I have a dispute going on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so we are definitely not working as a team. Like I said, I simply made one edit and I am in no way a part of any edit-warring tag team. Therefore my name should be removed from all this. Xtremedood (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xtremedood, you have edit-warred for mass deletions alongside FreeatlastChitchat on Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present) and Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present), as well as having participated in the Rape jihad section deletion edit war, so you are indeed part of this discussion and this situation. @Liz: This discussion is about more than simply protecting the page (and its complexity is beyond the scope of RPP); it's about the continually disruptive tag-team edit-warring by these editors to remove masses of information, which has been going on in several articles since late March, and which is currently continuing in spite of repeated requests to stop and to observe BRD. This, in addition to the thread further above on this page, needs administrative analysis. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, for a length of time to be determined, on Islam-related topics, broadly construed to include historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities. Sneaky edits like this one, (in which a section's "main article" link is removed under cover of applying a citation-needed tag), and antics such as this, (in which, one hour after administrative lock commenced, RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop. Pax 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained that the link removal was a simple mistake; WP:AGF. Just how "sneaky" it was supposed to be is anyone's guess. I want people to go to the Rotherham article and see how utterly irrelevant it is to the Rape jihad article. Also, I tend to doubt asking for comments from neutral parties is "gaming the system". Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My entire deletion/removal was based on this consensus formed at the original article of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. But I was hounded and bereted and not one but two reports were lodged against me. Seeing that no one is going for a WP:BOOMERANG against Pax (I don't have anything to say against the guy who started this report, he just saw what looked like a violation to him and acted accordingly), I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore, seeing that even blatant POV pushing and hounding will not result in anything for the perpetrator. If an admin thinks that my actions were objectionable I would be happy to engage him in debate and provide him with a rationale of my every single edit, I don't have that many to be honest. However I will not replying to any threadlike discussion here until an admin takes part FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained ad nauseum during the most recent AfD discussion, the "original article" is entirely irrelevant since as it has been entirely rewritten. You also had no participation in either the original article or its AfD. Your promise to "forget the article exists" for four months, but then push for its deletion does not bode well as it implies you won't care what form the article is in at that time, changed substantially or not. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm close to recommending a WP:BOOMERANG with respect to Pax here. He has been pursuing this POV-fork over several noticeboards and seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:TRUTH in the face of substantive opposition to his understanding of neutrality and reliability of sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user above arrives from an ideological viewpoint which concludes that all of the sources currently in the article are "ultra-conservative propaganda". Such a viewpoint will likely only be satisfied with complete deletion of the article, and that matter has already been decided. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Stephan Schulz. "Pax" is not exactly living up to his user-name. He's the only one whose approach to this topic can legitimately be called sneaky, to use his own word. The rape jihad article is a disgrace, treating the topic as though "rape jihad" is a real concept in Islam, rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists. We even have the claim that "Rape jihad is claimed to be a form of sexual slavery sanctioned in Quranic scriptures", as if Muslims have actually defended something called "rape jihad". No legitimate report into the events in Rotherham has ever suggested that they were in any way motivated by Islamism or constituted any form of "jihad". Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I did not coin the term "rape jihad" or write the first version of the article. Second, WP:ADHOM represents a poor defense of section-blanking edit-warriors. Third, if you wish to pursue the matter of whether or not the concept exists within Islam, you should take it up with ISIS or Boko Haram, because they are in agreement that it does. The Justification section of the article is liberally linked, and the supportive material exists in several other articles besides this one. In any event, these concerns of yours are not speaking to the subject of this ANI. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I criticised your behaviour by using the very same word you had used ("sneaky") to describe another editor's. Calling that WP:ADHOM constitutes WP:SELF-INCRIMINATON. I was legitimately commenting on your behaviour because you called an obvious mishap "sneaky", even though it had already been explained to you, and you referred to a legitimate RFC request on the talk page as "antics". There is no well supported evidence that any such concept as rape jihad exists. Paul B (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists." so? doesn't wiki's npov mean that it contains such articles, as long as they are well referenced? ie. "the good, the bad, and the ugly"(apologies to Sergio) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Coolabahapple, you completely miss the point. It's quite legitimate to have articles on notable terms, derogatory or otherwise - a point I have already made at the NPOV board. I have no problem with the existence of an article called "rape jihad" if the expression is shown to be notable, which I think is borderline. But the article should explain that it is, as I said, "a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists", which is exactly what it does not do. Instead it implies tht it's a real interpretation of scripture in Islamic culture. Of course it should also cover those aspects of Islamic traditions regarding concubinage that have been used to justify the claim that "rape jihad" exists. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul B oops, sorry, yes the article does need quite a rewrite, when i dipped my toe in the water of one of its afdsWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) I mentioned the Rotherham words as overcite (but was thinking is it necessary?), intro could be rewritten "Rape Jihad is a term coined by ..... and adopted by ..... to mean ...." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the editors listed atop this ANI has shown any interest in actually improving the article. All difs have consisted of removing material. I agree with Paul above that the Justification section could use expansion, but such "nice things" are difficult to have in the face of constant disruption by section-blankers. Pax 17:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting what I said. There is no Islamic justification for "rape jihad" anywhere. There are reports of rapes, yes. This is, sadly, utterly normal in war-torn areas. There are also reports of captured women being forced to convert to Islam and being sold or given to fighters as wives. Yes, that does have precedent in Islamic tradition, but calling it "rape jihad" is either just using an attack term for something that is already known and long established, or a spurious conflation of separate phenomena. Throwing in the wholly unrelated issue of events in Rotherham, which have never been justified by any interpretation of Islam, suggests that rape jihad is nothing but an attack buzz-phrase. Of course the article can't be 'improved' at the moment as it's locked. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "There is no Islamic justification for 'rape jihad' anywhere," you need to distinguish between whether or not you're referring to the English term (which is, of course, not employed by Arabic-speaking jihadists, but otherwise possesses sufficient usage in notable RS), or the concept (which Boko and ISIS are happy to publicize their sura justification for). Your sentence is only correct when the two are conflated into something like "ISIS doesn't use the phrase 'rape jihad', so this article is terrible!". In any event, this is side-tracking into an pointlessly interminable de facto AfD discussion, and that matter was recently settled with the closing admin recommending a five-month breather. Pax 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no sura justifying rape as part of "jihad", and the phrase is not some English translation of an authentic Muslim concept for which there is an Arabic equivalent. So no, Boko H and ISIS do not and never have justified rape as a 'jihad'. There is of course Quranic justification for concubinage, which is hardly news. We already have articles on the subject. And none of this has anything to do with taxi drivers in Rotherham. You are right, this is evolving into an AfD debate, since you have just provided a perfect argument for redirecting the whole sorry mess to Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, since you have just directly stated that it's the same thing. Paul B (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it up with Boko Haram, ISIS, and their critics (who agree with them that their right to rape kafir captives is supported in religious script). But this is immaterial to this ANI, and pointless in any event since the article has survived AfD (with the closer recommending five months cooling off prior to resubmission). Pax 11:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say, that's exactly what Slavery in 21st-century Islamism is about. It's the same thing. Your "reply" merely confirms the point. But yes, this thread is clearly now dead. No action, it seems, will be taken on the original complaint about tag teaming (rightly IMO) and no boomerang is spinning back. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The unsuitability of that article was addressed at the recent AfD. Pax 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Socking at Refdesks

    The Science, Miscellaneous and Entertainment Reference desks have all been the subject of a multi-socked vandal recently. I've silverlocked all three for the time being. The other desks appear unaffected so far, but could use some extra eyes in case he switches targets. I'm going offline in a moment, so would appreciate it if someone could follow up. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a long-time reference desk regular, I request that the "silverlocking" be reduced to a shorter time period (a couple of hours, max).
    Reasons:
    1) Many genuine and sincere queries are posted by non-registered users.
    2) Many helpful, researched, and informed answers come from non-registered users.
    3) The desks are watched by enough people to revert the vandalism within minutes.
    Someone is trying to sabotage the desks, and spoil it for those who aren't registered. Let's not reward him by shutting out unregistered users for long periods of time. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rangeblocked. Please consider unprotecting to see if it needs to be a larger range. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CapriSun33333. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just jumped back on for a few minutes - since the rangeblock seems to be working, and it's been a couple of hours, I've lifted the protection per Sluzzelin's request. Yunshui 雲水 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Yunshui! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got your answer to your experiment. Needs protecting again. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin hide some edits by the refdesk vandal from 11 April? Seems to be an attempt at doxxing an editor. See Special:Contributions/Cambles Horsey. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much don't like long-term semiprotection of the Reference Desks, either, but when there's this level of vandalism it's clearly the appropriate approach. There are plenty of eyes on these pages, so we can continue to fine-tune our approach as events progress. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They hit up some of the other desks as well. During times of protection, questions by IP's are being posed at the talk page, where a registered editor can re-post them to the right page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest we not announce ahead of time to the enemy our troop movements. Protections and unprotections should be made without fanfare. Otherwise it's like playing "retreat", running up a white flag, dropping trow, and planting a big red lipstick ex on our buttocks. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some other tools we're trying to use in the works to shut this down. In the interest of your WP:BEANS reminder, I'll not announce them, but if you know how to use page histories and user contribution pages, you can probably figure it out. --Jayron32 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the desks are protected in accordance with policy but Language and Mathematics are indefinitely protected (which is a policy violation). Can someone put this right pronto? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like indefinite blocking, I suspect indefinite protection means "duration to be determined", not "forever". Is there a policy that says you are required to state a duration? I genuinely don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written an edit filter that should reduce the impact of this: 681 for those who can see such things. It should have minimal impact on good faith newcomers. I'd like to unprotect the pages to check the effectiveness of this. Comments?  —SMALLJIM  13:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have proposed that for times when one or more ref desk pages is protected, maybe there could be a catchall, "unprotected ref desk page" where new users could post questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the vandal(s) would respect that.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have to. They could spew their garbage there without infecting the "real" ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Their primary motivation is to cause disruption. It wouldn't take them long to figure out that they're not causing any there. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I misread your initial comment. I thought you were talking about a sort of relief valve for vandals. If it's for new users and unprotected, then vandals will simply vandalize it the same way they do the refdesks when they're unprotected. Again, but differently, I don't see what's gained. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. People have expressed concerns that good-faith new editors are unable to pose (and answer) questions when the pages are protected. Can we get a quick consensus to unprotect the pages so we can try my edit filter proposal, set out above. I don't think there's any beans problem in explaining how it works: unconfirmed editors are only allowed to make one edit per minute (adjustable) to those pages, allowing plenty of time to revert and block the vandal (who, if he has any nous will move on to something else).  —SMALLJIM  16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be OK as long as you're accepting full responsibility for doing the repeated reversions in case the filter doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'd suggest halving the disruption and going with two minutes instead of one. Second, can't you test it on some other unprotected page, logging out to test the handling of unconfirmed? Clueless as to the technical considerations. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, that's one edit every two minutes per user, so the bad guy can still create n short usernames and then do one edit every (120 / n) seconds, or as fast as he can log out/in, whichever is longer. I'm not worried about beans, many of these guys are easily smart enough to figure this stuff out. That's part of the fun, actually. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be cautious of spilling the beans, actually. There is a significant proportion who aren't "smart enough" to figure things out for themselves. You're forgetting about the effect of blocking anyway.  —SMALLJIM  19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be very surprised if there aren't multiple off-wiki venues where these techniques are discussed. Wikipedia is too high-profile, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment is too widespread, and world population is too large for there not to be. The smart ones will educate the less smart ones, trust me. That's how hacker communities work. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone might consider throttling the number of registrations from a given IP address to, say, one a day. Then your edit filter might work. It might be inconvenient when ten people want to register at the same time from a shared IP, but realistically how often does that happen? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem continues. Is permanent semi protection the only solution? If more admins were watching these pages and blocking quickly, that would go a long way toward addressing the problem. Hell, give me the blocking right and I'll do it myself whenever I'm here, which is a lot these days. Free of charge, and I'd promise not to use it for any other purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So would I, though I wouldn't promise not to abuse the unblocking right, so don't give it to 'me. Anyway, we are many, and the last spree was completely reverted within less than a minute, but yeah, early blocks would help, until then, it's back to time wasted in the early 80s ---Sluzzelin talk 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see the block came very quickly too. I think revert, block, ignore is the best way. The more eyes, the easier (including admin eyes, as emphasized by Mandruss). Semi-protection should remain the great exception, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know what caused this problem though, actually on some forums like craiglists forums or anandtech forums, one or two moths ago I saw people talking about the fact that they are thinking that Wikipedia reference desk is a forum because of its layout (people are talking on a non talk page), maybe stating on top that, this page is not a forum in big bold letters may stop the problem. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone account hopping and repeatedly blanking the pages: are the accounts being hard blocked, i.e. the person is IP hopping too? And what happened to Cluebot? It used to revert page blanking almost instantly. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban requested

    Request has no merit. The individual content discussions are best played out in the relevant talk pages. There is insufficient here to sustain an allegation of hounding. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since my unblock user:Future Perfect at Sunrise has resumed his hounding of my edits. This hounding has been going on since 28 July 2012 Since my return he has stalked me to two newly created articles [77][78] and one I was trying to bring up to GA status.[79] This harassment is obviously ruining any enjoyment I get from editing, and it needs to be stopped Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense. It has never been "hounding" to occasionally check up on a problematic editor's contribs when it's necessary to correct long-term patterns of bad edits. DS is, without any doubt, a highly problematic editor with a long and well-documented history of source misuse and poor-quality editing, so yes, I have occasionally, since 2012, seen the need to clean up after him. In the present instance, he created a series of odd little articles on rather out-of-the-way topics shortly before he got himself indef-blocked as a ban-evading sock a few months ago. Those articles, on topics of medieval philology, were no doubt a well-intentioned and deserving attempt, but unfortunately they turned out to be riddled with errors (evidently because he's way out of his depth in that field of learning), so I started cleaning some of them up while he was blocked. Obviously that wasn't "hounding" – you can't "hound" a banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Who would have foreseen that the Arbcom, in their infinite wisdom, would take the ridiculously ill-conceived step to grant this person yet another chance, with this record of disruption? Anyway, it was hardly my fault that as soon as he was back, he had nothing better to do than to jump right back on that same group of articles and try to edit-war all his old errors back into them again, undoing all the corrections I made [80]. He's been meeting every single edit of mine with immediate blanket reverts [81][82], without any regard to logic, sources or talkpage consensus. See discussions here and here to see that I wasn't the only one to notice the need for cleanup. It's his old pattern of disruptive edit-warring all over again, exactly the same behaviour that earned him his 31(!) distinct blocks for disruption earlier during his editing carreer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Indidentally, it is indicative of the level of bad faith in DS's report above that in the case of the "female infanticide" article he is linking to an edit of mine [83] where I am in fact editing in his favour, reverting a malicious sock who was, indeed, hounding him. It just turned out that I then realized that the sock had a point about one or two details in the edits they were revert-warring over, most notably because DS was trying to insert an unsourced image into the article that is demonstrably meant to show something other than what the article is about, a fact that DS has been utterly inable to counter on the talkpage.[84].) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You should thank Fut. Perf. for helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, and consider asking for advice instead of kvetching about corrections. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkness Shines If you can prove that user:Future Perfect at Sunrise is involved in vandalism in regard to your quality work or is otherwise making no positive contribution then there will be an issue where the other editor might even be banned. Otherwise please note, no editor owns content. Its not about enjoyment but about suffering (joking) about satisfaction on producing quality, accurate, well presented, well cited work. The last thing that would be relevant would be an interaction ban. I make no judgement here regarding the quality of the work of either of you. GregKaye 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:123.140.222.75

    Is continuously changing birthplaces from Estonia to the Soviet Union on numerous Estonian people's articles (here, here, and here, to name a few). Has been warned several times and their edits have been reverted, yet the USSR was still readded as the birth places and reporting the user was the next step. WikiProject Estonia has decided that birthplaces should be listed as "Estonia" and not the Soviet Union since the USSR simply occupied Estonia and the other Baltic States, they were not officially recognised as Soviet by the international community either. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As soon as one IP gets blocked he/she continues under next one all. 123.140.222.69 - has again changed the same 20 pages including:
    Andres Oper 9 reverts against 5 other editors 1, 2, 3 etc. Maarja-Liis Ilus 9 reverts against 4 other editors and so on.
    IPs she/he uses
    123.140.222.69
    123.140.222.64 - blocked ANI
    123.140.222.75 - blocked
    123.140.222.76
    123.140.222.70
    --Klõps (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Biased attitude

    First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me ( the case was later moved here) thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali.Previously I got involved with an edit war with User:115ash which resulted in his block for 48 hours. As 115 ash recommended Titodutta as administrator Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me. My Talk page . On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs , Even in Ged uk's page :-:as an old user he might know how to put an unblock request , calling me sockpuppet , questioning the rights of SPI clerk , Using words buffoon , Aditya calling me insane , calling Subhash Chandra Bose - "King of the jungle" , 115ash questioning notability of people with Wikipages in his edit summary . All these time , Titodutta remained silent :-: but 115ash didn't stop there and asked people to remove votes according to his own will .115ash made this ridiculous suggestion about Bengalis living in West Bengal :: To conclude, in my opinion this article should possess more BANGLADESHIS' images rather than EASTERN INDIANS, GIVEN THAT innumerable people from Kolkata do not claim to be BENGALI (although the can speak it fluently)] .I seriously have no idea who this Nusrat Honey Bee is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here .----CosmicEmperor (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This user's points are very confusing, in my opinion. Replies in brief—
    • First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me — as I had doubts and I took it to SPI, and "that's"process. The was things are going on at Talk:Bengali people — "there might be socks alert", "Sock alert" — that's not the right way. If you have evidence, take it to the clerks.
    • thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali — you have started reading my thoughts?
    • Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me — once again, calling an SPI notification "hatred"? Be informed that it was a "notification", there were a dozen editors involved there and I knew somewhere other SPI were also going on, I could not notify everyone manually. And also read the wording I used here As some of you had alerted about socks above and I have also felt so. . .
    • On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs , — Kind? Read this message. Did I unblock them? I asked them to follow the standard "unblock request" procedure — that anyone would give. Any experienced editor please read this line I said I don't think an admin will consider unblocking. — it was an indirectly said "no" to it.
    • All these time , Titodutta remained silent — What do you expect me to do? Should I go and block them? And why do you think I am following and carefully reading each and every comment posted by all these people on every corner of Wikipedia? Try to understand "not posting' does not mean "endorsing it". I remain silent about 99.9 incidents here on Wikipedia.
      In addition when was the last time, you came to talk page to attract my attention towards these edits? Did you? "No".
    • A did this, B did that — now the comment changes to "he made ridiculous comment" — these are mainly content disputes.
    • I seriously have no idea who this Nusrat Honey Bee is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here — What can I do if you have no idea? And once again the SPI notification link? Please understand the purpose of a notification.
    • Now let's look at the story from the other end:
    To Cosmic Emperor:
    Get your facts right before complaining about other. Tito didn't start the SPI. 115ash did, according to revision history. And, where exactly was Tito unkind to you and kind to 115ash? None of your diffs support your claim. You even post just one comment by Tito as a proof that he was claiming you know Nusrat Honey Bee, asking everyone to comment against you, and supporting 111ash, all rolled into 30 words. That's insane. Remember you posted a sock alert before Tito started to post about socks.
    What is this game you are playing with all these sock puppets? Anyone can check the evidence here, here and here, and follow the links posted to see that something very sick and perverted happening here. I don't think it is a coincidence that so many socks of the same sock master are vandalizing you (posting on your name, making claims in you behalf, disguising as you) and following you around, with a lot of potential socks waiting at the sidelines. You yourself had multiple accounts, one of which was overtaken by another sock (nice "coincidence").
    Your account looks almost like an SPA. All that you did was fight over a collage of images, fight back those socks, and complain about everyone else [please, read WP:TINC]. You have wasted a lot of people's time way more than you have done any real contribution. That's bad. We are all volunteers here, and our time can be better used building an encyclopedia. You will become very unwanted if you continue to behave like this.
    And, what is this sadness over me calling Subhash Bose a "king of the jungle"? You have already complained about it here, here, here, and, of course, in this discussion. I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast.
    Please, stop fooling around, and try to do something useful.
    To Tito Dutta:
    You didn't have to use a couple of comments by me and Nafsadh, made as part of a mass messaging drive and your own query twice to prove that people came after you trying to get you voting or maintaining a spreadsheet, while you said no. Not so dramatic I believe. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast. That was due to this valuable reply by Abecedare . And i have mentioned 115ash so many times above. You are very well aware that second SPI was filed by Titodutta and the first by 115ash. The second case was moved to other page .Game of sockpuppets? The SM and his socks vandalizes other pages also. I don't have multiple accounts till now. Many people forget password and creates new account. The SM existed much before i started editing with this account . And i don't think only one Sock Master ZORDANLIGHTER is involved this time. There are other players who have joined this game .
    • ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC) this comment by DoRD makes my stand clear . Whoever he is , one day he will be caught. Remember that. You can't play double game forever .--CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. ZORDANLIGHTER is just one of the socks. Undertrialryryr is the sock master. Know thy enemy. And, no, I am not "well aware" of anything that you did or was done to you. I have other things to do than following someone around here. Whatever little I have seen is mind boggling enough. Can you tell why you attract sock puppets and vandals and SPAs like no one else does? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thomas.W edit warring and semi-protection issue

    User:Thomas.W removed several informative external links including some that were already there- which I did not add. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link.

    As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them. Omniglot uses biblopgraphy [85].--94.204.144.31 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Few things that you need to be aware of,
    1. You needed to notify the user when you made this post. I've gone and done it for you.
    2. Edit warring isnt dealt with here its dealt with here.
    3. Without diffs to back up your claims nothing is likely to be done.
    4. I cant see anything that appears to be edit warring by Thomas.W.

    Amortias (T)(C) 10:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. The diffs are here: [86][87][88]--94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't been doing any edit-warring, what I've been doing is reverting the IP's addition of links to a personal web site to multiple articles relating to languages, a web site that claims to be an encyclopaedia, but clearly violates WP:ELNO, both by being a personal web site not written by an expert in the field and by not adding anything worthwhile to the articles (sample pages on Omniglot: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/finnish.htm repeatedly added to Finnish language and http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm repeatedly added to Urdu; as can be clearly seen they're nothing but short stubs plus lots of links to other web sites, even linking back to the en-WP articles they're added to for more information...). The web site has been reported to the spam blacklist (there are 1,100 links to it on en-WP...) so it's up to them to take it from here, but as I said, I haven't done any edit-warring. For more info about what has happened see both my talk page and the IP's talk page. The semi-protection mentioned is a reference to Urdu being protected by EdJohnston because of edit-warring by the IP, not by me. Thomas.W talk 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor already asked about this on my talk page. I suggested he post at WP:External links/Noticeboard but he hasn't done so. At first glance the links do seem to go to a self-published site and are not likely to be approved. If the links are being added systematically to multiple articles a complaint can be opened at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The site has been reported at WT:WPSPAM too now. Thomas.W talk 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First you blank out most of the external links, claiming the article is nothing but a collection of links, then accuse me of "advertising" the site, even though I done nothing of such. It's simply informative content on the articles subject, but your own twisted interpretation or better distortion of them, doesn't get it. You've been evasive on my argument why IMBD is used as an external link. Now you're latest excuse is that the site is privately owned, even despite it has a bibliography section. Now you've made it a crusade to keep it off wiki and accusing anyone of adding it as a promotion. I could almost swear you have a personal feud with the owner of that site, even though it's properly sourced.94.204.144.31 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be silly. A number of other experienced people who have looked at it (both here and at other notice boards) have confirmed what I've said about Omniglot violating Wikipedia's external links policy. If they get blacklisted it's because of you BTW, because it was your persistance that made me take a closer look at the site, before that I had never even seen the links. Thomas.W talk 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And before you took a closer look at it, you accused it a commercial site and accused me of "advertising it". Now looking further at it, you've come up with a new "excuse" to remove it.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another deliberate lie from you, like on EdJohnston's talk page where you claimed that I had told you that it was OK to add the links, which I of course hadn't. I reverted your repeated addition of the links since it was obvious from even a very quick look at the site that the links you added violate our external links policy (the "advertising" bit is part of the standard text in the spam user warnings). Your repeated re-addition of the links, and your edit-warring on Urdu before that to get "Omniglot - the online encyclopedia of languages and writing systems" into the text then made me take a closer look at the site, a look that resulted in a report to the spam blacklist. Thomas.W talk 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Merger of Andreas Lubitz

    On 29 March, a discussion was started about merging the material from Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525. There was a huge amount of input, and the debate was finally closed on 17 April, the result determined as "merge". The merge was then implemented in the normal way, moving the relevant content of the Lubitz page to the Germanwings article and turning Lubitz into a redirect.

    However, on 14 April, as the merge debate was drawing to a close, an AfD (the third one) was opened for Andreas Lubitz, and it is ongoing. Following the implementation of the merger, user Valoem (talk · contribs) restored three times the content of the Lubitz page, insisting that since an AfD had now started, the consensus of the merge debate could be ignored.

    I therefore request that community consensus be re-implemented by closing the AfD as an abuse of process (or whatever), reverting the Lubitz page to a redirect, and protecting it against restoration. Thanks.

    Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, this speaks mainly to an unwillingness on either side to abide by any decision they don't like. Both sides have some merit, it is a matter on which reasonable people may differ, but I closed it as I read it. Obviously roughly 50% of those involved in the debate are not going to liek the close either way. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    About SourAcidHoldout continuously blanking contents..

    The editor SourAcidHoldout is continuously blanking the criticisms and other contents of articles (eg., this link, this link and many more), stating that the articles have defamatory contents ,weasel words and fails to meet WP:NPOV. I request someone to quickly go through his edits to find out whether they are constructive or not.. I previously was put to his feet on reverting blanking of criticisms from Basal reader, as I was not familiar with the subject... And I don't want to intervene in his editing.. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From what i can see its 50/50ish. Their edit summaries leave something to be desired however Amortias (T)(C) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, I actually think it would be helpful for someone with significant more Wikipedia esxperience to review my submissions. I got fed up a couple of days ago with the amount of unsourced stuff on here and decided to start with articles that had problems, oldest first. There are many articles here from many years ago that do need looking at, but I want to make sure I'm getting it right. I'm not nuking everything from orbit, a lot of stuff is quite good, and I'm trying to fix what can be fixed, and come back to issues which are clearly larger (like the fact that there are half the "US-Country X Diplomatic Relations" articles are just copied off US government sources, and have been so for years). I tend to take a line of if something's useless, remove it, but I prefer a situation where information is made better, where it can. What do you want to see in my edit summaries? SourAcidHoldout (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing show stopping just small things like avoid having words in uppercase text as it can make it look like your shouting and remembering to use them as there are a few that have been missed which can make some people (myself included) a bit concerned about them. I've dropped a few links on your talk page that might be of help. Amortias (T)(C) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amortias: 50 of what he doesn't like and 50 which doesn't meet whatever he says? That's gruesome! Is it good to go on blanking, rather than editing them to make it meet whatever it doesn't meet? I find that (blanking) extremely displeasing! --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its more along the lines of 50% of them seemed pretty much spot on and 50% may have been able to be referenced depending on what is actually available out there. Its quite possible that we could all go out looking for references and find ther are only 1 or 2 that were possible to source in whcih case it will shoot up to 99% or so. I dont like blanking myself as I feel its better to source something and try to include it if it adds to the articles but if you cant provide the evidence you cant include it. All in all I went through and there was only one edit I disagreed with enough to undo and am planning on going back and seeing if I can improve that section later as I think it should be possible to save it. Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor needs to read WP:PRESERVE. Try to improve content before you delete it. Weasel words are easy to fix and do not usually warrant wholesale deletion of all criticism. A lot of unsourced material can easily be sourced, as well. Look at these edits: while the article clearly has problems, SourAcidHoldout deleted all the information about the subject's major accomplishments, leaving only trivia about his early life. They also deleted both of the images in the article for some reason, and two good sources. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, actually on that one, the "Personal Life" section should have been kept, that's clearly sourced and fine. My mistake there. The three paragraphs above that are unsourced items in a biography of a living person - there's a big bold message when you edit a biography saying that they need to be removed. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, the wholesale blanking needs to stop. It is fine and within NPOV for articles to have a "Criticism of X" section, such as at Cóir, where perfectly valid criticism was blanked. "Weasel words" should result in changing the sentence with weasel words, not blanking a section. "BLP violation" should result, possibly, in removal of a sentence, or its alteration - not blanking. "Unsourced" should result in the addition of a 'citation needed' template, not blanking of a section. And so on. Items that "add nothing" to WP are, frankly, just your opinion - you should not be blanking large, sourced sections of articles, e.g., this, this, and this. You keep using the phrase "weasel words". I do not think it means what you think it means. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of these edits are terrible, & I have reverted most I looked at (not all of them). "Some" is not a weasel word justifying the removal of whole sections! He has proposed the deletion of both Conditional election and Liturgical drama on grounds of notability - there are shelves of books on each topic. If he wants to continue editing he should restict himself to adding or improving for a long while. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's OK, I'm going to stop editing. I think what this is is simply a disagrement. Everrything I've removed I can place my hand on my heart and say "this is junk, and doesn't deserve to be in an Encyclopedia". The conditional election article, to take just one, is not worth anything. It has no sources at all, making every single word original research. By JUST looking at the wikipedia page, there is no way that I can verify anything. "In relation to Scripture" section - not a SINGLE source. Fails WP:V. Remove it. The "Biblical Support" section is just a list of bible verses. It doesn't add ANYTHING. I want to clarify here that I genuinely don't believe there's a single word in that article that's worth keeping in its present state. Certainly not a single word can be verified, so nuke the whole thing until it can be. That's only my opinion. Well, the last sentence is, the other stuff is just correct.

    How does this article help me, as a person with no knowledge of what Conditional Elections are, understand it? I don't even know if it's right, from the article. I don't even know if Conditional election actually exists or if anyone ever believed it, or if a billion people did, or three, or the timescales, and I can't verify anything. I'm firmly of the opinion that if it can't be sourced, written up properly and verified, it should go. People can research conditional elections not on wikipedia if there isn't an article worth reading here, and that's OK. It would be BETTER to improve the articles, but I can't, and they're sticking as a cancer here, making a great encyclopedia slowly and slowly fill up with out of date information, badly written weasel words, unverifiable comments, original research, vanity stubs about people who have no merit whatsoever and these "Critisicm" sections that just list "stuff I don't like about this bloke or thing". However, I can see and genuinely respect the argument that stuff should be left up with the warning boxes, because as long as the warning box is there, people can make up their own minds.

    I hope there's a plan for the community to address some of the historical stuff with NPOV and other issues, the oldest of which date back more than seven years. If it could be rewritten by someone to make it better (which, of course, virtually everything can, and this would be the better thing), who's going to do this? When are they going to do this? In a month, a year, a decade? And until it gets rewritten, properly sourced and tidied of bias is it just going to stay here, making the wiki consist more and more of unverifiable statements?

    For example, the oldest NPOV disputed article is (now) a bunch of stuff from February 2008 about countries relations with the United States, for example Bermuda–United States relations. There is NOTHING in that article that is verified. Someone could have made literally every word of it up. It claims that during World War II, Bermuda was used as a significant US military site. Was it? I don't know that. Possibly, of course, but I don't know, because sources aren't cited. I don't even know if the article is accurate, and I can't verify it from the article alone. All those articles just need nuking from orbit in my opinion, but I am (and I'm not being sarcastic here, seriously) genuinely happy to leave them, if that's the prevailing community opinion. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles that are not worth anything would've been deleted immediately after creation.. Wikipedia has a host of articles which are controversial, which can't be deleted just because they are controversial or a minority view... Articles which seems to contain varied logic which are opposed by the majority are continuously being worked upon to maintain NPoV, not just simply blank them or delete them... And if you can't verify them, someone else can! Ask the help of a third person who is expert on the subject and append the existing article with consensus and sources. When you don't know if the article is accurate, consider approaching an admin or another editor who is familiar in the subject asking them whether the info. should be challenged or not. Not simply blank them... I strongly express my displeasure on blanking the contents.. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 09:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely misunderstanding these policies, and completely misjudging these articles. The first is neither original research, nor unverifiable. See a google books search. The 2nd is in fact almost all from an old Encyclopedia Brittanica article, as many older articles are, and as was indicated at the bottom. There is no way these actually pretty decent accounts of their subject should just be removed because the referencing needs improving. You are just out of your depth with these huge removals. If you want to edit, restrict yourself to adding text or references for now. Otherwise I suggest you stop. Your current editing is damaging. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Revoke talk page access?

    (non-admin closure) Revoked by blocking admin, DoRD. Keri (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Of checkuserblocked sockpuppet here [89]. Keri (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    New user moving both articles and other users' user pages around

    Sock has been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ranvirojha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created a few days ago, and has only made just enough edits to become autoconfirmed, before starting a rather odd move circus, moving both articles, including protected pages, and the user pages of other users around. So could someone please take a look at it? Thomas.W talk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir, I am not a vandalizing the articles . I just want to say that Mridul is my friend he told me to change his username and delete the user page and talk page. From his friend Ranvir Ojha. Ranvirojha (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ranvirojha: He should have logged in himself to do that. Also, moving a user page does not change the username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, it's definitely a pattern of inappropriate page moves. I've reverted several and currently have User talk:Ranvirojha move-protected
    User:Mriduls.sharma is the page of a contributor blocked indefinitely. [90] So not only is the move pointless (it doesn't actually change the username), but it could easily be seen as an attempt at block evasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... the "my friend" thing also doesn't explain why the article Prakash Raj was moved back and forth. He's also continuing his move circus, most recently moving his own user pages to another name. Thomas.W talk 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and moving pages belonging to other contributors, including one that Mriduls.sharma was in dispute with. Obvious sock is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy you are so smart mama will so proud of you. apna to chutzpah ho gaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranvirojha (talk • contribs)

    That's certainly not a denial. Obvious sockpuppet is blocked obvious sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can obviously still trust my "gut feeling"... Thomas.W talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Recent close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298

    This is patently silly. Flyer22 needs to get a grip. There's nothing to do here and nothing that needs doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the most recent WP:Sockpuppet investigation I started on User:Cali11298, Vanjagenije stated, "You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user." Binksternet went to Vanjagenije's talk page to comment about this, making it clear that a WP:Sockpuppet does not have to be confirmed as a WP:Sockpuppet by a WP:CheckUser to be WP:Blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. I asked Vanjagenije to de-archive the case so that I could make it clear that not only did I not break the WP:3RR rule because I did not revert more than three times (I reverted twice; a WP:Dummy edit is not a revert), but because reverting WP:Blocked or WP:Banned editors is a WP:3RR exemption. WP:Blocked does not simply apply to the account(s); it applies to the person; same goes for WP:Banned. I told Vanjagenije, "There is a need to de-archive since you accused me of breaking the WP:3RR rule when I did not, and when you are misapplying the WP:3RR policy, which will be believed by less experienced editors. I knew that the editor in question was a WP:Sockpuppet; an editor would have to be an idiot not to know that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. Editors (including WP:Administrators) revert obvious WP:Sockpuppets on the basis that they are WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I am one of those editors." Vanjagenije has insisted that this latest WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298 is "not obvious at all." I beg to differ.

    I still want the case de-archived so that the investigation is not left on the belief that I violated WP:3RR and should not have repeatedly reverted the latest Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet -- Thefiremanx6 (talk · contribs). Cali11298 already misapplies Wikipedia's rules, and acted like I had no right reverting him as Thefiremanx6; the last thing Wikipedia needs is for him to continue believing that he can disrupt Wikipedia all he wants and that he cannot be reverted even in cases where it is blatantly obvious that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. He will try to use Vanjagenije's statement against me, just like he tried to use a WP:Administrator's words against me when commenting as Owlman2015 (talk · contribs). If Vanjagenije will not de-archive the case so that the record is set straight, I ask that Vanjagenije at least strike through that part of the comment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This reaction by Flyer22 seems hot-headed to me; I don't particularly see the need to de-archive the SPI case just so that one comment can become the seed for a distracting sidebar. I think it would be easy enough for Flyer22 to take the talk page discussion in stride, to note that Vanjagenije disagrees with the position of Flyer22 and myself, and move on. Certainly it would be good to get clarification about whether an obvious sock can be reverted over and over without worrying about 3RR, even when the SPI case has not concluded. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet, thanks for commenting. Yes, I am upset. Perhaps that is why I cannot see this as an overreaction. Or it could be that I know how this WP:Sockpuppet is, and that I simply don't like being wrongly accused on a record where no rebuttal from me is seen. I am inappropriately characterized on record in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation archive, one that will be analyzed by the WP:Sockpuppet in question and misapplied by that WP:Sockpuppet and possibly others. Even if not de-archived, it is not asking for much that Vanjagenije strike through the offending comment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If no de-archiving or strike-through happens on this matter, the most I can hope for is to make a note of the misapplication in a future Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation that I or someone else starts, since that editor will no doubt continue to WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, Vanjagenije has de-archived a case before at my request; well, that one was more of an implied request. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    APOLOGY ACCEPTED
    No need to keep this going. Apology made and accepted. --Jayron32 01:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And for reasons I already made clear, Bbb23, you are the wrong person to be closing such matters. Your WP:Personal attack of stating that I "need to get a grip" is as out of line as the warning you gave me on my talk page regarding Cali11298. There was nothing at all being harmed by this thread remaining open. Yes, confirmation that your silly WP:3RR interpretation is wrong would be made clear by others in this section, but that would not be harming anything...except your view. Do cease interacting with me unless absolutely necessary. I would ask another WP:Administrator, one of the many that I am friends and/or acquaintances with, to revert this close of yours, but I wouldn't want to incite WP:Wheel warring. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing: To close this thread the way that you did, knowing how the archive in question will be perceived, and how that WP:Sockpuppet hangs on your every word because that WP:Sockpuppet used your words to mock me, is a mess. Yes, it's so silly of me to want an error (two errors, in fact) corrected. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer, please. I'm the one that closed the case and not Vanjagenije. I saw his comment to you but as I considered 3RR exemption to be a perfectly accurate description, I simply closed to forgo the drama. I didn't know this would reach boiling point. I would consider while the thread is here that others may reign in with their interpretation as to whether 3RR exemption applies.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Berean Hunter. You didn't archive the case, though. Vanjagenije did. And I made a simple request that the record be cleared up by either letting me briefly reply at the case page about the WP:3RR matter or by Vanjagenije striking through the comment about it. Either way, I only reverted that WP:Sockpuppet twice at that article. I'm too pissed right now about this, especially because I know how that comment and what Bbb23 stated above will be used by that WP:Sockpuppet. Once I study a WP:Sockpuppet as I have studied Cali11298, I know their editing styles and personality quite well; for example, in this other recent case. So, yes, I know how this WP:Sockpuppet will behave. He is watching now as we discuss this. I am in the process of cooling down about this matter, but this discussion is clearly over anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologized to Flyer22 on my talk page today, few seconds before he started this discussion. Like I said in my apology, I was wrong. I accused him of braking the WP:3RR, while in fact, he did not brake it. I see no reason to de-archive the SPI case, as the case is resolved. It would be useless to continue discussing something like 3RR on that page. Flyer22, if anybody tries to use my accusation against you, feel free to point out to my apology. I believe that is enough from me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanjagenije, I was not asking to continue discussing anything at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation; I was asking you to let me note at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation that you are wrong (about two different points). Either that, or that you strike through your previous comment. You have refused to do either, and it will never sit well with me. Comparing the aforementioned case you de-archived at my sort-of-request, this one is more important as far as clarity at the case page goes. That stated, I accept your apology. And I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    96.255.215.253 - Disruptive Gaithersburg, Maryland IP editor

    Blocked for repeated disruption. Hertz1888, too many articles here to protect them all but if there's a few that you see as being particular targets please let me know on my talkpage. Topic ban won't work if they refuse to communicate, please also let me know if they reappear with a different IP. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I'm requesting admin sanctions against 96.255.215.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    This is the third time I'm aware of that this editor (aka "Destructive Destroyer vandal"), who typically edits from Verizon FiOS IPs geolocating to Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been brought to ANI. Previous attempts [91][92]

    Other IPs suspected of using:

    There's a significant overlap, between these two IPs, for instance.

    Anyhow, most recent edits have been problematic. User's MO in the past has been to include redundant and overly embellished prose "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair", "slender, slim body", "As an eighteen-year old teenager", etc. When confronted, the editor typically deletes talk page notes without replying, which they are doing from this latest IP. Editor has most recently been warned for:

    It keeps going on. The editor clearly has no interest in community preferences, participating in discussion, or making compromises, only POV editing. Their silence says loudly that they're not here to take part in a community project. I also believe that given their history of disruption, they are either here to be disruptive, or they lack the competence critical to editing in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidently the same person. Blocked for a month, though they will no doubt be back in due course. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While I have run across, stumbled upon and encountered this editor, I think 108.10.240.190 is a different problem, the "Fictional ages editor(s)". This editor(s) is focused on assigning ages to characters in various kids'/family TV shows (Full House (particularly the season articles), Winx Club, Little Einsteins, 64 Zoo Lane, etc. I say "editor(s)" because the edits are very similar, but the IPs are all over the U.S. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Summer, I've stricken that IP above. I may have gotten confused skimming an old ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Cleaning up after this editor on a daily basis has become a major drain on my time and an ongoing frustration, and I see that others are similarly impacted. This IP disregards repeated requests to adhere to WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN) in British articles (particularly those related to the Downton Abbey series), and the behaviour continues. I have left a series of notices followed by warnings increasing in level, all to no avail. In addition to the spelling and punctuation style changes I have reverted (I'm never sure I have spotted them all), this editor seems to take liberties with content and with the deletion of citations; others have been dealing with those changes. Please protect the articles, as well as easing the load on the hardworking "cleanup squad", by imposing, at the very least, a topic ban of the IP from articles using British (or non-US) English, broadly construed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issues at Rgloucester's talk page

    There's very firm consensus demonstrating that Beeblebrox's actions enjoy significant support amongst both the wider community, from anonymous IP editors through to administrators, a good and representative cross-section of the community. Administrators with a good amount of experience of RGloucester in particular have voiced their support at the course of action, which is additionally reassuring. I see no point in this discussion remaining open further at this time. I'm sure we all look forward to welcoming RGloucester back when he's good and ready, and I'm sure those of us on the UTRS system will be keeping an eye out for a request in due course. Nick (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On April 18, 2015, User:RGloucester was blocked by User:Beeblebrox ("User seems to have gone off the deep end again, see edits at talk page and AN") following a heated rant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § I demand immediate assistance. Within 3 minutes of being blocked, RGloucester responded on their talk page (User talk:RGloucester § Hatting discussion at RMs): "I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. ..." In response, Beeblebrox blocked RGloucester's access to their talk page and email ("you really, really need to take a break and calm down"). Two issues follow from this.

    The first issue is, on viewing this and knowing a bit about the blocking policy, I knew this really sounded like the criteria for a WP:COOLDOWN block, which are not permitted via the blocking policy. Disabling the ability to email other users (in addition to disabling talk page access) is not supposed to happen unless there has been abuse of that feature in the past (which there is no evidence of) or "when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely" (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Setting block options). So I left my initial comments about it and a few other users commented, some disagreeing with my evaluation and others agreeing. This included the blocking admin themselves saying that it was within their discretion to disable those options even though it didn't meet the strict definition of "talk page abuse". I, and others, believe those options should be re-enabled, even though the initial block itself is justified. Given the only way to "force an admin's hand" is to report them to one of the noticeboards and have the community take action, here I am. Honestly this shouldn't have been an issue, just re-enable those options and close this. Though there was a few minor issues which at this point, only I noticed/commented on.

    The second issue is that a good faithed IP user commented on the proceedings, giving their thoughts (namely, that blocking email access was excessive). User:Bishonen (who had requested that any further discussion be directed to Beeblebrox's talk page) then twice deleted the IP's post (the first time with an uncivil edit summary), a violation of WP:TPO since you're only allowed to remove other people's talk page comments in certain circumstances. Administrator User:Floquenbeam then protected the talk page to prevent further comments being added. I questioned this on Floquenbeam's talk page and they answered: "To stop you from shit stirring was one". The administrator Beeblebrox said they were going to be fully protecting it themselves that Floquenbeam had beat them to it.

    What I would like to happen:

    • The unblock of RGloucester's talk page rights and email access, as there is no signs of abuse as needed by the blocking policy.
    • The full protection of their talk page removed as it is not supported by policy or guideline.

    Attribution: The draft was initially created by me and edited by other users. Although posting it under my name, User:Sroc, User:Alakzi and minor ce by User:Floquenbeam contributed.

    Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I fail to see what benefit this action would provide to the encyclopedia or the community. Several long-standing admins have concurred on this action and there is no evidence provided that their judgement is flawed or the action was inappropriate beyond a claim of "you can't do that". Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I reverted the IP once and you once, User: Tutelary, because it was you — not the IP — who showed the poor judgement of restoring the IP's post. I agree the IP was probably in good faith. (I have since had a pretty reasonable exchange with them on my own talkpage.) Not so sure about you. You and I have had no previous interaction that I'm aware of, there's no baggage, so I can't imagine why you would first revert me on RGloucester's page with a spoonful of alphabet soup,[101] and then revert my question about it on your page (together also with Beeblebrox's explanation of why RGloucester's page had better be left alone), with the edit summary "I'll be typing out a WP:ANI when I gather the diffs."[102] No chance of a reasonable exchange there. Yes, I know you're entitled to remove posts on your page, please don't trouble to link me to the guideline. I just wonder why. Do you figure stiff-arming people on your page and instead running to ANI improves the encyclopedia? How? Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Paraphrasing and extending what I said on Flo's page, This isn't RGloucester's first kick at the can and past history has shown that when he's upset, he tends to make really, really unfortunate remarks. Removal of talk page rights was a good call given he was headed in that direction again [103] to prevent further disruption. Your labeling it as a cooldown block is incorrect. If you had concerns, you should have posted to the blocking admin's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I can say is that policies are for guidance, they are not the holy word of God with no exceptions. Admins are expected to use their judgement, and I did nothing more than that and firmly believe it was for the best for all concerned. It saddens me that so many Wikipedians no longer seem to realize this, and cannot see that both my actions and those of my fellow admins in this case were as much to protect this user as to protect Wikipedia. This is a person who has basically completely lost it. They need a total break from Wikipedia and they were unwilling to just take it so they got an involuntary break. There is no need to make a big deal out of the settings. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    stricken comments are form an IP being used to evade a community ban.* Comment: Since I was pinged, I will leave a quick non-voting comment. Personally, I am not convinced nor impressed with arguments of "the longstanding admins" said. What I would ask is, what did policy say and which one said it? If Wikipedia's policies (not counting IAR) can be shown to reflect that the action is or is not appropriate, then that should be stated and the appropriate action applied. The rules are there for a reason and should be utilized fairly and in a standard manner not tossed out the window whenever its convenient to the admin performing the action. It does not appear that anyone is arguing against a block and my experience and intuition lead me to believe this discussion will be a waste of time and the admins will do whatever they want anyway, but hopefully someone with some common sense and integrity will follow policy and do that. I have not seen any indication that these particular admins acted intentionally inappropriately but it does seem like some actions are excessive and our of process. In fairness I did not see the comment left by Bishonen about not posting and we have since reconciled the issue on Bishonen's talk page. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    • For further clarification, it is my opinion that my edit should not have been reverted though nor should the page be fully protected nor should Email access be revoked. The user already had access to emails offline anyway and if they were abusing that already I suspect that would have come up in these discussions in some form.96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, good call. With users who go off the deep end like this, such additional measures are sometimes necessary to preserve some sort of order here. I wish, ah I wish, that editors would leave the blocked editor's talk page alone since those comments there are doing no one a favor. This thread is just another little log on the fire of acrimony; Tutelary, sometimes I really wonder what the hell you think you're trying to accomplish, and in my darkest moments I am drawn to the thought that shit-stirring is what you do best and what you like most. That you do this on purpose, and that you don't care that you're doing RGloucester no favor at all. That this is only here because the NCAA championships are over and there's nothing on TV for you. Fortunately I am a cheerful, cheerful person, and I whisk those thoughts away while doing some therapeutic kitchen cleaning. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 5)While I concur that the revocation of talk privileges was a bit rushed, given the users block log (and what they were posting) it probably would have happened anyway. Revocation of email privileges seemed a bit odd/unneeded, but when it comes down to it a blocked user shouldn't need those anyway, and should request an unblock (if desired) through UTRS. Talk page protection also seems unnecessary, but is somewhat allowed under the protection policy (When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked editors should not necessarily have to go to UTRS. UTRS is a notoriously bad process that rarely ever unblocks anyone because no one wants to be the one to make the call. Additionally, it is a completely non transparent process. It is far, better to do it in a transparent manner to prevent offline prejudice and abuse or even arguments of it. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My having edited the draft should not be understood as an endorsement of it. Alakzi (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block was good, revocation of talk page was good per "i am not blocked", protection of talk page was good per other people having fights RG couldn't participate in. Email may have been premature, but I don't see any particular need for it to be enabled (speaking of non-transparency). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - although most admin actions are <sarcasm>undeniably evil and malignant</sarcasm>, I don't see a problem with this block and removal of talk/email access. RG was seriously spinning out of control. However, if y'all decide to overturn the access removal, please ping me so I can get some popcorn and watch. GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Greg, I can't tell you how much I hate those "I'll get the popcorn" comments, though I appreciate that you didn't make a funny picture with a poodle or a gorilla in it and a catchy and totally funny quote. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is one of those occasions when someone has to be forcibly and completely disengaged for a while. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The "I am not blocked" comment can only be taken as indicating that the individual who made it is either irrational, intending to engage in sockpuppetry, or intending to use the user talk page as a soapbox. None of which are acceptable. The block was good, it is limited to two weeks, and I cannot see anything productive that can reasonably be done at the user talk page or by e-mail in the period, so there's no reason to object to those being removed separately either. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If I'd been RGloucester, had (correctly) surmised Dicklyon was socking, and couldn't get anyone to listen, I'd be likewise frustrated. I hope I'd acted differently. Despite my empathy, as someone who has largely sided with RGloucester in that user's many disputes with Dicklyon, and as someone who was watching these unfortunate events unfold in real time, I disagree with Tutelary's characterization of the block as cooldown. In the moment I was cautioning RGloucester to take a break from his wild ranting on a public board, fearing a block would soon be imposed by some alert admin. I feel Beeblebrox's block of RGloucester was well-deserved, preventative and certainly within an administrator's discretion. When thanking Beeblebrox for the block I predicted talk page privileges would soon need to be revoked; Beeblebrox had already removed talk page and email access. Removal of talk privileges I thought inevitable, but IMHO removal of email was premature, but still within admin's discretion, given RGloucester's lengthy history of histrionics. I felt page protection of RGloucester's talk perfectly appropriate; that was an inappropriate place for Tutelary to hold Beeblebrox accountable. Tutelary has been around long enough now to show more competence in choosing forums, and I suspect this contributed both to the unkind words Bishonen had for the ip heckler and for Floquenbeam's choice of words in explanation quoted above. In summary, there's nothing to be done by an administrator here, except perhaps admonish Tutelary for needlessly stirring shit. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that after rereading RGloucester's "I am not blocked" statement, the final sentence "You do not want to end up in his grasp" was the over-the-top comment that made me feel talk page access needed to be removed quickly. It clearly registered with me at the time, but I didn't remember it until rereading just now. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - RGloucestor's history of behavior as well as the behavior which lead to this block thoroughly justified the block and the removal of talk page access. I'm less familiar with whether RGloucestor abused his e-mail privileges during previous blocks (or at any time), but I'm more than willing to trust the discretion of the blocking admin. BMK (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose From here on, the less said about this matter for the next two weeks, the better. Really. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

    I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while, but there is something that needs doing. This is about the following user:

    Doors22 opened a thread at NPOVN on Formerly98's edits at Finasteride. This is a boomerang on that thread. I am posting it here, because of what i am proposing.

    • Claim: Doors22 is a long-time POV pusher, here to pursue one issue - increasing awareness of "post-finasteride syndrome", per his own words in Feb 2011 in his first month of editing when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"
    • A context note: "Post-finasteride syndrome" is what Doors22 is concerned with. It is a putative "syndrome" where some men suffer long-term sexual dysfunction because of using finasteride, a drug used to treat enlarged prostate and hair loss. There is boatloads of litigation on this. The condition is not recognized by the medical literature, all though the literature does note that there is a correlation between some men having sexual dysfunction after using finasteride (causation is difficult to show in this). Last month, a single agency within the NIH (the Office of Rare Diseases Research) put a page up on "Adverse events of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors" that mentions PFS. That is the only recognition there is. Doors22 has a FRINGE stance.
    • Action sought - Topic ban from anything related to finasteride or side effects of drugs for long-term Civil POV-pushing and increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
    • Evidence

    Doors22 started editing WP in January 2011. After getting his feet on the ground on a few other articles, he got to the finasteride article, and started editing in a strongly POV manner, emphasizing sexual side effects of the drug. For four years now, he has been hammering away at that.

    He made a foundational statement on his talk page, a month after he started. He wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

    This turned out to be a prescient declaration of WP:NOTHERE.

    Since then, his edit analysis shows:

    • 360 edits overall
    • Talk
      • 104 edits to Talk:Finasteride (which you can see here) arguing, often with personal attacks, to get his changes into the article.
      • 28 edits on other users' talk page, either about finasteride or politicking around it

    Add all that up, and 293 edits (81%) are pursuant to his mission - one issue about one drug, or trying to get rid of people getting in the way of him achieving that mission.

    • his block log - one block back in 2011 for calling another editor a Nazi (and not backing down from that) after calling him a dictator (for which he did apologize) (see below)
    • In the course of pursuing the "raise awareness of sexual side effects" mission, Doors has received the following warnings and blocks:
      • In Feb 2011 called Jfdwolff a "dictator" here (for which Doors [apologized)
      • In Sept 2011 was back at it, receiving a warning for making personal attacks again, against the same editor (this time calling him a "Nazi" and then was blocked for the same by Doc James. attacks were here and here.
      • Sept 2012 warned here while edit warring over content about the Post-Finasteride-Syndrome Foundation (the mission of which is the same as Doors22's self stated mission - to raise awareness of the sexual side effects of finasteride.
      • October 2012 was part of the sock/meat puppet investigation mentioned above, over the AfD
      • Feb 2014 warned for deleting content from finasteride without edit notes
      • Jan 2015 I warned him for edit warring
    • Sample edits to Finasteride
    • Doors22 edits in spurts. First one was Feb-March 2011
      • 1st edit was a new section called "Safety controversy":

    Over one thousand users of Finasteride report that they developed "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" that persisted despite continuation of finasteride treatment. Symptoms of Post-Finasteride Syndrome include, but are not limited to erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, genital shrinkage, emotional lability, and lack of energy. In December 2010, several American doctors published an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine that found evidence in favor of a causal relationship between finasteride use and prolonged sexual dysfunction. [1] The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC [2] and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. [3][4][5][6] In January 2011, a Canadian law firm filed a class action against Merck for failing to include warnings of permanent sexual side effects on finasteride's product label. [7]

    References

    1. ^ [1]
    2. ^ [2]
    3. ^ [3]
    4. ^ [4]
    5. ^ [5]
    6. ^ [6]
    7. ^ [7]
        • note, it was Jfdwolff's revert of that content and subsequent refusal to agree to allow it, that led to Doors22's personal attacks of "dictator" and "Nazi" against him. That first discussion on talk started with Doors22 stating: "Without the need for further support, I think it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this be reported on Wikipedia, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for information and know very little about human biology and medicine which can allow them to make dangerously uninformed decisions about their health."
    • next spurt was august - oct 2011. (note, effort to get Post-Finasteride Syndrome article created was during this time) sample edits"
      • dif about label of drug in the US, about sexual side effects.
      • dif adding content about erectile dysfunction
      • dif with edit note: "Very important for people suffering from Post Finasteride Syndrome and those interested in the ongoing controversy - Do not remove again before reaching a consensus on the talk page as per Wiki standards and regulations)"
    • next spurt was Jan 2012. sample edit:
      • dif with edit note: "Merck did not decide to stop spending money on the website as every single other product page is originally up. They are adjusting their market strategy to respond to emerging controversies. Please do not delete without discussion on talk page."
    • next spurt was April-May 2012. sample edit: (peaceful)
      • dif another label update
    • next spurt was Sept 2012. sample edits (there was battling here
      • dif added new section on the PFS Foundation
      • dif used that new section as a COATRACK for claims that the syndrome exists
    reverted by Jfdwolff with edit note "still no consensus for mentioning this group"
      • edit warred to keep it in, with note: "Added the sufficient third party source... do not remove again, discuss on talk page if desired"
    reverted by Biosthmors with edit note; "revert. political advocates do not get to decide what adverse affects are per WP:MEDRS -- they are not reliable medical sources"
      • edit warred it back under new section header "Society and culture"
    reverted by Edgar181 with edit note "m per talk page comments"
    • next spurt was Feb 2013. one edit:
      • dif about FDA panel meeting, over-emphasized sexual side effects (content no longer in article, don't know when that was taken out)
    • in March 2015 a draft article was created Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation and the discussion about that got very personalized, with Doors mistaking comments I made about the foundation for an attack on him (he may well be connected with for all i know - and i cannot know). (see the link)
    • more troubling, Doors broadened his behavior into battleground, making all 29 of his contribs at ANI on postings about me and about Formerly 98 - just taking pot shots to take us down. Stuff like this and this.

    This is just not letting up. So again, from some of his first comments here when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" He has been doing one thing here, and is resorting to increasingly ugly measures to achieve his goals.

    Break 1

    (note: "break 1" was originally "survey" and "break 2" was originally "discussion". was changed by SlimVirgin in this dif with edit note "not an RfC". Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and request one-way interaction ban with myself per my comments in the section below Doors exhibits the classic behaviors of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. As I outline below, every minor edit that does not support his position turns into an extremely lengthy WP:IDHT argujment, with personal attacks on the editors on the other side of the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 April 2015‎ (UTC) [reply]
    • Support The edit-warring, misinterpretation of sources, exhaustive talk page posts, and personal attacks that Doors has engaged with respect to this topic suggests that he unable to edit this topic productively and therefore a topic ban is justified. I understand how devastating side effects of drugs can be and I understand wanting to include that information in an article, but crossing the line into disruption is not ok. Ca2james (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose JYTDog admitted below that this is at least partly a personal content dispute for him. Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have been accused by a handful of other editors of being "COI Ducks" - editors that have an editing style of being paid editors or having some other conflict of interest. While this is almost impossible to prove unless the editor in question volunteers this information, it is problematic nonetheless. Moreover, they seem to have formed a WP:TAGTEAM and will participate in each others skirmishes as they battle with other editors, usually to remove negative information about large corporations or side effects from drugs. Both of these editors have even attracted criticism from non-wikipedia sources which you will find if you google both Formerly98 and JYTDog. I also believe this is also a retaliation from when I contributed my opinion on noticeboard incident's when both of these editors were separately reprimanded. JYTDog has an established pattern of retaliating against editors with whom he disagrees by initiating incidents against them on this noticeboard. In an edit below, he even admitted he frequently submits complains on this board and he was reprimanded for doing so just a couple weeks ago.
    Most importantly, this most recent complaint comes as a retaliation for a RFC (request for comment) I posted on the NPOV board. I recently put in a reference to a meta study published in a highly respected journal that called into question the quality of the existing clinical trials for finasteride. The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health but also received a small unrestricted gift from a non-profit group that is trying to organize research about permanent side effects caused by Propecia, a cosmetic drug. In my opinion, Formerly98 tried to poison the well by calling out that it was funded by an activist group. His statements were accurate to an extent, but they were misleading since he completely disregarded that the NIH, a globally respected research institution, was the main sponsor for the study. He often argues out of both sides of his mouth depending on his objective du jour. He decided the foundation was not notable enough to receive a wikipedia article but it is notable enough to mention when he feels it can discredit research that is unfavorable to the drug. Sometimes he feels the FDA is a authoritative source and other times he downplays its significance. What is very important to note is that an admin independently reviewed Formerly98's questionable edit yesterday and removed the reference to the funding source as he evidently felt it was not worthy of inclusion. When you look at things from the perspective of a tagteam of obstructive editors with a questionable history of downplaying side effect edits, things will look unfavorable but I would ask you review both of their edit histories to understand that they are the true source of this conflict. I made some mistakes in my newbie days (several years ago) which they have been eager to highlight but as many editors do, I have adapted as I gained an understanding of how things work around here. Doors22 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the inventors and proponents of "post finasteride syndrome" have been disrupting WP for years. The creation of a draft about the foundation (just to claim in the lede that this "syndrome" is legitimate) is the latest dirty trick in a tiresome campaign. The commentary now at Finasteride#Adverse effects is poorly written and disingenuously sourced but neither surprises me. The fewer hysterical, POV pushers in this area, the better. St★lwart111 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few things that don't make sense with this post. People who recognize post finasteride syndrome aren't the "inventors" of the syndrome, it is something that is caused by an adverse reaction to the drug. In the past you have falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet which was proven to be baseless upon investigation by an administration. I also was not the one to create the draft about the foundation although I think it is worthy of existence. You also mention that the adverse events section is poorly written and disingenously sourced but it was last updated by DocJames and yet includes references from the National Institutes of Health, JAMA Dermatology, and the FDA. Lastly, despite what it says on your own user page, you apparently haven't assumed good faith about multiple editors by accusing them of carry out a "dirty trick" by creating a page for the post-finasteride syndrome foundation. The existence of permanent/crippling side effects is one of the most (if not the most) widely discussed issue about the drug. This will become quickly apparent after a quick google search or news run. I don't really understand why you are accusing editors of using some kind of a trick to create an article for a non profit that is already approved by the US government. Your whole edit makes very little sense. Doors22 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Wikipedia with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). St★lwart111 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement is concerning because if you took the time to thoroughly review this incident you would have seen I already offered apologies for mistakes I have made. This incident is for the most part the result of a personal content dispute between myself and Formerly98 but the incident was opened by JYTDog on Formerly's behalf. Let me ask you this - How can you possibly collaborate with an editor who makes one argument to meet his objectives one day and then turns around and argues a more extreme version of the opposite case the next day in a separate context? It is almost impossible when you are dealing with another editor who is attempting to game the system and apparently has a lot more free time and will than are available to me at the current time. Diff SourceDoors22 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no, i did not open this on Formerly's behalf. that is your BATTLEGROUND mentality. i opened this because in my view your behavior is disruptive to the point where we need to topic ban you; I am seeking the community's input on that.
    You were warned to stop POV pushing many, many times - the following are just some of them:
    • Jan 12 2015 by me here
    • Jan 13 2015 by me here
    • Oct 2014 POV pushing remarked by Jfdwolff here and expanded here where he wrote "No, my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied. "
    • 29 March 2011 3 editors oppose your efforts to load animal studies into the article and note your POV-pushing: Talk:Finasteride/Archive_2#Even_more_animal_studies
    • 18 March 2011 Tryptofish acting as a mediator noted your aggressiveness
    • Feb 8 2011 warned by Jdwollf here and again here
    • Feb 7 2011 warned by Jfwolff here
    and you just not hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The SPA behavior has been pretty well established above, and the personal attacks show this user's engagement in the topic has become problematic. I'd look for at least 6 months on a topic ban (maybe more), but definitely a short WP:ROPE after that. I've only recently seen some of this editor's behavior pop up on my watchlist articles, and that already seemed troubling before I saw the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Doors appears to have a specific POV, while Jytdog and Formerly 98 appear to hold opposing POV. Eliminating one POV from the discussion seems counterproductive in terms of ending up with NPOV articles. With respect to the content dispute and accusations of FRINGE, a cursory 30 second search reveals multiple MEDRS sources discussing Finasteride with respect to erectile dysfunction:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18421068/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24955220
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176115
    It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Wikipedia in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BoboMeowCat did you review the long history of behavior issues, supported by diffs, provided above? For that matter did you even review the 3 sources you provided to see if they were relevant to the content, because they don't appear to be. In fact the first one you provided, PMID 18421068, supports the opposite conclusion from what Doors is pushing, so how is it relevant? And neither of the other two really support all that well the existence of a "post-finasteride syndrome," which is the idea that sexual dysfunction continues after discontinuation of use--that is what Doors has been pushing. And what do you think of this edit by Doors, which removes a 2014 MEDLINE-indexed meta-analysis and review? And it's problematic to try to square off Doors' behavior issues as "POV vs. POV" when what really matters is, who is supporting development of article content along WP policy and guidelines, with respectful and collegial behavior? Because of all this I can't see how this !vote carries any weight. Zad68 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Zad, I did review the history. There's a lot to wade through but there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND on both sides. With respect to the 3 secondary sources I listed, I'm aware that the oldest one supports the opposite position. Not cherry picking among secondary sources I found on this topic, I linked them all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't really focus on the behavior issues, which is what an ANI thread should focus on, and you're aware your sources aren't really relevant to the editing by Doors. OK then. Zad68 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, BoboMeowCat, but I have to question whether you actually read the discussion above or the sources attached to that particular claim. It is the same problematic claim I highlighted immediately above your comment. The suggestion that an acknowledgement on their website that some anti-Finasteride activists use the term "post Finasteride syndrome" is not the same thing as "x group gave recognition to the syndrome" which is what our article now claims. That "men would like to be aware of" the anecdotal-evidence-based claims of fringe-dwelling activists is of no consequence to us. That's not what we do around here. Again, this is part of an ongoing, 4-year pattern of extreme disruption and POV-pushing from people who "just want to get the truth out there". St★lwart111 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

    "It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."
    • The material in the first sentence is incorrect. As noted on the Talk page (note that I have not yet reverted, and Doors has not yet responded to my day old note) the page that Doors is referencing here contains an link to a disclaimer stating that the information on the page is collected by library specialists from diverse sources, including advocacy group sites, and the NIH neither vouches for its accuracy nor does anything on the page reflect official NIH policy. Any materials that the ORDR provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of ORDR, NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency. " In the course of adding this information, Doors removed two meta analyses, one of which found evidence for sexual dysfunction and one which did not. So high quality secondary refs were removed, and replaced with statements that are not supported by the source.
    • The information in the second sentence has been there since 2008 (Before Doors22 edited here). To the best of my memory no one has tried to remove it, even though MEDRS explicitly states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall below minimum standards of evidence".
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did you try to remove this, but you were for the most part successful! I see you have a pretty selective memory. See the diff here. Am I the only one who is picking up on these misleading arguments? Doors22 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely false. You conveniently removed the text that mentioned the global regulatory bodies (Sweden, UK, Italy, FDA). You specifically said "to the best of your memory nobody has tried to remove it" (referring to text about the Swedish Medical Products Agency). One falsehood begets another... Doors22 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doors, this is why it is inappropriate for you to edit this article. The material about persistent sexual side effects was moved to a new paragraph and reduced from three sentences (one that said that it had been observed, a second that stated the Swedes had added it to the Swedish label, and a third that stated that it had been added to the U.S. label) to one. It was NOT removed and the reduction from three sentences to one was done by a consensus agreement among three editors and opposed only by you. Yet instead of accepting that your position did not win consensus, here you are 6 months later shouting in all bold, all caps letters (all caps removed by Doors after this response was posted) about "ridiculous tactic" and engaging in yet more personal attacks. This is classic WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is precisely why you should not be editing this article. You are too close to the topic to be objective. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now shifting your argument which is typical but it shouldn't distract too many. You winnowed down a reasonable section to text to 'there are case reports of persistent side effects'. All the while you deleted reference to the globally respected medical authorities that serve as valuable MEDRS. The problem is that you write like you are a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company - constantly trying to minimize valid information or deflect from issues that are disadvantageous to you. These are not personal attacks but observations about the validity and consistency of your arguments and your editing style. The 'ridiculous tactic' I am calling out is that you showed a clip of text that has been there for years and 'to the best of your memory nobody attempted to remove it', yet you were the one to cut it down by 75%. Call a spade a spade and don't try to create the impression you haven't reduced the text when you have. Doors22 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem
    • Your ongoing anger about this edit six months after it was performed
    • Your failure to recognize and accept the fact that your version failed to attract consensus support
    • Your personalization of the content dispute, personal attacks, and defense of the same even when they are pointed out to you as a violation of policy
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My current disagreement has nothing to do with the specific edit at all. My disagreement comes from the fact you tried to use this as an example just yesterday of an edit that you say nobody has tried to remove. With two seconds of research, it is determined you made an effort to remove the citation and now you are claiming you built a consensus around it. You could just admit that you chose an incorrect example as a mistake, but your unwillingness to do so illustrates you have no interest in having a constructive conversation. Would anybody else like to comment on this? Doors22 (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC+1)

    Doors, one more time. No one tried to removed the information that there are case reports of sexual dysfunction that continue after stopping the drug. What happened is that by a 3:1 consensus, a decision was made to not to add a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that added this to the drug label. (We don't have a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that approved the drug, after all.)

    Yes, I misread your diff and said that it was a move to another paragraph and did not note that there was also a reduction in weight (one that was supported by a 3 : 1 consensus). You could have corrected that, though I don't really see how it matters since it was a consensus decision. What you decided to do instead was to immediately start accusing me of lying. This is the wrong approach and against policy. You don't see me here accusing you of lying and deliberate falsification when you add information stating that the NIH has "officially recognized" post finasteride syndrome, which given the disclaimer on the source page, strikes me as obviously incorrect. I simply assume that it was a mistake or difference in interpretation. You need to realize that you are a beneficiary of WP:GF here and that you need to practice it as well. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was asked to comment here, but I know nothing about Doors22 or the issue. Formerly 98, can you help me to understand the exchange above? You wrote that the information about the Swedish Medical Agency (you provided this link) has been in the article since 2008, and that no one has tried to remove it. But you did remove it here in September 2014. It is no longer in the article.
    There is a source for it on PubMed, an article from 2011 in the Journal for Sexual Medicine (I haven't checked to see whether it's correct): "The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the United Kingdom and the Swedish Medical Products Agency have both updated their patient information leaflets to include a statement that 'persistence of erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of treatment with Propecia has been reported in post-marketing use.'" Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sarah
    No that is incorrect. I did NOT make the statement that "the information about the Swedish Medical Agency has been in the article since 2008. What I said was that "The information in the second sentence [of my quote of BobMeowCat]] has been there since 2008" The key information in that sentence is "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug". If you look at the diff I offered, the information is sourced differently but it is present in 2008. And if you look at the diff provided by Doors, the information that "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug" is still there after the edit that I made last year supported by a 3:1 consensus.
    The key issue here as I see it is not in any case whether I made an inaccurate statement (I don't believe I did). The key issue is Doors immediately began accusing me of "falsehood" and being deliberately misleading. These are gross violations of WP:GF. He could have raised the discrepancy between what I said and his perceptions in a non-accusatory way, but as has been his pattern, he immediately went on the attack. Miscommunications, misunderstandings, and even inadvertent misstatements are commonplace in discussions about issues. What drives them off the track and into the ditch is the failure to apply reasonable assumption of WP:GF.
    Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining the exchange. (People are allowed to ask for uninvolved input, by the way; calling it canvassing isn't really fair.)
    Doors22, Jytdog has asked for a topic ban from anything related to Finasteride. Would you be willing instead to confine yourself to the talk page? A topic ban would deprive Wikipedia of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed, but your adding material directly to articles is not a good idea because you have a conflict of interest if you're involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Also, focusing on one issue means you don't develop a feel for Wikipedia's policies. Reading them isn't enough; you have to see them in action and use them yourself, but if you're confined to one issue, and only sporadically, that learning curve doesn't happen, and everyone ends up frustrated.
    It would also be important, if you remain active on talk, not to overwhelm editors with long or repeated requests. If you'd like something to be added to the article, use the "edit request" template, write up your edit along with sources, and post it. If the editors there say no, a good way forward is to start an RfC and abide by the results.
    The material about sexual dysfunction after cessation of the drug is now in the article, as is Post-Finasteride Syndrome, and there's a mention of the Foundation too (though the heading "Society and culture" is odd). Is there anything important missing, in your view? Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, I appreciate your good intent here but looking at the comments above, I don't think this proposal will address the issues that I am having with this editor. Multiple editors, at least one who is uninvolved, have asked Doors to discontinue his personal attacks, and Doors' response has consistently been to deny that there is any problem with his behavior. I don't think he understands how to carry on a reasoned debate without getting personal, or else he is so emotional about this particular issue that he is unable to restrain himself or see his behavior objectively. I am concerned that this proposal will simply lead to the Talk page continuing to be filled with invective, and that other inappropriate expressions of anger will continue. I know you and I have very different outlooks on the world and our opinions are frequently very very different. But I hope you will agree that I deserve to be allowed to edit here without being constantly being called a liar and having my good will questioned over every difference of opinion on this issue. Others may have different issues, but those are my concerns anyway. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Formerly 98:, there are problems on both sides. We saw it in the exchange above. You posted something imprecise (that no one had tried to remove the second sentence, without specifying what you meant), Doors and I both (mis)understood it to mean the same thing, it seemed obviously false, Doors responded with frustration because he feels this happens a lot, and you then suggested that his frustration shows why he ought not to edit in this area. You then moved his post to the lower section, and suggested that I ought not to comment because Doors asked me to.
    The usual thing with COI editors is to ask them to stick to talk. If they become overwhelming on talk, a topic-ban request is the next step. It makes sense to give this a try, because otherwise you lose Doors' input entirely, and he's seems well-informed about this, even if not always in a form that WP can use. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slim, I think you are suggesting a false moral equivalence here. I find a lot of Door's comments "imprecise". But I don't call him a liar over and over and over again. If he is "frustrated", a break might be the best thing. Because judging by his behavior, he has been "frustrated" and "feeling this happens a lot" with multiple editors since 2011.
    With respect to your comments on canvassing, do you really think Doors picked your name at random out of a hat as "an uninvolved editor", given your position as an admin, the many disagreements that you have had with Jytdog, and your posting skeptical remarks about my edits to the GlaxoSmithKline article the day before he sought you assistance as an "uninvolved editor"? This is where an editor with less respect for the rules and less confidence in the good intent of his peers might start getting "frustrated". But I"m not going to go there and Doors should not have either. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Formerly 98, you indicated above that the relevant info has been there since 2008 and clarified you were referring to this sentence:
    There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports..
    This isn't true...quick review of history shows this info hasn't been in the article since 2008. Here's the relevant text from December 2008:
    Recognized side effects, experienced by around >1% of users, include erectile dysfunction, and less often gynecomastia (breast gland enlargement). [1] As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. [104].
    Prior to Doors first edit in 2011, mention that this could be a long term/permanent side effect wasn't made clear. Here's the relevant text immediately before Door's first edit in 2011:
    Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. [105]. Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.
    I would think most men would consider temporary erectile dysfunction very different than longterm/permanent sexual dysfunction. It seems Doors is largely responsible for inclusion of this rare but serious reported side effect being mentioned in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin several issues:
    • I am sorry but in my view you are WP:INVOLVED and I view Doors22's posting on your page as canvassing. You raised questions here and here on your Talk page about the integrity/bias of both Formerly and me, as have other editors talking there; those editors have discussed concerns about pro-industry POV in the same breath that they have espoused FRINGE medical ideas like conspiracy theories about AIDS and autism/vaccines. Doors22, who also espouses FRINGE convictions about medicine (in his case, PFS) has made his main "defense" - really a distraction from issues raised here about his behavior - the putative bias/corruption/bad faith of Formerly and me. That you stepped up here to support someone advocating a FRINGE medical position who is making personal attacks of COI against people holding down the mainstream medical view, is just unfortunate.
    • I raised no issue about COI about Doors22 nor has anyone else here, that I am aware of. I am raising issues about his long term POV pushing at the article, and increasing BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and at other noticeboards/talk pages.
    • Thanks for the suggestion that Doors22 stop editing the article directly. That is not a terrible solution, but doesn't address Doors22's BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and outside it. I think it might be reasonable for the community to go with your recommendation if Doors22 agreed to refrain from directly editing, and acknowledged his battleground behavior and agreed to stop. On the other hand the community may also take the view that Doors22 has already demonstrated that he is NOTHERE and has already not changed course after many, many warnings, and that a topic ban is in order. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Door presumably asked me to comment because I had concerns about Formerly 98's insistence that research funding be included in relation to the Post-Finesteride Syndrome Foundation (he argued that "funding impacts study outcomes" here, 17:44, 17 April), but when it came to GlaxoSmithKline's RECORD trial studying Avandia and cardiovascular outcomes argued the opposite (e.g. here, namely that it would be second guessing, because the FDA had decided the funding didn't matter – which isn't correct; they asked for an independent review of the trial). The result is that we're probably the only source discussing the RECORD trial that has deliberately omitted that it was a GSK trial (F98's edit here).

    There seems to be a lot of removal of well-sourced information when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, and this is perhaps what caused Door22's frustration. Returning to the issue, the question now is whether he will agree to stick to talk, as Jytdog seems to be willing to consider this. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Slim, the bottom line is you should not be here. You have a recent history of conflict with both Jytdog and myself, and this lack of objectivity is exactly what Doors was hoping for when he canvassed you. Do the right thing. Strike your remarks and withdraw. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Formerly, people have the right to do whatever they want when they are canvassed. That is a distraction.
    Slim, Doors is attempting to distract the community from his four year record with the pharma shill gambit over recent interactions. It is a four year record. With regard to outcome, I prefer a topic ban and that is the SNOW consensus here so far.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being involved doesn't mean people can't comment, so who is or isn't involved is a red herring, just as the canvassing guideline doesn't mean people can't ask for help, and MEDRS doesn't say anything that would prevent Wikipeda from telling its readers that the RECORD trial was GSKs. I see a lot of policy and guideline misuse, and whereas experienced editors can ignore it, the less experienced get frustrated, lash out at the unfairness, then get blocked or banned for having lashed out. Having said that, I don't support COI or SPA editing, and I don't think Door should be editing that article. Let's wait to hear whether he accepts staying on the talk page and making an extra effort to minimize drama there (which I hope others will do too). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Break 2

    Discussion here, please Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question Jytdog, the above it quite long and confusing as is the title you chose for this ANI complaint. What does this have to do with Wifione? Are you alleging that Doors is being paid to be concerned about sexual side effects of medications? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The wifione case that was actually conducted at Arbcom was about long term POV pushing. Arbcom said they have no hand in paid editing. I will just remove that from the section header. to avoid other people who misunderstand that case from being confused. This case about Doors22 is very, very simple. He only edits about one thing and pushes one POV on that one thing. Every time he shows up we get into long, disputes on the article Talk page, and he is becomingly increasingly disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. The evidence above iis, in my view, what a case against a long term POV-pusher looks like. we will see if i am right or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the interpretation by the press was that Wifione had a financial COI with respect to that bogus business school he was promoting. Promoting a bogus business school on Wikipedia for free would seem like an odd hobby, although I suppose possible. Whether or not you are successful in getting Doors topic banned related to POV doesn't seem related to Wifione....so I'm not following your "we'll see if I'm right or not" comment. I do appreciate you amending the section header to remove reference to a case that doesn't seem to apply here. I'll refrain on voting on this specific case until I have time to review the evidence provided. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response There are a lot of reasons why I feel your accusations are inaccurate but I don't have the time to respond to each one. However one example is when you tried to warned me of edit warring after a single edit, which was not even a reversion but was rather a correction to a previous edit. It is also very untrue that post finasteride syndrome is not recognized by the medical community. Over the past few years it has been gaining increasing awareness in MEDRS sources and was documented before that in countless blogs written by doctors, internet forums, and foreign regulatory bodies. I have been upfront that I am a patient who continues to suffer from seemingly permanent side effects due to taking a COSMETIC drug, a very unfortunate consequence which will negatively impact the rest of my life when the offered benefit was negligible in comparison. My goal is to create an accurate and objective encyclopedia article to help other potential consumers make informed decisions with the up-to-date information on this drug.

    Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have an extensive history of removing/diminishing reports of side effects for a wide range of drugs/corporate products. This has made it very challenging to create an article that is balanced. It is also worth noting that on many occasions the two of you have ganged up on me to try and create a "consensus" and have tag teamed each other on editing conflicts on many other articles. I have not had significant issues with other editors, barring my initial days as an editor several years ago when I admittedly was much less aware of proper editing etiquette on Wikipedia. I really do not think a topic ban is appropriate, especially given my edits on the article are very grounded in facts, and look forward to hearing the feedback from other editors.

    This is also worth mentioning, even if its less relevant, but a couple weeks ago you were reprimanded on the admin noticeboards for acting with incivility towards another editor and were warned to stop initiating so many incident reports on these boards as you have been initiating a large volume in the recent past. Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Doors exhibit classic WP:SPA and advocacy behavior. Every minor edit turns into a a multi-thousand word discussion in which he becomes tendentious, exhibits WP:IDHT behavior against consensus, and engages in personal attacks. In fact, I rarely see a post from him in response to my comments that does not contain at least one personal remark.
    • Here on the NPOV talk board, he adds a comment responding to me in which he questions my integrity twice. The edit summary states that "a pharma employee should not pretend to be ignorant to the differences between a grant and gift" I have not been a pharma employee for nearly a decade, my COI statement clearly says this, and this has been pointed out to Doors multiple times. In the edit itself, he repeats his suggestiion that I am lying about my employment status, with the remark "I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry."
    • The vindictiveness extends to retaliatory editing. Here, after an extended series of posts in which he accuses me of an undisclosed COI, he makes 3 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article supporting the other side of a content dispute that I am involved in. He has almost no history at this point of editing non-finasteride related articles, and has never before shown interest in electronic cigarettes. Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 and later reverts one of my edits to the article.
    • Similar retaliatory editing on the Pharmaceutical industry article talk page, which subject he has never shown an interest in until another editor begins criticizing my rewrite of that article. Seeing a content dispute that I am party to brewing, he jumps in to support the other side of the argument. Diff
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to Formerly98
    • I just said earlier that I have only really run into issues with Formerly98 and JYTDog and I believe this quick response helps to confirm my statement that they have a tendency to tag team one another one Wikipedia, trying to form a two person consensus. What I see here is two things. First, I edited a single page (electronic cigarettes) where you had been very active and you accused me of WP:HOUNDING you. This edit is not recent and to avoid any perception that I may be hounding I have not done anything like it since. However you continue to bring this up time and time again.
    • Secondly, the history between us has led to my frustration and I apologize if you feel I made a personal attack against you. The reality is that you make arguments that do not seem to be what you actually believe for pushing a POV and this would lead to frustration for anybody. Somebody who claims to have a PhD in chemistry and experience working as a research scientist for pharma companies should know the difference between a research grant and a gift and not pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is very incendiary to refer to a research gift with no strings attached or obligations a "bribe" or "incentive plan". On your own talk page, you have written "If I disagree with you, its almost never personal. I may even secretly agree with you, but feel that the article in question is unbalanced and needs to be adjusted to a more neutral POV." In my opinion, it is very counterproductive to make arguments to which you personally disagree and can be very antagonistic to other editors making good points.
    • Lastly, I'd like to highlight my edit that you called out on the WP:Pharmaceutical Industry article. This is very obviously not an instance of hounding yet you repeatedly bring this up (among other poor examples) which can get very exhausting. I am confident that anybody who spends the time to properly evaluate this example will see that your accusation is without merit because I merely offered a civil opinion on a topic to which you don't have a monopoly. The problem is that very few editors don't have the time and it's possible they take your accusation at face value which is highly misleading. I think this example is a good representation of the (lack of) credibility of many of your accusations and the aggressive/unfair editing tactics you often employ on Wikipedia. Both Formerly98 and JYTDog have run into problems with many, many other editors even in recent months where they seem to be the other two that have problems with my editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I know this looks like a personalized content dispute (and it is in part), which is why I reckon no one is commenting. But there is meat to this, or i would not have brought it. And I know that NPOV issues are difficult, since you have dig in some to see what is going on. I tried to tee this up so it would be very very clear. Hopefully folks will take some time to review the evidence I provided above. And I want to apologize to the community for showing up here again, but the BATTLEGROUND from Doors22 was just getting to be too much; and his NPOVN posting was just too.... ironic. Thanks in any case for your patience and consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhhh, so you did notice that few are commenting. Curious - have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf by Aesop? Other editors have been hinting about the remarkable frequency they're seeing your name on ANI. Did you first try to settle this "personalized" content dispute on the TP of the respective article? Atsme☯Consult 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • and so now Doors adds some clear WP:CANVASSING to the list of BATTLEGROUND behaviors. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Wikipedia to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmichelson27

    Looking at Jmichelson27's talk page as of this edit, he has been asked four times to stop adding content that he supports with IMDb reference. User has most recently ignored these notes here where he again adds IMDb links. There are other issues as well, for instance I had to ask the editor in this discussion I asked him why he removed the bulk of most of the plot summaries (which ideally should be 100-200 words) in favor of fatty loglines. He never replied. And in 550+ edits, the user has only discussed something once and has only explained an edit with an edit summary once. Editor Geraldo Perez has reverted this user on the basis that they submitted false information. Not sure how to proceed with an editor who doesn't acknowledge community expectations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Looks like some serious WP:IDHT going on there, and frankly, I'm surprised that s/he hasn't been blocked already. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of the edits the user has made have been unconstructive, like this recent edit after this discussion commenced. Unfortunately, there are those problematic ones mixed in, as Cyphoidbomb pointed out, plus sometimes removing necessary references like [106] [107] and [108]. But seeing five final/single-issue/level 4 warnings on the user's page since February warrants some administrative action. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive Edits on Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) Page

    These users IP 71.239.172.110, 140.118.228.170, 180.191.84.3, 180.191.76.3, 202.92.128.136 & 202.67.40.50 keep changing the call-out order section of the Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) page according to their own biased judgement, as well as adding useless and false information that are nothing less than inaccurate from the show. Please check episodes of Asia's Next Top Model (Season 3) to verify the call-out order. These users do not even have a legitimate account, but they are always making incorrect edits. -Win- (talk)

    Seems they had very similar issues in the article about the second season of this same show.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    YES! And for many other shows too! Why haven't they been blocked yet, I really do wonder. -Win- (talk)

    Jody08 is also posting false information on the page. The user is attempting to post spoilers of episodes that have yet to be broadcasted, therefore there is no actual proof of final results. -Win- (talk)

    First thing, Sign your posts. The sinebot posted on your talk page showing you how to do this. This looks more like we have a content dispute going on than a conduct dispute. Looking at the talk page, while I notice they haven't tried to discuss this there I also so note that you haven't. This case isn't really for ANI. Go to the talk page, provide source, discuss it, try to get a consensus, and if that don't work go open some form of dispute resolution WP:DR, like an RFC. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit warring over this reality show has been occurring since the show started several weeks ago. A week or so ago, I asked for semi-protection at WP:RPP but I guess the article was only protected for a week. Should we ask for a longer duration? It's a true dilemma because some of the IP editors make valid edits while some user accounts make incorrect edits, like reformatting the contestants' box. I think though as the number of contestants goes down, the edit warring will decrease. Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I really wish we could put an end to this use of Wikipedia as a minute-by-minte tracker of every unreality TV programme on the planet. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cryptjohson

    Anyone recognize this guy, who popped out of nowhere three days ago with fully-formed knowledge of Wikipedia and has been busting my balls ever since? Anyone interested should take a look at his contributions and edit summaries and his commentary on Talk:Cooper Union#Edit dispute, plus his edits here, where he tried to induce another editor to get involved, until I mentioned that I was aware of Cryptjohson's virgin birth, upon which he deleted those edits.

    It's an unfortunate aspect of our CU system, I believe, that "fishing expeditions" aren't allowed, so there needs to be some evidence about who this mysterious "new" user might be. Anyone who recognizes his style is welcome to post it here, or on my talk page, or to e-mail me with their thoughts. Or, if a CU recognizes this person, perhaps that would be sufficient for a check. BMK (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried my best to be civil and understanding with this editor, but his sense of superiority won't allow any constructive discussion. Cooper Union is an article that doesn't comply with Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. It was in an even more poor condition before I started fixing it [109]. As can be seen from the history of the article, before I started editing it, BMK was engaged in an editwar with Arms & Hearts and violated 3rr. I tried to bring the article, on which BMK had been adding boosterism for quite a long time, to comply with Wikipedia standards[110][111], but BMK keeps trying to sneak in boosterisms. For example I removed the Wikipedia:Weasel word "recent" with this edit, while BMK readded it with this edit. He accused me of being a POV editor[112] and had been very sarcastic toward me from the start (started when I added the sourced fact "Cooper Union ranks #31 in New York State by average professor salaries"(Ithacajournal), and BMK removed it stating there's no consensus to keep it & it's bad for Cooper's reputation), calling me fraud, liar editor with agenda...[113]. Always saying that he doesn't trust me, despite me begging him to discuss and collaborate. He seems to have a conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. However, I'm not the only one to be his very recent uncivility victim, there's at least three other, see [114], [115], [116] and [117]. His behavior is really unfortunate.--Cryptjohson (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's another useful sample of his writing style to go on. He can't seem to decide if he wants to be the wrongly accused innocent editor or the thorn in my side. He posts a "divide and conquer" comment to Dwpaul's talk page, and then posts comments on the article talk page disclaiming any ulterior motives and trying to sweettalk me. It's all a fraud of course, but the guy's not good enough at it to keep up a consistent facade. BMK (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, pretty much everything he wrote above is innacurate, as can be readily seen by reading the thread on the article talk page. Transparently false descriptions. BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, three days this account has been open, three days. Does the above look like the work of an editor with 3 days experience, or the work of an editor with considerable previous experience under other account names? WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, when we block or ban an editor, it's for good reason, and to allow such editors to create new accounts at will is detrimental to the project.BMK (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a new account makes no actual implication. They could have been an active ip editor prior and they could have gotten their current understanding of policy. I'm not aware of any policy against having a new account and being familiar with policy. I see no reason they need to explain to you how they know policy. Did they do something besides guilty of being new?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are the usual excuses that make it much more difficult to control abusive editors, but I'm not talking about Wiki-fantasy here, I'm dealing in the real world. BMK (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK -- I don't think that under the current rules there is a way to address your concerns, without more evidence (and frankly, I'm not sure that continued posts to AN/I without more are the appropriate approach). However, if you want to expand the circumstances in which CU can be used, I would be supportive of that. But this isn't the forum -- if you wish to propose changes, the proper forums to explore doing so may be at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser and/or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK has no regard for Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, civility rules, and has a clear conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. Even after this thread was open here, BMK editwarred on Cooper Union, and violated 3rr for the third consecutive time in the same article[118][119][120][121], just to keep School of Art's alumni listed in the "School of Art" section, when there's a separate section on alumni, as well as a separate article on alumni already. When I proposed to move the arts alumni from the "School of Arts" section to the "Alumni" section, he refused and asked me to provide a "written policy"[122] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptjohson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Note that after he violated 3rr for the first time recently on Cooper Union (BMK recently violated 3rr in other articles also [123]), I notified him about it, and even assured him that I would request for his unblocking immediately if he gets blocked.[124]. Time and time again, I pleaded with BMK[125], telling him that my goal is take Cooper Union article to featured status so that more people see it, BMK refuses to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding colleges, pushes to keep the disorganization and boosterisms he added for a long time, and keeps cursing me and telling me that I'm lying.[126][127]--Cryptjohson (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In POF, BMK has zero regard for sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I have no conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. I attended MIT and Boston University in the 1970s, and have worked for an institution connected with Harvard. (NYC has been my home since 1976, but I enjoy the Boston area very much, it's my third favorite US city after NYC and San Francisco.) I did not attend Cooper Union, have never had any professional connection with Cooper Union, have never knowlingly communicated with anyone in Cooper Union's administration or faculty, and have not, in fact been inside a Cooper Union building except on one occasion. That was in trying to take a picture from inside their new building looking outward, and being denied permission by a guard. I started editing the Cooper Union article after taking some pictures of Cooper Union buildings. (I take a lot of pictures of buildings, upload them to Commons, and then put them into articles if the article needs them or if they're better than the photos that are already there.) I now have 13.3% of the edits to Cooper Union, making me #1 by that criteria, and 4.3% by the amount of text, which makes me #4. [128]
    There, that's pretty much full disclosure. Now Cryptjohson can reciprocate by telling us his connection with Cooper Union or with any institutions which are competetive with Cooper Union, why he's doing his best to denigrate Cooper Union with his edits, what his account name was before he started editing with the account name "Cryptjohson" just a few days ago, and whether that previous account was blocked or banned. BMK (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, read CJ's two comments above carefully, and his comments on Talk:Cooper Union#Edit dispute and you'll see that the best he can come up with as a "boosterism" is the word "Recent" in a list of awards received by CU, as in "Recent awards include...", which I did not put into the article originally, but which came back quite accideentally in moving text from one place to another or in reverting one of CJ's edits. That is his evidence that I have a conflict of interest, the word "recent", about which another editor said "I've never thought of as a weasel word". CJ is, in fact, bending over backwards trying to find bad things to say about me, which raises the possibility that his focus may not be on Cooper Union at all. BMK (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kumioko ban proposal

    The issue is as resolved as it's going to get. Hopefully that will be the end of the matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam has blocked Kumioko indefinitely. Noteswork (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently, Bgwhite[129] and Magioladitis, both non-neutral parties attempted to remove any message or note that would indicate Kumioko as a sock on the talk page of HJ Mitchell, thus violating the WP:TPG.

    Magioladitis has abused rollback.[130]( Magioladitis has recognized this as "mistake".[131] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log))

    I don't see what is the reason behind that. Even after this extended and serious discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review, where he was provided standard offer, Kumioko has violated this standard offer multiple times, also check this SPI. And he continues to make up meaningless conspiracies about Arbcom. His ban should be reinstated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You just reverted comments of 3 admins asking you to stop. One more admin reverted your edits. If you keep disruptive editing I'll block you from editing. Consider this as a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except when the comment includes some inflammatory stuff, you can remove them. But when you are removing the comment from others talk page just because you don't like, then it is vandalism. Yes you are causing disruption Magioladitis. Noteswork (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are taking it personally because of your heavy involvement (WP:INVOLVED) with me and Kumioko, but that is not going to justify that he is a ban-evader. You are not allowed to edit others comments or remove them as long as it is not your talk page. Have you read WP:TPG carefully? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ponyo reverted your edits too. Bishonen left you a message too. How many admins does it take that you stop without a block It's not personal. I am trying to save you. I also left you a message to read WP:HELP in case you need extra help to familirise with this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because one person did something wrong, it doesn't means that you are allowed to abuse rollback. Well you even present Beeblebrox like they are supporting Kumioko,[132] when Beeblebrox refer Kumioko as a "ban evading troll".[133] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from a totally non-involved user: Just drop the stick, because this is getting ridiculous. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not to pursue personal vendettas all over the place. Especially not on other users' talk pages. Thomas.W talk 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not support Kumioko neither in his actions. I do not support you neither in your crusade. I made this clear in the emails you 've been sending me too, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your history and recent acts, you do. I haven't sent you any emails related to this incident, what you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishonen, Magioladitis and I warned you in the reverted comments on your talk page. Beeblebrox told you. Nick has reverted you today. Ponyo has reverted you today. That is five admins that have either told you to stop or reverted you. You still haven't explained why you left a discretionary sanctions warning on Magioladitis's talk page. This comes on the heels of you not backing off the sockpuppet cases against Zhanzhao and the others you suspected. You pissed off all the SPI clerks. You have been told untold times to drop it and back off. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox told that one can retrieve the comments of banned editor if they are completely removed. Ponyo didn't reverted for that reason. Thus you are using all of these examples except yours and Magioladitis in completely wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)
    Nick told that he is not going to increase block length. Bishonen told it differently. They are not saying that this is not allowed. They are acting within their limits while you are crossing them, by removing the comments on others talk page, when they are alerting about a banned editor. You have also edit warred with Fram on the talk page of Kumioko before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OZ, HJ Mitchell told you that "if you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell didn't knew then that it is a sock, and didn't knew that it is Kumioko. Thus your misrepresentation is likely not going to work. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah it seems like it's a really good idea to drop the stick, OZ.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is violating the WP:TPG, and abusing rollback? This is mostly about Kumioko evading his ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose any proposal to extend Kumioko's block to an indefinite block or a community ban. He has been very poorly treated by the community, but he can still return to productive editing if the community shows him the patience, respect and is prepared to give him the sort of opportunities extended recently to people like Peter Damian. If it wasn't for (a) a pretty badly performed ban discussion in the first place and (b) a badly behaved group of editors fighting on his talk page, Kumioko wouldn't be blocked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, I don't see that we're actually protecting Wikipedia from anything by keeping him blocked (blocks being preventative, not punitive and not a form of punishment for upsetting an obsessed OccultZone). If he would agree to stop pestering people like Beeblebrox and respect requests to stay away from user talk pages when asked, he could quite easily be unblocked today. As it is, I'm still recommending we let the current block expire in August and work hard to reintegrate Kumioko back into the community. He has, unlike many blocked users, lots of productive content editing to give, if given the opportunity. At this point, I'm supporting a block of OccultZone for disruption, however. Nick (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What "disruption" you are talking about? Kumioko has treated others poorly, not that he has been poorly treated. Get them straight. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick's own comment speaks his obsession/bias towards Kumioko, if he can find some previous report by Occult, against Kumioko, then he might be at least correct about Occult having something against Kumiko. Since Nick could not bring such evidence, his proposal is malicious. Noteswork (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OccultZone:, as an uninvolved editor, whilst I understand what you are saying, I must also ask you to please listen to what you are being told too. It is a user talk page and does not require that type of highlighting; a simple check of the IP's contributions reveals what it is you are trying to convey - as the block is highlighted at the top. If User:HJ Mitchell agrees with what you are saying, he will reinstate your edits as needed (in fact, maybe he will do so to resolve this more efficiently) - if he doesn't, feel free to air your grievance with him directly. But simply highlighting a banned user's contributions in that way here does not help and your repeated reversions do not help either. Your behaviour has really frustrated other users, and whilst Magioladitis will apologise to you in due course for misusing rollback or inadvertently suggesting you are a vandal, I really hope you will agree to withdraw this ANI in response to the apology so as to resolve the issue here. So long as you cease edit-warring on HJM's talk page on this issue and take this advice in the spirit in which it is given, I will oppose the proposed block on you. Can you please reconsider? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not edit warring there, instead of bringing it to 3RR(could be possible if I made 8 reverts, not just 1-1). Main issue is with Kumioko evading his ban, and there was a extended serious discussion before, when he was provided with standard offer. I am adding that link to my original post, give me 2 minutes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I see you have agreed to refrain from reverting about this issue on HJM's talk page which is good. If the community make a decision in relation to your proposal (whether it's to support or oppose it), would you be willing to avoid monitoring/enforcement thereafter? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He still doesn't understand he is causing a disruption (See above, "What 'disruption' you are talking about?" or this) He still doesn't see anything wrong about his sockpuppet crusades. He only said he won't revert JHM's talk page, not any other ("I am not gonna revert or reinstate my edit on that talk page."). He still doesn't understand why it was wrong to be editing other people's talk page in regards to the sockpuppet. This isn't about a revert. This is about a failure to understand and not letting go. Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but unless you are suggesting my above question does not take that perspective into account, it would probably be helpful if OccultZone was given an opportunity to respond to that question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is disruptive about reporting a banned editor? I would take them seriously if he had been told by someone who is not involved here. Though it is disruptive when you are badgering this discussion for your banned friend. Bgwhite. Noteswork (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Since I was asked by Ncmvocalist. In one of the issues raised after the ANI started and I have not noticed: Yes, the rollback was a mistake. I meant to undo. I apologise if I gave the impression the edit was vandalism. It was not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support ban I am highly surprised how he is still battling over the same issues over and again. He has evaded his ban upto 350 times since July 2014, and we know that he cannot restrain himself it is just better to ban again and next time it should be reviewed after 1 year. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that some people have liked him, and you have feelings, but you should stop forcing them on others. Noteswork (talk)
    • I am not keen on what OccultZone has been doing but I am even less keen on the disruption via block evasion etc that allegedly continues to come from Kumioko. Perhaps this discussion does in fact need to address that also. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't allegedly the problem here? There seems to be a lack of evidence for the allegations unless I'm mistaken.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, OZ's reverts started without enough evidence that the IP is/was still used by Kumioko. If a calmer/slower approach was followed we would have avoided the drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had checked Kumioko's changes and it seemed like he found an opportunity to bite Beeblebrox. Issue is with your abuse of rollback. You seem not to be opposing Kumioko, rather supporting his actions, that's why they view your involvement as disruptive, even if he was not a banned editor, how you could edit others messages? Noteswork (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read the entire discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, OccultZone needs to move on. Hopefully that's clear to him. Kumioko's IP address has been blocked. There's no consensus for extending the ban and even if there were it would likely be a futile gesture. Kumioko does himself no favours by trolling in project space (whereas if he was evading his ban to write articles, I doubt anybody would notice. Or even care.). Is there anything left to do here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Davew123 continued disruption after return from block

    USER BLOCKED
    User indef blocked for legal threats by Beeblebrox. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Several of us have been trying to explain how things work to Davew123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may not understand (e.g., editing talk page archives [134] and others' user pages [135], [136]), or may be choosing to not listen (e.g., [137]). He has been creating articles (e.g,. Draft:Nonex [138], Domain validation) and editing articles (e.g., TV Everywhere) to include, either unsourced or from what appear to be self-published sources, references to his own own patents (e.g., [139], [140], [141]).

    After being warned about his actions at User_talk:Davew123#April_2015, and informed about WP:COI [142], he attacked @Beeblebrox:, resulting in a recent ANI report [143] and then a block [144] by @Nihonjoe:.

    Now that his block has expired, User:Davew123 is back to his same pattern of behavior, adding references to his own work to articles [145], and referring to the "fraud office [having] some questions for you”, with edit summary "Mafia crooks 0%" [146], which appears to be a personal attack. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Session (computer science) still contains stuff he added years ago, again sourced only to himself. 80.189.137.19 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it [147], thanks. Any others? JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are more, two on other language Wikis:

    Dave Wain says: All of my articles/amendments are factually correct. Note that commercially sensitive information is not normally published in academic papers. Most of my contributions are backed up with fully granted patents, which is a very exacting process. Other articles such as Moon Elevator (which has not yet been submitted) are designed to be fun and educational. Please read the content because it is thought provoking and correct. Davew123 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave,
    Thank you for your civility in this response, and also thank you for not edit warring to restore the reverts of your recent article edits.
    • Other than your initial contributions to be auto-confirmed, your contributions to English Wikipedia and other wikipedias have been to add text referring to your your work. Per WP:COI, “COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The Foundation's terms of use are Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Terms of use”.
    • These additions have either been unsourced or have been self-published. Per WP:SPS, “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”.
    • Finally, that you assert your additions are all factual is insufficient for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
    So, what can you do? You could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if references to your patents would be considered reliable. I don’t think so, but I defer to those who volunteer there. Alternatively, you find a published journal article or book that refers to your work. The details you mention are not necessary, but that a 3rd-party or peer-reviewed journal published, vice yourself, is important. Finally, if you really think that the addition of reference to your work adds appropriately (see WP:UNDUE) to a given article, go to the talk page and make a note why it should be added, rather than adding it yourself. Otherwise, your additions are going to be viewed as purely WP:PROMOTIONAL.
    JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The fraud office comment should attract an immediate block per WP:NLT. At the minimum, it is a blatant attempt at chilling discussion. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over the previous ANI discussion (it still hasn't been archived yet as of this writing), people were already talking about possible WP:NOTHERE issues. Vague legal threats really don't help his situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overwehelming impression I get from this user is that they have absolutely no intention of even trying to learn how Wikipedia works, and have decided that instead they are going to make Wikipedia work the way they imagine it should. They also seem to enjoy throwing around inflammatory terms and phrases simply for effect without even considering if their remarks make any sense (i.e. the "no ethical or ethnic fraud" remark which is complete gibberish but sounds insulting) They also don't seem to get the distinction between the community and the WMF, which is what all that "fraud office" nonsens s is about. I don't believe they are here to help build an encyclopedia, they are here to show off their patents. They have done nothing but write about their own patents and show utter disdain for every other user who tries to explain things to them, rejecting their help with rudeness and insults. You can't collaborate with someone who doesn't care how this works and has nothing but contempt for pretty much everyone here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As he made still more threats after the block I have extended it to indef. the threats were pure nonsense but threats they were, and he had already been explicitly warned to stop making them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)

    Could I get some attention to the removal of my recent comments please? It was my first edit on wikipedia after a long time reading and enjoying wikipedia. My comments were immediately removed and I was called a block evasion of User:Kaz as far as I can see from reading about Use:Kaz having been identified with him/her by Tody1, every time someone has come and edited the Crimean Karaites article in a way that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov do not like, they get the editor blocked saying it is a sock puppet of User:Kaz. The Crimean Karaites article is utterly appauling and I can see that Nepolkanov who also edits the Russian Wikipedia has "Outed" User Kaz and is removing all references to the International Institute of Crimean Karaites while at the same time using all of the images from the Institute!! Something really has to be done about this dynamic duo. I have to say I was extremely angered when my comments were removed from the talk page but I have been reading through all weekend to try and work out what Toddy1 was talking about when heshe removed all my comments, and after I see how petty and ridiculous the motivatin I simply can not find any pleasant words. Requesting intervention please. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are doing what Kaz did, bringing up his point of views. SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the same view point as someone else does not mean that they are the same person. More evidence is required than that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First: you should provide diffs to examples of what you are complaining about. You cannot expect others to go finding them for you.
    Second: you should refrain from personal attacks as this edit summary, "disruptive edits by insane user Toddy1 ...". that could put you on the receiving end of the WP:BOOMERANG.
    Third: Toddy1's reversion of your addition of the synthesis tag to the Crimean Karaites was a valid reversion if for an apparently invalid reason. If you are going to claim that an article contains synthesis then, as the tag states, you should start a discussion on the talk page stating what you believe to be synthesised and from where. I have reverted your synthesis tag because no such discussion has been started on that specific point. You have put much material on the talk page, but unless you have any reliable secondary sources to back you up, your opinion is never going to cut the mustard.
    Finally: having looked at the editing that Kaz was indulging in before his block, I can see little if any similarity to your editing contributions. Toddy1's removal of your talk page comments would therefore appear to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and any admins driving past may wish to address that. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments User:DieSwartzPunkt, but I really need an Admin to look at this. You seem to be unaware that a discussion about the synthesis was begu on the talk page and the reason I am posting here is not because the synthesis tag was removed, but because my talk was removed. In the same way I would like to add User talk:SamuelDay1 to my complaint for removing my comments from the talk page again. Seems like a bit of a tag-team going on here between User:Toddy1 and User:SamuelDay1

    These users made direct personal attacks against me by removing my talk!!! It is sort of hard not to snap back at someone who attacks you for no reason at all. Nevertheless, I take on board your suggestion and will try to avoid angry responses to DIRECT PERSONAL ATTACKS in future.

    So these are the disruptive edits I am talking about.

    Evidence that Toddy1 (a very controvercial editor on all sorts of matters pertaining to the Ukraine) removes the work of anyone whose opinion he disagrees with and says they are User:Kaz

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=656961403&oldid=656930381

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=656961482&oldid=656931530

    Evidence that SamuelDay is doing the same thing, apparently a sock puppet or meat puppet of Toddy1 since Samuel replied here instead of Toddy though I put the notice on Toddy´s wall.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Karaites&diff=next&oldid=657189525

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=657189916

    If they are not the same person then they are one of those tag-teams who work together to get around the three revert rule.

    By the way, please can any Admin tell me if the three revert rule applies to reverting attempts to delete my complaints from notice boards and talk pages.

    Concernign wikipedia Outing policy violated by User Nepolkanov there is a LOT of evidence from his contributions history, but very clear example is in this edit here

    It seems like Wikipedia has been inadvertently taking sides in this by blocking the wrong editors and leading to an absolute free-for-all with regards to outrageous POV pushing by a small team of editors which has started to affect the mainstream view of what Crimean Karaites are, judging by the Huffington Post.

    Please can these disruptive editors be put under some sort of a leash.

    Thank you79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I should add here that I notice Toddy1 has also contributed to outing User Kaz in so that I was able to google the info they provided here] and here to be able to find everything about this man. I am extremely concerned that this Toddy1 is going to try and stalk me now too as he has already revealed my location. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been making personal attacks, and false allegations of socking that Toddy1 probably is a sockpuppet of Nepolkanov. Please reconsider your actions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    79.109.203.252. Admins may well take a look at this at some point. But regular users are entitled to pitch in and express their views. The admins will take all opinions into account.
    You appear to have stated the material that you objected to is seen everywhere which means that you are admitting that this is mainstream thinking (by definition). You may believe that it is, "Crackpot Right-wing Zionist Bias Fringe theory Original Research", but that is only your opinion. I would suggest that you do not revert the article further especially given that you have now made three reverts within 24 hours and are on the edge of violating the three reverts rule which should land you with an automatic editing block. For the sake of completeness, the three reverts are; [149]; [150]; [151].
    If you wish to challenge the material then you need to produce reliable and verifiable sources supporting your position. Without them, if you continue, the best that is liklely to happen is that you get blocked for edit warring (if you are not for the 4RR)
    I am also very concerned that a fourth revert has been made using an alternate IP address which appears to be a dynamic proxy IP address which has been unused (for Wikipedia purposes) since 2013. Since the revert is the only edit that this IP address has made in over two years, it smells very strongly of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. If this is a sock and  Looks like a duck to me, then this puts the reverts at 4RR, though not within 24 hours but that is evidence of edit warring.
    You have also stated that your are a Christian Zionist, in which case you would appear to have a conflict of interest in the neutrality of the article.
    Appropriate warnings have been posted at the user's talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well you all shown that you have conflict of interest in this article so I will prefer to wait until an admin pitches in then I wuill explain myself to them rathetr than to usernames which for all I know could be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. No more harrassment please.

    I am calling for an Admin. The issues are WP:OUTING, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, and I would also add to that cyber-bullying, but it seems there is no policy against that. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How it is outing? Also what personal attack? You are making personal attacks and using wikipedia for pushing your fringed opinions. SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Peppers

    Hi all. I am attempting to create an article about a popular meme, "Brian Peppers". I can't find any way to create the article - I've been to [152] and there's no obvious way to start it. Also, I notice there's been a lot of activity in the past judging by the log on this page. Is there a reason this article doesn't exist? Onion quality (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was protected from creation some while ago. If you want to create it you will need to get an administrator to unprotect the page. It might be worth creating a draft article to show them what you plan to create before asking them to do so as a credible design may help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Old timer comment Onion quality, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it has tons of articles where contributions from newcomers are welcome and likely to be helpful, as well as (even now) lots of potential topics for new articles. There are also a number of topics that are touchy for one reason or another (typically involving controversies surrounding living people, or political disputes), and editing them without getting into a lot of conflict and drama requires a reasonable amount of editing experience.

      Brian Peppers was a hugely disruptive topic when Jimbo deleted the article, in part because Wikipedia's approach to biographies of living people was in a state of flux at the time, and Peppers was a living person back then (per Snopes, he died in 2012) but also because Wikipedia generally doesn't see internet memes as encyclopedic topics (and there was a battle over that going on as well back then, the heyday of Encyclopedia Dramatica). I personally don't think we need the article again but either way, recreating it would have to be done rather carefully, and as Amortias says, posting a concrete draft for review is probably the only workable way to start. It will certainly require a lot of adherence to Wikipedia editing practices (especially including solid sourcing) to be accepted, and new editors generally aren't familiar with how to do that, and "learning by doing" on such a topic is likely to be unpleasant.

      The best advice I can give you is to welcome you to Wikipedia and recommend that you start out on less contentious topics. If you're still interested in writing about Peppers after you've gotten more used to this place, you'll have a better idea of how to go about it. It's not something that can be explained in a few sentences. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onion quality, I think you should look at some of these before you try and recreate that particular article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed sock puppeteer Mriduls sharma back again

    BLOCKED
    Both indeffed (checkuserblock) by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Thomas.W talk 20:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    During yesterday's move circus (see this section here on WP:ANI) Mriduls.sharma among other things made malicious page moves to then non-existant user names Sher Singh 111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Katrina Mukti D'Souza Kapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), two user accounts that have just been created, within minutes of each other, and started testing what they can and cannot do. Which, since there's no way in h*ll two random people with no connection to Mriduls.sharma could have created accounts with those exact names within minutes of each other, indicates that Mriduls.sharma is back again today. I've posted on C.Fred's talk page (since he took care of it yesterday), but he hasn't been active today, so could someone else please deal with it? Thomas.W talk 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unsourced/poorly sourced changes at Balkan Bulgarian Airlines

    BLOCKED
    Editor blocked for 36 hours.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following edits made by GogoLive123 (talk · contribs) replaced perfectly sourced information wiht poorly sourced one and, in the last diff, with no sources at all. Please also note that tha user seems to have a problematic behaviour at different Bulgarian airline articles (BH Air for example [153]).

    All the above diffs have been reverted. Please also note that the user is not using the article talk, where I started a thread regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone here? There's another edit made by the user [158] which shows their only intention is to push their preferred version. This last edit is unsourced as well.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Better off taking this to WP:ANEW – you'll probably get faster results over there. --IJBall (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to take a look at this [159]. I've promptly removed it from my talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken to WP:ANEW as suggested [160], but left this thread open too. This is not a matter of just warring but also introduction of unsourced content and therefore a violation of basic policy.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: GogoLive123 blocked for 36 hours at WP:ANEW by CambridgeBayWeather. Will probably need an eye kept on this editor after the block expires, as per: Jetstreamer's other concerns... --IJBall (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?

    User is community blocked, not sure how an IP editor can be banned though... I guess keep a look out for additional edits from this IP range. Nakon 06:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In just the past few days, the IP has

    IP is WP:NOTHERE, recommend block, if not contacting the British government. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, the IP cannot accept that ISIL adherents could possibly stray from religious edicts. [161] Fundamentally incompatible with writing a neutral fact-based encyclopedia. --NeilN talk to me 23:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I didn't deny IS sex slavery, that is celebrated by themselves with Yazidis. What I said was that this never happened to Muslim women, which is true. sex is only allowed with muslim wife or non-Muslim slavegirl, and can't and doesn't happen otherwise! Slavery is part of Islam, so no need to be embarrased or shy about this. Anybody who denies slavery being Islamic is an apostate. My beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had many slaves!

    As for IS not straying from religious edicts, they don't. It's as simple as that, everything they do is in accordance with Quran and sunnah.

    Secondly, regarding NOTHERE, what it is not It's not -Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner -advocating amendments to policies or guidelines -Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms -Focusing on niche topic areas

    You can have whatever opinion of me you want, but I think you can see that I haven't been editing pages disruptively and only strongly advocating my position on the IS talk page, which you all duly ignore as is your right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Celebrate"...? Even kuffar know better than to celebrate that sort of depravity. You've shown that you're here to present the fajarah of Daesh as the legitimate form of Islam. If WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply, WP:CIR does. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. While we're at it, anyone interested in discussing a topic ban? At least User:Cush and User:Aronzak have expressed support for that idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No! We finally found an editor who won't have any complaints about Rape jihad, and you went ahead and blocked him? Dagnabbit... (Yes, that's sarcasm.) Pax 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you'll get no agreement from him Pax [162], you didn't read what he says did you? Paul B (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I shudder to think what Wikipedia is making of this situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is someone from Jersey who made the news last fall for trolling 4chan and other sites as a claimed IS supporter. The police questioned him and let him go, but are supposedly keeping an eye on him. I think we can safely treat him like any other troll. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that? When I checked the IP yesterday I got a location in Moscow. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use "Alternate", which is located next to geolocation, you get a Jersey location. I'm 100% certain that this user is not Muslim but is just trolling. Liz Read! Talk! 11:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I used WhatIsMyIP.com, what did you use? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cush, if you click on Alternate instead of Geolocation at the bottom of the contributions page, you get this location from InfoSniper. I've found InfoSniper to be more exact but you have a limited number of times you can use it over 24 hours. I'm not sure of the exact limit (a dozen?) but I sometimes hit it and have to try again a few hours later. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moscow must've been a typo. I copy-pasted it from the top and get the same thing on Cush's site as well... wait, Liz, are we on the wrong side of the dox-zone? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd. Today I get Saint Helier as the location as well. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's more reason for a community ban than a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a community ban is more appropriate, and in fact they (if, as seems probable, they're the same person) were charged by Jersey police, held for seven months and received probation in March, finding no link to IS. In any case they have no business on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does a community ban, or even a topic ban, work for an IP editor? Isn't it to be feared he's back in no time with a different IP ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. DocHeuh (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bans are for the user, not the IP/account. If they show up again, WP:RBI can be used without any discussion or WP:3RR considerations. --NeilN talk to me 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Would like to add note; I have had problems with 87.244.94.46 on Eastern Lightning page, a Chinese Christian terrorist group (activities include killing an elementary school child and leaving a lighting symbol on feet, breaking arms and legs and cutting off the ears of victims, pulling out the eyes of a boy for trying to leave the religion, killing family members etc.) The IP has continuously tried to remove the terrorist organisation tag and editing other parts of the article in similar fashion, claiming he is "removing bias", despite numerous sources labelling it a terrorist organisation. He has been reverted by numerous page editors (including me), in the last few says removing the tag 3 times. I would perhaps suggest expanding the topic ban to terrorism-related articles or religion-related articles. DocHeuh (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heuh0, please see my message on the talk page for the article. EL is horrific, as you have shown, but I honestly disagree with not including NRM as the topic sentence reference. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Community Topic Ban for 87.244.94.46

    This IP's done some very dodgy soapboxing.[163][164] I can't imagine a topic ban being controversial. But sadly no one ever notified the IP of ISIS discretionary sanctions, so he cant just be topic banned by an admin. Doubly sadly he'll be back in a few days time. I therefore propose the IP be banned from all topics pertaining to Islam broadly construed. Please lets get this over with ASAP. Bosstopher (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: And support because they're likely a notorious troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The PKK reference is not funny. ♆ CUSH ♆
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Violation of IBan

    Short response is to close this thread per Beyond My Ken's non-senior moment. Longer bureaucratic response is:
    • The Marksboro, Robbinsville and Johnsonburg edits do breach the Iban, but appear to be accidental breaches caused by an AWB run. Alansohn, please be careful about this to avoid future misunderstandings.
    • Magnolia677 is entitled to edit new pages, and doing so is not of itself a breach of the Iban. There is no way either user can be aware of what page the other user is "about to edit."
    • I-bans can be useful in avoiding the blunt instrument of blocks, especially where the parties are valued members of the community. To work, they rely on some good-faith between the parties.
    • There is not enough evidence (yet) that either party is seeking to game the Iban.
    • If the Iban becomes ineffective through gaming, alternative remedies will be required.-- Euryalus (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two days ago, I agreed to an IBan between myself and User:Alansohn. The details are on my talk page here. So far, this has given me two days without having every edit I make to New Jersey messed with by this editor. Then today, he changed one of my edits here. There was nothing wrong with my edit, and he had no reason to change it. It just has to be his way! This is the annoying stuff I hoped would stop with the IBan. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming Alansohn's term were exactly the same as Magnolia's, it appears he has left you no choice but to give him a block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (non admin observation) The section hasnt even been archived yet link. It looks like a clear violation of the second restriction. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The terms were the same. From the section above (see AlbionoFerret's link):

    Be it Nominated that a limited one-year interaction ban of the following terms apply equally to Alansohn and Magnolia677, to continue indefinitely unless both parties ask to have it removed in no less than 12 months or each 12 months thereafter:

    (1) Neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN.

    (2) Either party may edit the same article space or article space talk page, except that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit. Neither party shall follow each other's user contributions.

    (3) A neutrally worded and impersonal response to a question posed by one party on the talk page (which we shall assume to be a valid question, aimed at improving the article, not criticizing an editor or edit) shall not be assumed to violate the above terms. In other words, one editor may not pre-empt comments by the other editor on valid issues by being the first to bring up a relevant issue on the talk page.

    (4) New Jersey is larger than some 160 nations and dependencies. Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth.

    (5) Violation of the terms of this IBAN shall result in increasing sanctions (temporary blocks) by any admin, without further warning.

    BMK (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would say that Alansohn clearly violated #2, "neither party shall ... edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit". There was no intervening edit between yours here and his here. However, since your edit was made back on December 21, and his was just made today, I think it's a mistake which could easily happen. I would suggest that Alansohn should be given a warning in this instance, and that both editors should be reminded that when they edit articles about places in New Jersey, they need to check the article history before they make the edit to be sure they aren't violating the IBan. The whole IBan thing is new to both of you, so I think a little leeway needs to be provided for this very first event. BMK (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with BMK. This is a blatant violation of condition 2. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: No one formerly left Alansohn an ANI notice on his Talk page, and while it may be perfunctory in this case, I've just gone ahead and done that anyway... --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I actually linked to both the exact terms of the ANI RfC and the blocked user listing on both editor's pages, and am surprised this has come up so quickly. I'll refrain from commenting on exact consequences, although in my case the first response was a very explicit warning, not a block. Given the edit is four months old, a severe admonition seems sufficient. Certainly any repeat would deserve a stronger response. This should be taken as a mere opinion, not an uninterested response. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I meant an ANI notice for this topic, not the IBAN (notice for which was clearly left on Alansohn's Talk page earlier...). --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure of the difference, but I am also quite sure neither editor is confused as to what's going on, and both can read edit histories. My personal opinion would be to leave it to an admin and advise leniency on such an occasion, but it is only an occasion. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Take a look through my edit history, and you'll find that much of what I do is done using AWB, running through series of articles to make multiple enhancements to each article. In advance of editing articles for CDPs, almost all of which I created, I did this search and removed any article from the processing list that Magnolia677 had edited that came up in the search. This included Manahawkin, New Jersey, New Egypt, New Jersey, Lopatcong Overlook, New Jersey, Cherry Hill Mall, New Jersey and Marlton, New Jersey, plus a number of other articles that I had edited after he did, mostly undoing his stalking. Every one of the article I have edited since the interaction ban is one that I have either created or previously edited often on dozens of occasions. On the other hand, since the interaction ban, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles he has never edited before, including Manahawkin, Cherry Hill Mall, Garfield, Lafayette Township and Lopatcong Overlook. The articles selected are edited entirely at random, without reason and without purpose, other than as further stalking. Even more disturbingly, he has stalked my talk page discussions, announcing here a discussion that was begun on another page that involved me and another editor.

    Apparently, I did inadvertently edit the article for Marksboro, New Jersey, despite making every reasonable effort to avoid potential conflicts, including a check of edits that goes back four weeks before the interaction ban.

    On the other hand, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles that I have edited before, most of which he has never edited before and for which the only apparent reason appears to be continued stalking. Whether this is a violation of the "wide birth [sic]" clause of condition 4 or if this is what WP:HOUNDING describes as "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.", it seems to me that this other editor is going out of his way in bad faith to manufacture potential conflicts.

    I will redouble my efforts to avoid conflicting edits in every sense of the letter and spirit of this interaction ban, as I have for months. It appears that the other editor has no intention of avoiding conflict.

    I had hoped that the harassment will end with the IBAN; It seems that it's only beginning. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not my opinion you've committed any grave sin, but the problem is you've got to be careful. The consensus above seems to be that you don't deserve more than a warning. I've gotten such warnings myself. The good part is that it you are very careful you can avoid such warnings entirely, and be justified in asking for blocks. Don't protest too much! μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not protesting the warning; I'm pointing out the pattern of harassment on the part of the other editor. I think it would be useful to get clarification from this editor as to why he has gone out of his way to edit articles that I created / edited, which he had never edited before.
    Why Manahawkin?
    Why Cherry Hill Mall?
    Why Garfield?
    Why Lafayette Township?
    Why Lopatcong Overlook?
    Why on earth is he stalking my talk page discussions?
    If these are not explicit violations of the Interaction ban clause 4 "Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth" and this isn't malicious harassment, I have no idea what is. Let's hear from the other editor before taking action. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agreed to this IBan, and so far the other editor has violated it 3 times: here and here and here. When I report it, he says I'm wikihounding and editing in bad faith. Oh my. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The persistent bullshit continues. After a series of bad faith edits to articles he has never edited before and stalking of my talk page edits, he filed this ANI report in blatant and deliberate effort to manufacture an excuse for the block he has been looking for since he started editing these articles. While this is going on and after he had been notified multiple times that his edits constituted harassment, he deliberately jumped into the sequence of articles I have been editing, including both Robbinsville CDP (for which I did a self revert, as he had deliberately tried to create an IBAN violation) and Seabrook Farms (which I was about to edit). Can someone get this WP:DICK off my back? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that both of you people seem to be hell-bent on getting yourselves site-banned permanently, which is (this is a prediction) what is going to happen eventually if you both don't shut the fuck up about each other and start editing the encyclopedia without bothering the rest of us. Really. BMK (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)And since the previous edits, he's gone on to edit Zarephath, yet another CDP article that he has never edited before, yet another violation of the "wide berth" clause. Now I will "shut the fuck up" and give everyone her the opportunity to review the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • (Non-administrator comment) BMK, I agree that both users are probably heading for blocks if they don't stop going at each other, but your telling them to "shut the fuck up" wasn't exactly the wisest choice of words either. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm certainly more prone to senior moments than I once was, but I almost always choose my words with great care, and these were precisely the words that I thought were most appropriate in the circumstances. If someone wants to make an issue of that, rather than focus on the increasingly disruptive behavior of Magnolia677 and Alansohn, so be it. BMK (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass de-PROD-ding

    While I think that de-PROD should be as easy as PROD both instruments are not really designed for bulk operations. Apparently Arb disagrees and de-PRODs with partially obscure reasons, cf. Mass_de-PROD-ding. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Is there an issue that needs resolving here, or are you just making a general statement? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked some of Arb's deproddings and AfD comments. I think many of the deproddings are reasonable, but others are very silly. IMO this user has a poor understanding of what a reliable source is, and a total blind spot when it comes to recognising spam. And the amount of deproddings is also unreasonable. You deprod when you legitimately believe the article should not be deleted or go through AfD; you don't go through the list of about-to-expire prods and mechanically decline each one. Reyk YO! 06:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which article(s) is s/he even talking about? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Arb can be extremely trenchant when it comes to de-PRODs. I've recently raised a few with them on their talk page. Eg: Ogg Writ (now redirected), Revolutionary Students Movement (now deleted via AfD) and Toor (currently at AfD). They are particularly clueless regarding WP:RS, eg: at the Toor AfD they are trying to use open wikis and mirrors. This is one of the more extreme examples of WP:ARS-member inclusionism that I have seen recently and I think they need to be persuaded to avoid matters relating to deletion until they can demonstrate a better understanding of core policies. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that it is not just comprehension of RS that is problematic. Ok, we all make mistakes but the rationales are sometimes bizarre given that they come from someone who appears to have quite a lot of experience here. For example, the de-PROD at the Toor article completely missed the fact that most of the incoming links are from navbox templates. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some of them are reasonable, but simply going through removing PRODs with an edit-summary of "I found some stuff on Google about this subject" is really not helpful. If you found "some stuff on Google" about the subject, why not use "some stuff on Google" to actually source the article? Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road for someone else to fix. And it's not as if Arb doesn'tknow how to cite sources. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... Which is why I've just added something to Thorpe Park No 1 Gravel Pit and left a comment at Talk:Croydon Fire Company regarding WP:BURDEN. De-PRODing is easy but it doesn't in itself often help the encyclopaedia: far better to prove the point by addressing the PROD concern in the article, especially since they've (hopefully) done the WP:BEFORE stuff prior to actually removing the nomination. Of course, that then gets us back to issues such as WP:RS, where there really has been some incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I've just noticed Karl Dalhouse because it was raised on Arb's talk page. That one was created by Arb and recently retained as "no consensus" in this AfD. The argument for retention was basically "something might turn up", based on vague search results, although they said in 2007 that they would sort out a specific citation soon as practicable. Worse, most of what the article did say (prior to my removals) wasn't even supported by the cited sources. I know 2007 is a long time ago but the deletion discussion was this month and there may also have been a COI. Nothing seems to be being learned: there seems to be a stubbornness to retain stuff regardless of policy. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Info forwarded to kikichugirl (closing user.) –Be..anyone (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one is going to revert that close, which correctly reflected that there was no consensus. It frustrates me that the default of "no consensus" is "keep" but that isn't going to change either. A new AfD is the only route. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then look at another article they created. At this point in 2009, when they were the sole contributor, the one reason why this primary school article might have avoided summary deletion was because of the claim that it housed the first "integrated unit for deaf students" in Jamaica. The problem is, the source does not say that. Yep, it is old stuff but I am becoming more and more concerned as I start digging here. Are we going to have to check all of these things? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP:USERNAME#Misleading usernames notification/name change request might be in order too; I had to re-read this thread a couple of times before it made sense as I confused WP:ARB and Arb. —Sladen (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been discussed previously on their talk page and is why the disclaimer appears there. That said, I too was confused when I first saw it and I'd certainly prefer it to be changed. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentative proposal

    That some (and perhaps even the majority) of the de-PRODs are ok does not really act as a get-out clause when things are as iffy as this. As a tentative proposal, could we ask Arb to restrict themselves to, say, five de-PRODs per day and require them actually to validate such de-PRODs accordingly by working on the article, eg: if they say the verification is out there then add it? Additionally, ask them to confirm that they do now understand WP:RS and the limitations of paraphrasing/problems with misrepresentation. I don't mind keeping an eye on things, although it might be better if someone in an admin role took that on because I'm bound to be accused of stalking. To avoid gaming, might we want to include CSDs also? Not that I have any evidence that they would game, so maybe that can be put off for now.

    Alternatively, someone needs to review every de-PROD that they make and needs to be willing to refer the issue back to the community if the problems continue. A sort of probationary mentorship. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    nonsense "article" and trollish behaviour

    Vandal blocked by Tokyogirl79. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lloyd Morgan Evans (born 1995) (talk · contribs)'s creation of "article" Morgan Norbury, which also contains a photoshopped image of Pres. Obama and had been started with the edit-summary "Not much to see here, admins."[166], suggests rather trollish behaviour. The same user has also uploaded the cited nonsense image (File:Obama 4-20.png), currently shown in the "article", to Commons, where it has already been requested for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is some 4-20 humor. We should be on the lookout today for more of this. Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of his other edits have been minor and even then he's still done some vandalism as with this edit (among others) to Ysgol Dewi Sant. I'm going to go ahead and block him for vandalism. His non-vandalism edits aren't major enough to where I think he'd really contribute to Wikipedia, although if he can convince another admin otherwise then he may be unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:AIV needs attention

    There's about a nine-hour backlog that could use some eyes on AIV; the bot has been 'stale'ing many reports since Friday night because of it. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should tell this to the WP:Bot talk page, I think people over there will help you. If that does not work out, you may need to contact the owner of the bot. If the owner of the bot is unreachable or is no longer editing Wikipedia, then we have a massive problem, and that means only a admin can stop the bot. There is a request admin to stop bot page on the bots page, if not then the user that uploaded the bot is breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Also, calm down. Its not like the bot is going randomly to random pages of Wikipedia and vandalizing those pages, if that was the case then there is a need to panic. The only people that need to panic right now about this bot situation is, most likely the owner of the bot that you are talking about, and maybe a few administrators. So calm down. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the OP meant that there were a backlog of reports rather than a problem with the bot. Anyway, the backlog is cleard now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this problem has been solved please tag this for being archived to decrease this pages data size! Doorknob747 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After close comment I was saying the reports were up for so long the bot declared them appropriately stale, not that there was a problem with the bot, and my concern was completely calm. We have these 'WP:A-whatever needs attention' messages all the time here when things get backed up, Doorknob747; all it was meant to do was get some eyes on it. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reopening this - I just came from dealing with yet another AIV backlog. This is a daily occurrence now, sometimes two or three times a day. RFPP is almost as bad. We've got to get more admins looking at these two pages more frequently. If we discourage people from reporting to AIV because nobody ever takes action on their good-faith reports, we may as well mark the page {{historical}} right now.
      While I welcome and appreciate non-admin involvement here, the sysops really need to discuss this for a bit. KrakatoaKatie 10:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Interaction ban violations by User:WarKosign

    Reported violation is technically a violation of the AE IBAN but has been realised and self-reverted. Nothing more needs to be done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite an interaction ban with me, User:WarKosign continues to revert my edits

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657331946&oldid=657331283

    and

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657331283&oldid=656586151

    What is the point of an interaction ban if one party is going to continue to revert the edits of the other? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should get help with a admin by talking directly with one. It takes aproxametly 4 to 5 days for a admin to reply here I think, but directly talking with a amin you mot likely get a respose in a 24 hour time frame I think? Here are a few admins I know that are active a lot! User talk:Materialscientist, User talk:Beyond My Ken,User talk:NeilN, and User:BeenAroundAWhile. I suggest you talk with beyond my ken. Doorknob747 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doorknob747, from your list only Materialscientist is an admin. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz::::The others act like mature wikipedians and some are page patrollers, reverters, rollbackers, checkusers ect. that they are also able to help in this problem, I also forgot to mention u. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any interaction ban logged in at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Was this an informal, agreed-upon I-ban between the two of you? Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gouncbeatduke, can you (or someone else if it infringes on the iban) reference the discussion where this ban came into effect? This seems to be utterly stupid as both of you work on Israel related topics and are both regularly involved in debates. Either one or both editors should be banned or the iban should be lifted.
    From my experience I have found WarKosign to be an extremely tendentious and, as far as I can reasonably perceive, an extremely evasive editor. Here is one situation: A discussion on Talk:Israel/Archive 45#Neutral representation of the listing of the largest cities in Israel had left the template: Template:Largest cities of Israel in a situation in which it presented West Jerusalem as being marked as being in Israel as per the presentation of Israel as marked, for instance, by UN and other maps and the template, using similar reference as used within the cited source document of the template, read "Largest Urban areas of Israel".
    Instead of resuming discussion WarKosign started a new discussion out of context at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#RfC on Jerusalem with the opening text:
    A discussion at talk:Israel didn't come to a clear conclusion and there is some edit waring over Jerusalem.
    Given that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem is rejected by most of the international community, and that there is currently no available number on population of western Jerusalem alone, how in your opinion should Jerusalem be presented in this template ? A few options were proposed so far:
    However, shortly after the opening of the discussion and without reference to the talk page WarKosign changed the title text from the use of the urban areas reference (which would have been more conducive to reference to West Jerusalem) and reverted back to a largest cities reference which, despite international views contesting that East Jerusalem is part of West Bank territory, would have placed Jerusalem, as a city, in an all or nothing situation as far as the template was concerned.
    I have since found WarKosign to be very difficult to communicate with as I think contents of the talk page show.
    I am by no means surprised to hear of WarKosign's reverts of contributions by Gouncbeatduke despite an iban and, to me, this seems typical of behaviour and approach. GregKaye 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya that needed admin attention. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit had nothing to do with Gouncbeatduke's iban. The reason for this iban was user's repeated baseless personal attacks against me, and until this complaint the user abided by it.

    JzG closed an RfC and since the decision was that there was no consensus for any change, per WP:NOCONSENSUS I restored the article to the state it existed in before the dispute began. If it is preferred, I don't mind undoing my change so anyone else can perform it instead of me.“WarKosign” 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not start a edit riot or a Wikipedia fight on this page, it can lead to a banning if it starts. So keep the language to a good and non derogatory language to avoid something like that, please. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WarKosign, The initial discussion that ended with the use of reference to "West Jerusalem" and "urban areas" was this one. I haven't seen reference to the case with Gouncbeatduke but there have been many times that I have needed to figuratively bite my lip when in discussion with you and have often needed to bring things down to yes and no type questions to, from my view, try to get a direct response. GregKaye 17:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I should not have made the change, so I self-reverted. The change itself is 100% correct but someone else should do it. I'll explain the situation if an admin asks me to, because I'm not supposed to be making even indirect comments due to the iban. “WarKosign” 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But, WarKosign, the question remains why this I-ban isn't logged in to WP:EDR. Did it arise from a discussion on ANI? Or did you two just decide not to interact with each other? Because there isn't a record of it where there should be. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: It was the result of this AE case. “WarKosign” 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, WarKosign, I appreciate it. Looks like I need to ask Cailil about it. It could be that I missed it on WP:EDR. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @WarKosign: the state of the discussion of the sockpuppet question here included the edits:
    "I am not accusing you of anything. I am just asking if Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) was a sock you used. I don't understand why you can't give a yes or no answer. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)" which was immediately followed by
    "The way in which you phrased this question implies that I regularly use socks, and this happens to be one of them. This is not a question, this is an accusation. “WarKosign” 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)"
    In my experience WarKosign very often takes the route of not answering, avoiding and deflecting questions and now it seems to me that this extends to situations in which editors are faced with the potential emotional crisis of receiving death threats. GregKaye 06:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregKaye: I cannot respond regarding the content of the conversation you quoted, but note that it is not the original version. Not every question can be answered with a "simple yes or no". For example (obviously false) : "GregKayeRandomEditor, do you still intentionally insert false information in all of your edits ?" “WarKosign” 08:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WarKosign The fact that you cannot respond comes, in my interpretation, in the context that you are both able to edit the same Wikipedia content but are not able to interact with another editor doing the same. Please do not use my name in any such example even if "(obviously false)". Please strike.
    If an editor presents a content such as "... I am just asking if Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) was a sock you used. .." it is perfectly possible to answer yes or no and this in no way impinges on you ability to add suplimentary information. My interpretation is that you are failing to communicate with other editors directly. GregKaye 08:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregKaye: I'll be able to respond regarding that specific conversation once the iban expires. In your case you repeatedly asked me the same question in different variations apparently hoping to get an answer that you would like or could use against me. Note that you are even doing it in this very conversation. I do not have to respond to your interrogations unless I feel like it. “WarKosign” 08:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WarKosign IMO you are taking this situation unnecessarily and inappropriately personally. There was no point that that I was hoping to get an answer that I would like or could use against you. It is, however, fair to ask for points of clarification in regard to the editing of article and related media content. GregKaye 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That RfC shows no consensus for anything, reversion or otherwise. It's irrelevant to current content. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the results section of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive166#Gouncbeatduke Cailil said: "Unless there are substantive objections from other uninvolved sysops within the next 24 hours I'll enact the following, and close this thread with the result: "User:Gouncbeatduke & User:WarKosign are banned from interacting with one another as per policy described at WP:IBAN, for three months, per this AE request."" to which Callanecc added "+1". Can I propose that the ban is either extended to a three month topic ban to both editors or that the ban is removed.
    Some time ago, of a length now permitting comment, an editor with whom I was associated with in connection to ISIL related topics wanted to impose an IBAN in regard, I think, to a specific incident in our interaction. I regarded there to have been a number of issues in the surrounding situation and submitted my own incident report. A voluntary resolution was proposed to which I think PBS fairly commented: "This will not work. Lets game play it. GregKaye makes an edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant other editor reverts it with some comment such as "edit unbalances POV". GregKaye writes on the talk page in a new section "Oh no it does not unbalance the POV because..." Other editor can not post an explanation, GregKaye reverts. Now what? WP:BRD breaks down. Second case Other editor makes an edit and explains in a new section on the talk page "edit to improve the POV", GregKaye can not reply and if GK disagrees and reverts with no discussion WP:BRD breaks down. Also point five "If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate." bad idea as the deleting editor can be seen as biased and it will shift the debate to one with a proxy. I could go through all your points one at a time, but in brief without good faith this will not work." This current case I think totally validates comment by PBS. Ibans on editors who work on the same topic area do not work. GregKaye 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Callanecc Could you please clarify the extent, if any, to which the current discussion falls into the context of: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans, specifically: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum."? GregKaye 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callanecc: I performed an edit that can be seen as a breach of an IBAN. I did not revert a specific edit by any user, but it is likely that I undid some work of the user. The edit itself was not to modify content (although obviously it did), but to implement the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy. It was a mistake, I should have waited for someone else to perform this edit. Once my mistake was pointed out I self-reverted, there is nothing else I can do at this moment. “WarKosign” 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregKaye: No issue with participation here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @WarKosign: Thanks for the explanation I don't see that any further action is needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • And the I-ban was never logged in at WP:EDR so I'm not sure if it is even actually official or when the three months are up. Could some admin take care of this as Cailil has not responded? He just edited his talk page to say he would be away in April and May 2015. Liz Read! Talk! 14:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving backlog on this page might cause a massive problem for mobile users that might look at this page using their data plan for internet access.

    No action necessary, cases are getting archived. (non-admin closure) Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    More info what I am talking about can be seen here! Doorknob747 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah? Imagine my concern.
    There are some things that mobile devices with tiny screens and limited data plans are just not suited for. Editing Wikipedia is probably one of those things. Involving yourself in AN/I threads is most certainly one of them. There is no reason for Wikipedia to try to accommodate wannabe editors who insist on using unsuitable tools. Jeh (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SchroCat—incivility

    NO ACTION
    Not enough of an issue here to rattle a spoon in a teacup, never mind create a storm. I recommend that you drop this per the good doctor and move on.  Philg88 ♦talk 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been incivil and stubborn in a discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion concerning whether "James Bond" is a title for the series of books and should therefore be italicised in the Wikipedia article (title and body). Unfortunately, much time was wasted discussing various guidelines before identifying the most pertinent guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Neither, which says:

    There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): ...

    • Descriptive titles also applies to media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films): Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, but Les Rougon-Macquart (actual title of the cycle of novels)—also partially italicized when the description contains the name of an italicized individual work: The Star Wars franchise because Star Wars is the work for which the franchise is named ...

    SchroCat's view is that "James Bond" is a title for the series and should be italicised as such: "My reference to WP:COMMONNAME is that 'James Bond' is the title. It's referred to as such by Ian Fleming Publications, the rights holders to the literary estate. I went through my hard copy sources at home last night; the series title 'James Bond' is explicitly referred to as such by the following publications, three of which are also IFP approved reference books."[167]

    My view is that "James Bond" is not a title for the series and therefore should not be italicised: I noted that, of the publications that SchroCat referenced, none of those I could preview online treated "James Bond" as a title when referring to the series, thus undermining SchroCat's claim. "I don't think it's true then to say that "James Bond" is regarded as a title of the series as much as it serves as a descriptor for the novels and films featuring the character of that name."[168] "These are the only ones from the above list that I could preview on Google Books, but it shows that these sources: refer to the series by various different terms, not consistently as 'James Bond novels'; do not format the words 'James Bond' (referring to the novel series) in the same way as they do the titles of books."[169]

    SchroCat later referred to evidence of two books that use the words "A James Bond novel" on the cover: "Note the wording on the top right of the Devil May Care book cover, and at the bottom of the Solo cover. As this is a form of wording used by IFP for several decades not used to refer to the character, but to the series, it's fairly clear what they consider the series title to be."[170] I acknowledged that this would be relevant for those novels in a series: "Thank you for finally producing some evidence of two titles using 'A James Bond novel' on the cover, which would support considering 'James Bond' a title for a series containing Devil May Care by Sebastian Faulks and Solo by William Boyd. What about all the other novels by Fleming that instead feature 'Vintage 007' on the cover—wouldn't that indicate using 'Vintage 007' or even '007' as the title of Fleming's series, not 'James Bond'?"[171] I added: "Look at the covers for Casino Royale[172][173][174], Live and Let Die[175][176][177], Moonraker[178][179][180], and so on. They all feature '007'—they don't feature the words 'James Bond'—so, if anything, 007 would be the series title."[181]

    Sadly, while I have tried to stick to the issue in order to reach a consensus, SchroCat has failed to assume good faith by other Wikipedians from the outset, even admitting: "... forgive me if my reservoir of AGF has diminished to low levels over people who are happy to make up their own rules when they want to, but will ignore them when it doesn't suit them. I'll post some examples later, and I really wouldn't be surprised if there is a sudden u-turn on whether to look at them or not."[182] SchroCat has consistently been dismissive, insulting and profane (while also accusing me of similar incivility). Some examples:

    • "Utter balls. ... you are too closed minded to look beyond anything but stubbornly defending a sub-standard MoS."[183]
    • "... frankly I have better things to do than read through you repeating tedious walls of bollocks which you call 'clarification', even if you are the one that needs some points clarifying."[184]
    • "As to the nonsense you've written again ... I'm hacked off at the misrepresentation and poor attitude to discussion here: it's not constructive and divisive, but from my experience, that's about par for the course for those who pass knee-jerk defensive judgements on the MoS."[185]
    • "It matters not one fucking iota whether other sources italicise the names or not ... Time for you to accept that other people have a fucking clue what they are talking about from time to time, and for you to be disruptive elsewhere."[186]
    • "My AGF has broken down because of the complete nonsense that has been dished out from the beginning on this."[187]
    • "... it's the sort of tedious and trite rubbish that drives editors away"[188]
    • "You can at least make an attempt to be honest." Edit summary: "Despicable behaviour, even by the standards you've displayed already."[189]

    SchroCat repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting their comment, although they never made clear how they supposed I had done so: "(For example I have never claimed, even remotely that 'COMMONNAME does not apply to italics in Wikipedia article titles'. I've explicitly said so above, and the fact that you are not bothering to read and take on board what I say to be illustrative and, frankly, tedious and rude)."[190] "I have never said that was the case, and it's tedious to have people mischaracterise so badly what I have and have not said."[191] (Note that I had never claimed that SchroCat said, agreed with, or disputed the quoted text.)

    SchroCat also falsely accused me of "saying 'series titles are not italicised'"[192] when, in fact, I had said the opposite. To their credit, they retracted the attribution of this comment to me once I pointed this out.[193]

    I previously reached out to SchroCat on their talk page in an effort to make peace and show that I was genuinely trying to be constructive[194] only for it to be deleted with the edit summary "turns out this was all deceitful balls"[195] After I drew their attention to another related discussion,[196] they again deleted it with the edit summary "No point in leaving the words of an uncivil and underhand bully on here"[197]

    —sroc 💬 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried any other dispute resolution about the underlying italicization issue (which is really a content dispute)? Maybe that could relieve some of the pressure. If there's a RFC then I might post a comment. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books. Can you imagine just how mind-blowingly frustrating it is to bang ones head against such a brick wall (and yet, irony of ironies, I'm the one being called stubborn here) It's certainly been enough to make me lose my AGF over the motivations here. I'm then accused of making up facts, which I find truly low and despicable. And now I'm being called stubborn because I hold a differing opinion to this editor on one point and haven't kowtowed towards his opinion. Despite suggesting a few times that we both step away to allow third parties to state their views, that hasn't happened. Because of the other editor's incivility in accusing me of making up facts, I've stepped away permanently. Their WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to this has worn me down past any point of caring about this article, or the point they are endlessly pushing, and makes me question why I bother with the project. – SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the personal attacks (which an admin needs to pass judgment on), this seems like a content issue that can be better settled at dispute resolution like the third opinion process. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When you have the time to make a whopping 9.6 kb!!! post at ANI you know you've probably been worrying yourself unnecessarily. time to move on and put that time and effort into article building. I suggest a swift close from an admin here and this editor persuaded to stop wasting everybody's time and his own.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some articles smaller than this post. If sroc had've put in the kind of effort creating a new stub on something interesting rather than post this load of shit then we'd have all been better off for it. CassiantoTalk 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I have only just seen SchroCat's reply: "It took over a whopping 3,800 words of text before it was acknowledged that what I had been saying all along was correct: that the MoS says we italicise the names of a series of books." I must respond because this is patently false, as I have acknowledged this from my very first reply: "The difference here is that cases such as List of Star Wars books and Twilight (series) are based on existing works that feature the italicised words as the title (i.e., Star Wars and Twilight) whereas the films and novels featuring the character James Bond almost never include his name in the title (certainly none of the films or Fleming's novels or short stories), so it is not appropriate to italicise his name when referring to the series." I never denied that series titles should be italicised, only that "James Bond" is not the title of this series, which is borne out by the evidence. It is appalling that SchroCat has perpetuated this lie in an AN/I. —sroc 💬 09:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is closed and the discussion over. Please leave it that way.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zeitgeist movement SPA censoring the article

    Article regularly attracts WP:SPA fans who wish to censor the article. Unesco2015 has been told to quit censoring the article, and yet they continue to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the editor is at least 7RR. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unesco2015_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the intended censorship manifest? ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing reliably sourced information, perhaps replacing some of it with select or slanted promotional sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm somewhat surprised that the Zeitgeist articles aren't under general sanctions. I agree that this does look like a POV warrior. In this diff, he removes all mention of "conspiracy theory" and its sources, and it looks like he's been edit warring pretty hard on the article for his changes: [198], [199], [200]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's blocked for now. Anyone mind cleaning up? I'm at 3r. Also, would anyone see reason to discuss a topic ban, or are we just going to let the block expire and rinse and repeat until he's indeffed? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does give me pause that the time elapsing from the first warning on his/her talk page to being blocked was only 45 minutes. That's not much time to curb ones behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Four reverts after the 3RR warning and no stopping to discuss. Plenty of rope. --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone else think this edit resembles the kind of pushes Unesco2015 was trying to make? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to say that. Note that "Nathan Maas" is credited as an extra on the IMDB entry for a Zeitgeist film. I don't want to get into an edit war, but that's some suspicious editing right there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We've also got a TZM blogger (per their own admission) trying to censor the article now. We need page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Big Wings" in The Battle of Britain.

    NO ACTION
    This isn't the place to ask such things. I'm afraid you'll have to be patient and wait for a reply, or follow the advice given and post a further note where suggested.  Philg88 ♦talk 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am not in dispute with anybody, I would like to know how my comments on the "Big Wing" aspect of the Battle of Britain has gone? I gave factual evidence to my post and have quoted; The Battle of Britain, James Holland, on several occasions. Can I ask how my request is going? Many thanks in advance. Ben Quinn 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Auk929 (talk)

    I get the impression that you are not requesting action from an administrator. It isn't clear what matter you are discussing, as your account's contribution record shows that your only previous edit to Wikipedia was on the article Trowbridge more than 7 years ago. If you have concerns about a particular article, that article's talk page is the place to discuss it. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume the editor is the IPs 81.148.30.228 and 109.150.80.237 [201] [202]. If so, his/her questions have received no reply, probably because there is little traffic on the Big Wing page. The editor could ask on the main Battle of Britain talk page or ask for input from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit in Peace

    User:Murry1975 continues to call me a sock and has done so on 3 separate occasions [203], [204], [205]. On multiple occasions he/she has linked me with User:Factocop yet has failed to raise a SPI. Can you please stop this pest or raise an SPI so this can end? TY Dubs boy (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Weeeeellll, the first step is to follow the instruction on this page that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page so that Murry1975 knows about this conversation. I have done that step for you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz though Murry1975 has been less than courteous to me. Just want this sorted.Dubs boy (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest Dubs boy, your edits on this site do bear a huge resemblance to those of Factocop who is a known user of sockpuppets, but that does not mean you are him. All it proves is that you are simply someone of similar sympathies. Having said that you have a long history of troublesome editing and have been blocked before, which included block evasion, and have been told by a couple f administrators that you where on thin ice.
    It also appears that towards the end of last year you where stalking Murry1975. I'd be weary of this AN/I boomeranging on yourself. Mabuska (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think stalking works both ways. Boomerang? Completely agree. I'm here for this reason. As the heading says I want to be able to edit in peace without the constant name calling. I shouldn't have to worry if Murry1975 or Factocop have edited that page prior. The unfortunate thing is that where Factocop has edited, Murry1975 has also edited. Both have staunch, albeit opposing POV's.Dubs boy (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah stalking me isnt nice, but as you have raised it here as I was gathering info. Murry1975 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In my experience on Wikipedia, Murry1975's edits, whilst not of the same POV as me, hardly fall into a "staunch" POV category. Yours however do. There is a stark difference between an editor checking up on the edits of a disruptive troublesome editor who is going round pushing POV regardless of accepted policies and an editor who checks up on another editors edits to revert or poke holes in them out of spite. One is allowed on Wikipedia, the other is not. Take a guess which one.

    Murry1975's revert of you on Nigel Dodds is fully qualified by the fact your edit violates WP:IMOS, a community agreed consensus on the name issue. You know this policy yet you went ahead and violated it regardless. In fact considering the recent edits on that article I have to suspect that Dubs boy may be the IP. Just to point out that on the 18th April that IP appears to have broken 3RR and is subject to Troubles restrictions remedies. If an SPI shows that Dubs boy and this IP are one and the same a longer block than Dubs last one should ensue as they know of these restrictions. Mabuska (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem pretty staunch to me. As for the IP, I had actually advised the anon IP to accept status quo at WP:Derry page. See here [206]. I can't please everyone but thanks for another personal attack. I'll take it on the chin.Dubs boy (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can post as a registered editor and as an IP and comment on themselves as if a different person. It's called socking. If you think raising a very relevant point is a personal attack then this site is not for you for when anyone disagrees with you or raises an issue in regards to you, your going to be offended quite a lot. Maybe that explains your behaviour which borders on battleground mentality. Mabuska (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabuska, you are getting all flustered. I'm just raising the point that if my comment was removed because it was offensive in reference to Highking then I believe I have every right to be just as pathetic and thin skinned. Its not in my nature to be that way but it seems there is a mentality on Wikipedia of who runs to the teacher first to tell on the other. Just embracing it. The fact that you have commented here and at the SPI offering no real content makes me suspicious of your agenda. I'm sure someone else can connect the dots.Dubs boy (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HistoryFightFan thinks he's 'outing' me

    At Talk:MyFreeCams.com, User:HistoryFightFan keeps asserting what he believes to be my "secret identity." As per WP:OUTING, I will "not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information," even as foolish as the situation is. I wrote the MyFreeCams.com page to begin with, and I much later on added a long quote from a book addressing the subject, for some flavor. And sure, the book isn't the most authoritative source, but it's not put there to back any controversy-clad claims, but simply to provide a feel for the website which the news articles clinically dissecting its revenues and notoriety simply cannot do. And so FightFan assumes I'm the author of the book engaging in self-promotion, and deletes the quote--which I restored, which he then deleted again with some mostly irrelevant criticism of the actual author's rhetorical flourishes. And each time FightFan comments on this he smugly continues pressing this name which he foolishly believes to be my real name. Pandeist (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the undue quote from the self-published book from the article. An admin can address the outing concerns independent of the content-issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see how a quote can be "undue" if it's not being used to source any proposition. Pandeist (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply at the article talk page. The content issue is best discussed there, with the outing complaint being handled here. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'k. Pandeist (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whole article looks promotional and self-sourced, but yeah, HistoryFightFan should stop speculating about the real-life identity of another editor on the talk page. HistoryFightFan, if you think there's concrete evidence of a COI problem, open a WP:COIN report. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New category of Supercar had been deleted earlier

    I'm not sure of the right place to request this, but the Category:Supercar was just created. A variation of it, Category:Super car, was deleted earlier at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9. I would appreciate an admin deleting the new category. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done by JzG, and I have emptied the category. Epic Genius (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, very quick. Thanks! Bahooka (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Epic, genius! Guy (Help!) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm ... in Germany we have this category, but we have a very strong definition for it. Supercar, that word is common around the world. May be you should follow the strong definition we have in Germany. Also in wikicommons you have this category. In Category:Car classifications you have the category supercar and so on. I think, you should follow the strong definition of supercar in Germany. Doesn't make sense to delete such a category, the category is well known around the world. Wega14 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    we do. It has to fly. Anything that doesn't fly, doesn't make the cut. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CrazyAces489

    This user has been attacking specifically articles I have written ever since I voiced my opinion on a discussion pertaining to the deletion of one of his articles (see their history). The user places "issues" on the top of the article, that I must note have been patrolled and approved, that do not relate to it. Ghmrytle (not available right now) even stated to the user that he/she had a personal vendetta against me. It's the second time around that I removed the baseless "issues" and I warned the user. I feel the warning will be unheard so I want the user to be temporarily blocked from editing until he/she proves he/she will stop the vandalism. Thank you for your time. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2015

    @TheGracefulSlick: To me, the guy mentioned above (whose name I corrected) is trying to create a lot of edit wars with you, so both can be blocked. Be careful. I think this guy should be blocked indefinitely for abusing editing privileges. Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what I'm trying to avoid. He/she has been doing this and I am just trying to do the right thing by removing them. I don't intend to be involve in an edit war, but thanks for agreeing with me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015

    @MYS77: TGS failed to put the required tag on my talk page but he did mention he would bring this to AN/I. I put on a tag of a self published source [207] and he removes it. I also put up notability tags and he removes them. I put an African American Portal category and he removes that also. [208] Ghmrytle has a stated friendship with TheGracefulSlick. [209] He has edited articles I created and I don't make an issue about it. [210] He doesn't WP:Own articles and others can edit them. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick and CrazyAces489: The true fact is that you two should be blocked for edit warring. One is following the other and creating issues where it doesn't exist. And by doing this, you two are clearly disrespecting the guidelines here.
    Please you both, stop stalking each other and start collaborating as a team. I (and WP overall) would appreciate it very much. Thank you, MYS77 ✉ 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MYS77: How is putting up an African Portal Category problematic for an article? If the individual is african american? I see that as a problem. I have already placed multiple warnings for 3rr. [211] CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @CrazyAces489: The point is: you two are hounding each other, thus violating the WP rules. You two should be blocked for this, and maybe for 3RR (I didn't check any pages, that's why the maybe), in my opinion. MYS77 ✉ 07:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MYS77: I have asked him to stay off of my page [212], yet he still posts on it along with personal attacks [213]. I don't care if he edits my articles, as he has done [214], but he takes it personal if I edit his articles As can be seen in this AN/I board. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was telling you to stop vandalizing, perfectly right to do despite you telling me to stay off. And it's not a "personal attack", many of your articles are stubs, or are questioned, and regularly deleted. So of course you are ok with me editing it since it improves the article you clearly hardly worked on. Also, I'm fine with people editing my articles, but your negative tags are unexceptionable, as they are only your idea of revenge. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)


    There are good arguments for questioning the notability of some of these articles, but the actions of CrazyAces489 are excessive, stalking and border on harassment. This, for instance, is just ridiculous. One warning would be enough. CrazyAces489 also needs reminded that is takes two to edit war and she/he is just as likely to get blocked. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @Escape Orbit: The reversion template requires that each article receive notification. Thus it may seem to excessive, but it is not. Please look at the reversion template used. He reverted more than one article, so notification for each reversion was necessary. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I never wanted to edit war, but the user places the notability and orphan tags when notability has been established and the articles are not orphans. So, really, I'm doing what needs to be done by removing them. The users main use of time, however, is putting them back which is unconstructive. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

    Plus, other users also removed the tags, either because they saw its baseless reasonings or the user was placing the wrong tags numerous times. He/she isn't doing it for the betterment of the article, but as a type of revenge for believing his/her page should be deleted. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

    User:Biantez

    The fellow user mentioned above doesn't communicate (sent three messages already), and is copy-pasting texts from PT Wiki, using Google Translate to translate it (see his last creation here and the relatable article in Portuguese).

    IDK what's wrong with this guy, tried to remove correct sections and clubs in Gerson Sodré without any further explanation. Can anyone take a look at this?

    Thanks, MYS77 ✉ 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) For starters, that yellow box right above the text area where you started this thread clearly requires you to notify Biantez that s/he is being discussed here, which you didn't (although I did it for you). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erpert:: Sorry, and thanks. MYS77 ✉ 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible quick violation of i-ban

    With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.
    I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

    User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

    After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

    Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

    • Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.
    • Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

    Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

    I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into the future

    For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.

    It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.

    I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.
    Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I am sorry to bring this. OccultZone has told me to withdraw, adding that he never requested it. Delibzr (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    OccultZone (talk · contribs) was blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) nearly 26 hours ago for about 72 hours. In blocking summary, HJ Mitchell cited an ANI section that was closed a few hours ago per his own agreement and there is clearly no evidence if OccultZone was pursuing this section anywhere, or any of the complaints that he had also made on this section. And there seems to be no violation of any rules, or any blockable offense. Unblock request: [215].

    My question is that how we can keep a long term user blocked when there is no justification for the block? I am sure that he should be unblocked. Delibzr (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by non-involved editor: There's been a lot more than that going on too, including edit warring on various user talk pages, removing comments by other users on other user's talk pages, not staying away from user talk pages after being told to do so, etc. So the only thing that surprises me about the block is quite frankly that he only got 72h. Thomas.W talk 23:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thomas.W: That's completely opposite to what happened. He didn't removed others comments but his comment was being removed and after opening the ANI he didn't participated on retrieving any of them and clearly told that he is "not going reinstate" any.[216] Thus how it was preventative? He restored his comment only on one talk page then came to ANI after he saw it was removed again, there were 2 reverts by him and others who he complained. You should review the situation. Delibzr (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OZ reverted several admins' edits, sometimes on their own talk pages. He ignored the comments from multiple admins and editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK and continued to pursue sock investigations even after they had been closed by CUs and SPI clerks. Every week, he was filing more cases at AN, AN/I and AE and seemed to seek out confrontation. And if admins didn't oblige his requests to pursue investigations, he had harsh words for them. There is no question he was an absurdly prolific editor but at 18 months, I don't think you can call that a "long-time" contributor. I value OZ's work but I think he gets bored and recently, he has been on the sock patrol. This isn't a bad thing if you are actually an experienced editor but I don't think he had the antivandalism training to dive headlong into the pursuits he was undertaking. He needs to slow down and maybe this limited time block will help. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz has refused to provide any evidence, per here. Please cite evidence for these unfounded allegations. Reporting issues to AN, AE, ANI, are always welcome when they are relevant to that noticeboard, you should not be misinterpreting their purpose. Were they are redirected on a same editor? Would you also consider asking for page protection as "seek out confrontation", that's plainly absurd. If you have complaint then go write there as none of it seems to be have anything to do with this block. Neither is anything wrong with investigating socks since the the targeted sock was clearly as sock but claimed to be having brother on the account!(I was involved there) Anyone would disagree with such a bad decision, but I don't see him filing same complaint again. Bringing up some unblockable and dead issue to make current block sound is even more unprofessional.
    The block had to be supported by a policy and well justified, blocks are not for slandering editors when you cannot even come up with a fair evidence that how an editor was breaking any rules. Delibzr (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Delibzr has challenged my statements and has asked me to either retract them or supply diffs. I stand by my words but it is evening here and I will locate supporting diffs tomorrow. I hope that is soon enough. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support quick unblock Based on what really happened, nothing ever reached to the level where block was required and the ANI withdrawn by himself. The block was seem bad and wasn't required. SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I am not involved with this issue however I think the block should be reviewed at the very least. Blocking long-term, useful contributors is a dangerous business. user:OccultZone may become disillusioned and may resign. This seems like a pretty bad downside. And would any one like to explain the upside of a 72 hour block? Further there is insufficient evidence of any serious wrong-doing on the part of this user. I don't see a good reason for this block and currently I vote for it to be reviewed. If new information is submitted my vote may change according to my direction. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trout71, for clarity your bolded text may well read Support review then as opposed to Support unblock? Category:Requests for unblock is regularly monitored and multiple admins have certainly reviewed the request. That none of them have chosen to unblock is telling.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not only that the block was unwarranted, we should also see that OccultZone hasn't reacted to the block the way many other editors seems to be doing these days, if he had, I would consider that the editor can lose his control. He is calm. For all that I definitely support unblocking. Hajme 00:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OccultZone seems to have been pursuing multiple disputes related to that earlier ANI. Last edit before the block was this (modifying a post from slightly earlier) and OccultZone had also just complained to Sandstein here. I don't understand the reason for the conflict with Magioladitis, whose comments earlier made sense as far as I remember. It did look to me like OccultZone was having trouble dropping the stick. HJ's post[217] after the block seems like an accurate summary. Floquenbeam also thinks it's complicated and didn't support unblocking.[218] Basically I don't understand (and am not about to research) the messy surrounding circumstances enough to say they didn't justify the block. I'd like to hear what HJ has to say. I'm in any case unimpressed by OZ setting their hair on fire over those Kumioko edits, regardless of whether they were right. I have no problem with an unblock request from OZ being granted if OZ agrees to tone down the conflict. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. It is nice to want someone unblocked to encourage them to continue their Wikipedia activity, but please also consider the many other editors who are distracted by the noise of such activity. Any review of the situation shows that the block was a good remedy to prevent the spreading drama. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. Per Johnuniq. As to the comments by the other users above who have fewer than 800 edits to their name ... I am surprised to see so many of those, finding their way to one AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Something is weird here. Why are 4 users with less than a thousand edits each, all with similar minor English imperfections to what we see from OccultZone, all commenting within an hour of each other on this thread in OccultZone's favor? All the more experienced editors here are speaking in favor of the block, but these editors are all speaking against it. I can't see any significant interaction between these editors and OccultZone. How do they all know him? How did they know of this thread, all commenting less than an hour after it was created? If these are real world friends, I think we need to know that, and it's dishonest to try to make this look like there's some kind of groundswell of grassroots support. If there's an innocent explanation for their participation in this thread, I'd like to hear it. @Delibzr, Trout71, SamuelDay1, and Hajme:, how do you know OccultZone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I was involved with OZ a while ago on INB where he is active. Floquenbeam agrees. Though I have doubts about 50.0.136.194 and Trout71. Delibzr (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Floquenbeam, same suspicions drawing my attention.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more concerned with the above incident about 87.244.29.26.87. Here I saw that "trout71" interpreting "block" as "ban" you see discussion at User talk:Trout71#Block-Ban. Just planned to correct it and comment here. I can remove my vote if that's the problem. Hajme 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion raised questions about 4 users by Floquenbeam, thus I think it has to continue further in the new direction. I wonder if they were notified somehow to participate in this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they were all pinged. Noteswork might also want to contribute. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello User:Floquenbeam and User:Magioladitis. You have raised doubts about my independence on Wikipedia and you asked how I know occultzone. I don't know him. We are not friends outside Wikipedia and I assume live in a different country. If you doubt this check my edits and articles. They mostly pertain to Irish subjects. In relation to the timing of my edit I was nearly the first person to vote but every time I tried there was an edit conflict. I can't speak for the other users. I was not pinged by anyone. I just don't support blocking unless it is absolutely necessary. Also I resent your comments about imperfections in my english. User:Delibzr you seem to be saying that I am a just a sockpuppet. I question your impartiality in this subject. It seems wrong that you level accusations against me. Anyway this hardly an obscure page and I regularly read the notices on it. If my vote is an issue I will withdraw it. This is the second time I have been accused of been a sock. The first time I was accused of being a person living in Asia. I have been here less than 10 days. If you lot are going to accuse me of being a sock you best make your mind up as to whose. So much for assume good faith. If you still have doubts talk to me on my page. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Trout71, it's unusual for a 10 day old account to find their way to AN/I, AfD and the Village Pump in their first few days. Many editors don't come across internal Wikipedia pages for months or years after they have created a new account and most readers don't even know they exist. Your appearance in these governance and maintenance areas so soon after creating an account raises suspicions in some longtime editors. I'd try not to take it personally. I doubt there is an editor on Wikipedia who hasn't been called a "sock" at some point in their editing career. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright fair enough User:Liz. I see your point. I am familiar Mediawiki and associated code and this is just a big version of that. It helps me find internal pages. Also if there is governance and maintenance going on I would prefer to be a part of it. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are a few steps ahead of most new editors, Trout71! I think it's often forgotten that while an editor might be new on en.wiki, they could have been active on other Wikipedia projects. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Carter violating WP:UPNO

    Move along, nothing to see here. Hijiri 88 advised to look at the page he's on and only post on talk not user pages, Carter advised to.... well, carry on. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (EDIT CONFLICT) John Carter's user page looks like a talk page, and has confused me[219] and several other users[220][221][222][223] into posting there instead of on his talk page. When other users have made this mistake he has allowed them to revert themselves, but for me he has been maintaining my accidental post as a "record" of my "stupid mistake", even after I tried to undo it. Upon my original mistake, he criticized me quite harshly for it, so his refusal to allow me to undo it seems odd at best.

    I asked him to remove it, and he refused, repeating a bogus accusation that I think I am perfect and never make mistakes.

    Could someone please tell him to cut it out and remove that section of his user page, which blatantly violates the section of WP:UPNO that says "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" isn't allowed?

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (EDITE CONFLICT) I tried to notify him but he reverted me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hijiri, you do not seem capable of understanding that despite your apparent belief that you have the right to dictate to others how they conduct themselves, you do not. Frankly, others have not engaged in the rather ridiculous, pompous, insulting conduct you rather regularly have, and you also seem to be incapable of understanding that after you have clearly been told to stay off my page here, you continue to have the right to not abide by that request. The rather offensive little sermonette you had the gall to give me with the notice would in the eyes of I think most rational individuals qualify as an unacceptable violation of my last request. It is also worth noting that the history of the page revealed that it was Hijiri himself who added it there, in one of his rather regular insults directed at pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, and I reverted his reversion, because, frankly, it is not his place to do so. There is a question whether an individual has a right to keep on his user page something someone else added, and, honestly, I believe it is reasonable to do so, and in no way a violation, as it was not me, but Hijiri, who put it there in the beginning with this edit. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: I'm sticking by John Carter's side on this question. It's his user page, which he divided by sections, and if you're "confused" you can look to the URL and see that the page isn't a talk page. But Mr. Carter, I would recommend you to cool down a little bit.
    And after reading the whole context of it, you started this totally unnecessary discussion only because Carter edited in two Japanese articles, Hijiri? Seriously, what's the need of this? MYS77 ✉ 00:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MYS77: User:In ictu oculi is among the numerous users who were also "confused by sections", I guess? Also, you didn't read back far enough: before posting the comment I had endured a weeks-long hounding campaign, in which he showed up on several article talk pages and posted nonsense comments whose sole effect was to undermine me. I'm not interested in talking about it. This is just about the section of his user page that maintains a record of my perceived flaws? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But they engaged in reasonable discussion, which you rarely do. I find it amusing that someone who so engages in the rather ridiculous put-downs that you added there himself shows how ridiculous his own inability to understand pages is. Again, I am sorry that you, as an individual, seem to believe that you are capable of adding such rather silly insults and at the same time doing it on the wrong page. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, John, you have the right to keep whatever you want on your userpage. That said, the fact that others have since made the same mistake and have been allowed to move comments to the right namespace (without issue) suggests that this is being kept there for bad-faith reasons. What's the f**king point? Your user page is confusing and even admins have made the same mistake as Hijiri88. But they didn't receive childish lectures from you. Forcing someone to maintain their obvious mistake on your userpage is dickish in the extreme. Be the bigger man and allow Hijiri88 the same courtesy you seem all too keen to allow everyone else. St★lwart111 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed no other comments myself from the page. Someone else did, here. I believe it is amusing to have such an evidence of, dare I call it stupidity, on my page, when I am not the one who put it there. It is also worth noting that I had recently at least suggested as an idea an interaction ban with Hijiri, during the recent mutual i-ban with Catflap. I simply wish him to himself abide by the principles of standard acceptable behavior, which his own comment did not do, and, frankly, neither did his removal of it. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you're not required to remove other comments, nor are you required to keep them there. My user page is pretty obviously a userpage and I've still had people accidentally leave messages there. I don't lord it over them. As I said, the fact that an admin made the same mistake suggests its an easy mistake to make. You're "technically" in the right here but you're being more than a bit of d*ck about it which is a form of disruption in its own right. Some might think of that as being in breach of the principles of standard acceptable behaviour. St★lwart111 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter made no such IBAN suggestion. User:Sturmgewehr88 suggested a one-way IBAN to get John Carter off my back. And I hope John Carter realizes that if he was IBANned with me, then quoting me on his user page would be a definite no-no. Also, how is this going to end? Everyone who actually read the discussion seems to agree that the section should go, but won't it just be reverted again? What's the normal procedure here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: I've read it quickly, didn't search enough. It would be better (and very simpler) if Carter removes Hijiri's edit of his user page. I'm agreeing with Stalwart111 there.
    And just to clarify: I have told Carter to cool down in my previous message. So, I wasn't agreeing 100% with him. OK Hijiri? Cheers, MYS77 ✉ 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MYS77: Acknowledged. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with carter removing the post, Carter its one post just remove it and have this ordeal closed already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @In ictu oculi: On what are you basing that? The issue at hand is that John Carter's user page is confusing enough that several experienced users including me, you and at least one admin have mistakenly posted there instead of his talk page, and while he has allowed you and the others to self-revert, he is choosing to deny me this privilege in order to keep a record of my "stupidity". UPNO explicitly forbids this. The only edit I made here that was "problematic" was the original post -- a month ago -- on the wrong page, a problematic edit you and several others have also made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All one has to do is look at the top left of your computer screen, If it reads User:name then it is an editors user page - if it reads User talk:name then it is their talk page. Nothing could be simpler and how there could be any confusion about this brings up WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Even better would be to not go to JC's pages at all. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are and have been very serious competence concerns regarding Hijiri for some time, regrettably. I have been in contact, for some time now, with editors with whom Hijiri has argued in the past, generally for dubious if not irrelevant reasons. The obvious paranoia evident in his previous comment on this page here in which he states that anyone who does not have a public e-mail account must, apparently by definition, have sockpuppets, as well as several of his other recent comments, do reasonable continue to raise WP:CIR issues regarding Hijiri in his sole area of interest. The rather extensive correspondence I have been sent off-wiki, which has already been summarized and presented in a redacted version with the identity of the sender removed, as well as his recent history at Kenji Miyazawa in which he has for a rather extensive time sought to keep information regarding the subjects affiliation with a nationalist group, apparently solely on the basis that Hijiri as an individual does not want to have the subject labeled as a nationalist, and other recent, including his obvious and apparently regular, according to the e-mails anyway, insistence on belittling anyone who ever disagrees with him on anything he is interested in, continue to raise in my eyes very serious questions whether this individual is even here to even build an encyclopedia, or whether he might just be here to promote his own personal opinions about subjects he is interested in and help ensure, through dubious conduct and insults, that anyone who might produce sources which challenge his opinions retires through either, eventually, losing his temper, or through disgust with his conduct.
    By the way, the offending comment has been removed, by me, although I believe Hijiri's real reason for objecting to it, as I believe I said earlier, is that he cannot abide facing the apparent fact of his sometimes obvious at best dubious competence and extremely questionable judgment and behavior. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:98.116.21.171

    The user only places false information in various articles of telenovelas of Televisa, for example place as original string to Univision. For example here, Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do. Let you several notices and were arrested, but it has now returned and insists on placing the same information. So I don't know who else to do.

    Here are more items on which adds the same information

    I hope that you can do something, because Univision is not the original broadcaster of those soap operas. And on the years in the language parameter to place it seems to me an act of vandalism.--Philip J Fry Talk 02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:X3250

    User is removing content and editing another user's Talk Page here and here. 79616gr (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock request

    I'd like to request a brief rangeblock of the 119.56.120.0/23 range (I hope I got that right). A single, IP-hopping editor operating in that range has been making disruptive edits to articles on Magic: The Gathering players. (see edit histories of Jérémy Dezani, Brian Kibler, Reid Duke, and Jon Finkel). Whenever a page gets protected, they simply move on to another one. Under normal circumstances, they would have been blocked already and that would probably have been the end of it, but since they've never made more than one edit from the same IP address this has not been possible technically. Your help is appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the whois, this would be a /18 for the entire provider. I'd recommend a CU review this to see if there would be any significant collateral damage before I would be comfortable issuing the block. Nakon 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing with a CU, there would be significant collateral damage to legitimate editors. I'll semi-protect the pages for a month. Nakon 05:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nakon: I appreciate that, but it doesn't really address the underlying behaviour of vandalizing a single article until it gets protected and then moving on to the next one. I also don't think rangeblocking the entire provider is actually necessary, since all of their edits have been in the narrower range I cited above. (see range contribs). What I'm asking for is something comparable to a first-time vandalism block. No longer than three days. With only one edit in that range from someone else in the past week, I think the risk of collateral damage is manageable. More than anything else, I'm concerned about what kind of message inaction sends. Basically, this guy has just learned that while we may stop their vandalism eventually, there aren't really any consequences for it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, CU has determined that there will be significant collateral damage if the range is blocked. There may be a large number of logged-in editors that use this range. Therefore, page protection is the best action that can be done. Nakon 05:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize rangeblock affected logged-in editors as well, but if that's that case then what you're saying makes sense, unfortunate as it may be. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (unarchived)
    Um, a rangeblock is a normal block. It doesn't affect logged-in editors unless you make it a hardblock. Is there a significant amount of IP editor traffic on that /23? (for some reasons tools isn't working for me at the moment). Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This tool is the only one working for me at the moment - https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/. But yeah, there does seem to be quite a lot of collateral on the /23. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not entirely sure how you're evaluating risk of collateral damage, but I can't agree with it. Obviously a long-term rangeblock would cause serious collateral damage, but for something short-term, like what I proposed above, the risk is manageable (only one edit from someone else in the past seven days, only four in the week prior), and no longer outweighs the risk of damage to 'pedia involved in doing nothing. This guy has now vandalized two further pages (see Kai Budde and Richard Garfield), and I have no reason to think they'll stop until we stop them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued harassment by some disturbed individual

    BLOCKED
    Indef blocked by Materialscientist for abuse of editing privileges, so your problem should go away.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some time ago, eight years or so, I created the Wikipedia page on an Australian company named SKILLED Group. Over the last couple of years some individual who has a grievance with that business has been continually harassing me on Wikipedia. Yet, I do not work for that business, I have no interest in that business, and nor do I have any involvement in whatever this guy's problem is let alone any resolution of it. He is mentally unhinged and needs to understand bugging Wikipedia editors is not going to achieve a resolution for whatever his real-world problem may be.

    Previously I logged it here and Reaper Eternal dealt with it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davidmwilliams#Uncivil_behaviour - but he has been back several times since, and again now, under the obviously fake username 'davidmmwilliams' - his sole list of contributions under this account are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davidmmwilliams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmwilliams (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Congressional hearing

    Is a request for an "investigation by Congress" and a "congressional hearing of Wikipedia" a legal threat? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, WP:RBI. Nakon 05:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is copying from [224], have a watch. SamuelDay1 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism after 24 hour block

    (non-admin closure) User Blocked. cnbr15

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

    Here. User:Céline_Rayne is vandalizing pages, again, after a 24 hour block. He also blanked his talk page which was full of warnings. --92slim (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Block request

    (non-admin closure) User already blocked. cnbr15

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

    Could someone please take a look at Laddypat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm involved, so can't block them but they are being disruptive - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Basedow. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 Widefox; talk 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They've already been Indef'd, nothing to worry about. cnbr15 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    histmerge

    Histmerge .OOO frm corresponding draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And Draft:Caroline Harriet Abraham to corresponding article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Personal Attacks by the TheGracefulSlick

    User is a self admitted novice editor [225], whom is still in high school. While being in high school or a novice editor is a problem to me, other things are. He has already been referred to as a possible sockpuppet. [226]. Individual has made numerous personal attacks on me from calling me a sockpuppet [227] to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant [228] . Any edits to articles started by him receive an almost instantaneous revert by him. In violation of WP:OWN . CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    first you call him sockpuppet then you complain he called you sockpuppet? and you think hes the only one to blame? 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @134.208.33.104: Can you please identify where I allegedly called him a sockpuppet? [229] Other users called him a sockpuppet. He called me a sockpuppet. [230] to stating that I need to attack his/her articles to seem relevant [231] CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I only revert your edits, no one else's reliable edits, because you make irrelevant edits. My "personal attack" was said because you started attacking my articles when I believed your article should be deleted (and was). I never called you a puppet so you are lying, too, that was me merely saying if you did such and such it would be a bad thing to do. I have been a cooperative editer until this user started vandalizing articles I made and he/she needs to stop. I just want to go back to helping Wikipedia TheGracefulSlick (talk)

    Somebody talk me out of blocking both these guys for 3RR on not one, not two, not three, but four different articles. Give it your best shot. KrakatoaKatie 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @KrakatoaKatie: I haven't made any personal attacks as listed above. I have also given the proper warnings for edit warring. I have also brought forth a 3rr. [232] As per [233], I will simply put up the articles for AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston (talk · contribs) has very graciously closed the 3RR report (which you should have mentioned here) with a warning. Boomerangs can be painful, so edit with care. KrakatoaKatie 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This the second dustup I've seen between you two. Head immediately to dispute resolution and work it out. Repeatedly coming to ANI, trying to get another editor sanctioned is frowned upon unless there is clear evidence of sustained misconduct. Not getting along with other editors is part of working together on Wikipedia and not cause for an administrator's intervention. Figure out how to get along...that starts with avoiding antagonizing other people. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You guys are smart, so I don't know why you are encouraging CrazyAces' behavior. He/she is lying about me saying I called him/her a sock puppet and targeted specifically my articles because theirs is sub-par at best. If you read his/her diff I said if this activity was going on, it would be bad. I'm done with this discussion, as the user is not worth anything to me or this project, although I will try to reach a truce one last time, to continue, so I am ceasing any interaction with him/her unless I need to defend myself from more lies. I'm going back to improving articles, not sure what the user will do, but it's not my issue anymore. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015

    Threats by Tolinjr

    NO ACTION
    Nothing of note here, folks. I certainly don't see any direct threats against the OP. "Highly recommending" someone not do something is not a threat and neither is mentioning the option of involving a "master editor" (by which I assume he means an admin).  Philg88 ♦talk 16:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday I came across the works of User:Tolinjr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as part of a discussion about the notability of the article Thomas F. Olin, Jr.. Looking at the articles I found a very similar style of writing at the article [Thomas F. Olin]], written by Tolinjr. Looking further, I noticed the article Brigantine Yankee, using as sources works from a mr. Olin, Sun Hwan Chung, using as sources works from a (different) mr. Olin. So I tagged those articles to request better and independent sources. I refrained from tagging them as COI, although the suspicion is there. Effect was and Tolinjr started to remove the tags on both articles. I duly warned him about that. At Thomas F. Olin I did add the COI-tag and this too was removed multiple times. I have seen POV-pushers before, so this did not bother me too much.

    But what does bother me are his threats on my talkpage here and here. I asked him to stop with that in a stern but polite way on his talk page. What was followed by another accusation.

    This is definitely not the way to act and I do not want to get sucked into a string of edit wars. I hope someone can take a look at this. The Banner talk 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I am Tolinjr. I am an editor, semi-retired, who has not been involved with Wikipedia since my user page was deleted by vandals several months ago (since restored by a master editor). This morning, I checked Wikipedia and found that The Banner talk had somehow searched my edit history and then proceeded to paste several maintenance templates on every article on which I have ever contributed. I do not know this person. I have never had contact with this person until this morning. I have no idea why this person is doing this. The handful of Wikipedia articles where I have contributed are random and not related. The only way for this person to accomplish this feat is to open up my edit history and pick them out. My only assumption is that either this person is associated with editors who previously deleted and vandalized my user page, or perhaps an editor I worked with on an income inequality article last year.
    How can I be the threat when he ambushed me, out of the blue, this morning? I have done nothing on Wikipedia for months. However, it is clear that he is intent on damaging every page I have ever touched. He has also threatened to shut down my ability to edit. I have communicated to him that, as a result of previous malicious activity against my page, I am sensitive to such vandals and had to resort to having master editors shut them down.
    He is not doing this because he legitimately questions the references ... his actions reflect specific motivation and intent. And in the case of Brigantine Yankee, my contributions were limited to the last paragraph (with three footnotes) and the photograph (that my grandfather took when it wrecked). But he still felt the need to tag the entire article, just like the other articles (across-the-board tagging), even when it was mostly written by other people. This is sheer malevolence. Tolinjr (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm starting to look at this. The OP's explanation is reasonable. On the Brigantine Yankee piece, largely devoid of inline footnotes, the REFIMPROVE flag seems very appropriate. The other flag seems excessive. I've restored one of two flags, hopefully that is a reasonable compromise. The way to lose the other flag is to source out the material better, whether it comes from a book or article by someone with the surname Olin or not. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to Sun Hwan Chung, I believe those flags are inappropriate for that piece as it sits and endorse their removal. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to Thomas F. Olin, Jr., I feel the COI flag was formerly appropriate, now that the article has been effectively gutted, not so much. As for the NOTABILITY flag, just haul the piece to AfD and let the matter be decided dispassionately there. I'd encourage The Banner to take down the COI flag and to list the piece at AfD for decision. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think bringing the Olin article to AfD is worthwhilte - the guy was the CEO of a major company. I've done some more cleanup of it. BMK (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I was confusing it with Thomas F. Olin. BMK (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It should either be hauled to AfD for decision or the Notability flag should be removed, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. BMK (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing actionable here. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting to see that you say nothing about the threats. Nor did you look into the clearly incorrect allegations that tolinjr placed on your talkpage. And when I was really after him, as he claims, the would have been a sockpuppet-case by now. Perhaps you are right that my tags were sudden and harsh, but still does not warrant the threats. The Banner talk 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "threats" appear to have been the result of annoyance and misunderstanding, which may have been lessened if you had discussed the problem a bit more and templated him a bit less. I agree with you that Tolinjr appears to have a conflict of interest, and I have left a message on his talk page explaingin things (at least from my point of view), but I do not think you handled the situation optimally. Nevertheless, I agree with Carrite that there is nothing actionable here against either of you. BMK (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this completely. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also gonna go BOLD and remove the COI flag from the gutted version, which is fully sourced and innocuous. The flag on the earlier version was appropriate, in my view, but all possibly objectionable content is gone now. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    soviet balticum

    i do not think there a better place to get things settled on the issue then here, i saw discssions and MASS REVERTING by baltic nationalists Klõps and Nug, this needs to be discussed on one place and reach a everlasting consensus once for all (i could not give nug a notice he protected his page) 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified Nug but I'm confused on which articles you are having a problem on, are you talking about Baltic states? It's essential you provide diffs, or evidence, to support your accusations. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I beleave I know what is the problem. The two mentioned editors live in denial that Baltic states were part of Soviet Union, and make all edits n a way to show that those countries were always independent and revert any correction that mentions Soviet rule over the countries until the USSR dissolution in early 1990s. This has been going on for years now. FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence of this? Diffs? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 81.235.159.105 has been making a lot of unconstructive edits. It is probably connected with IPs previous report [234]. IP has been notified to discuss things before and warned [235], but all she/he did was to back warn me on my talkpage [236].
    • The IP is edit warring for Lithuanian SSR [237], Estonian SSR [238] and Latvian SSR [239] articles to use her/his system for predecessor and successor flags. This system however is really complicated and misleading Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia are both predecessors and successors and Reichskommissariat Ostland also goes both directions. This is in conflict with Template:Infobox former country that states If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary).
    • @FkpCascais these are pretty seriously messed up claims. Hard to comment even. There is no denial, these countries were under the occupation.. see Occupation of the Baltic states, State continuity of the Baltic states. As we see there are some editors who think that de facto means de jure --Klõps (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NO ACTION
    This childish content dispute should be resolved at an RfC, which has since been opened. There is no reason for further action at this time. MaranoFan is advised to exhaust more forms of dispute resolution before coming to the dramaboard in the future. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An issue arose on the Meghan Trainor tlk page in December last year over her being a singer or a singer-songwriter. The issue was since settled and the people came to a consensus of calling Trainor a singer-songwriter. From that time, User:Winkelvi started baiting me. I initially avoided them but it has become a big concern. The first nomination stalled as the user got the article unstable. I was very upset at it. I subsequently nominated the article again on 18 January. Within 5 hours the disruptive user started the issue again note that it had been settled. I had to remove this nomination again, becoming further upset. Mustering up enough courage after about three months of the issue having already been settled, I started a nomination on 20 April. Ten minutes later he returned to start the dispute again. They have since denied this. Was this all a coincidence. I don't think so. I request a topic ban. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another content dispute? SamuelDay1 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what canvassing means and you were not involved in the talk page discussion at that time. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful, MaranoFan, if your sig matched your username. It's very confusing the way you have set it up. Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so? For e.g. User:HĐ uses Simon. Why cant I use my sig? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because editors have to go to some trouble to figure out who they are talking to instead of immediately knowing it is you. This is less of a problem when an editor sticks with the same signature so that people associate the sig with the user. But I've never seen you use this sig before. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion, back to the user in question. Winkelvi. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Winkilev isn't happy about a content dispute. Start up a formal WP:RFC to get a stronger consensus. Then you shouldn't have any further troubles, and you can go about your work on the article. That's all that really needs to be done here. What exactly do you expect to happen here? It's not like there's anything here worth a block or topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi isn't a little baby who we have to work hard to make happy. This is not a request for comment, it is well-established that Winkelvi (or one-two of his friends) are the only ones with the problem. This isn't even a real dispute. This is a technique WV uses to get my GA-nom jeopardized. This drama needs to stop. And we need to discuss the topic ban here. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Topic Ban - Petty content dispute. Use an WP:RFC instead. If that happens, and there's still trouble, then look at a topic ban. At this point, its little more than someone being stubborn about a trivial detail. Just discuss further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    -But there is no dispute. This is a plain tactic WV uses to get the article failed. Everyone is ok with singer-songwriter. This was at Rfc just a few months ago. We have had singer-songwriter on the article ever since. This is not worth an RfC. He has a problem. We need a topic ban. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with that. Start up an WP:RFC, and make sure the relevant WikiProjects are (neutrally) notified (no canvassing), and hash it out one last time. If its closed with a consensus against Winkilev's, yet he persists, then yes, at that point, I would agree its become disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request removal of talk page privileges and/or page protection

    Resolved
    . Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Apparently Lotusmediadesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is pretty upset.[240], [241], [242]. S/he was blocked in 2009 for spamming. Perhaps one of you kind admins would revoke talk page privs and/or protect the page. It has an active block/declined unblock on it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Tiptoety talk 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need auick block and deletions

    Special:Contributions/PINGAS SUCKER SamuelDay1 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=657903879"