Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.66.4.79 (talk) at 17:42, 14 September 2017. 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

    Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex ShihTalk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex ShihTalk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex ShihTalk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging Harry Mitchell EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging HJ Mitchell - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation while the first one is being discussed at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked - 4 days ago, Instaurare edited Mark Herring, the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular this one) and which Instaurare was warned about by Alex Shih less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, banned means banned, and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way

    —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [5], [6], [7]. 2 September: [8]. 3 September: [9]. Those are ones on my talk page.
    On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [10], [11]. 31 July: [12], [13].
    On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [14], 1 September [15], [16].
    On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [17]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [18], 3 September [[19]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had two instances of IP vandalism on Nephilim today. I don't know if that's enough to reconsider page protection, but I thought I'd update the issue. I have no way to know whether there is any connection between the matter at hand and those. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Matter Involving me and Alpehb

    To whom it may concern,

    I thought I would give you some data to consider.

    1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.

    2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.

    Again, as stated, I would not have gone any further then the edit and the matter would have been dropped, had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.

    You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, then don't message me and I will not message you. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).

    This was said and meant.

    I give this to you to show where I stand.

    On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.

    The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"

    This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).

    I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim were already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?

    Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.

    I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2017‎

    Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of WP:PERSONAL. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. Alephb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. One can disagree with another editor, but outright attacking an editor with statements such as You are bigoted.. and you are uneducated in this diff is unwarranted. Furthermore, the IP's claims that I hold multiple Masters and Doctorates are completely worthless, largely because of the Essjay fiasco. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) It's perhaps worth noting that the IP appears to be pushing a fringe theory based on his/her unique interpretation of an obscure bible translation. My copy of the JPS Tanakh Gen6:4 has It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. (emphasis mine) Yes, the NRSV translation (the one contained in the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, which is used as a textbook in Yale's New Testament introductory course) actually agrees with the "Pastor Bible" on this point, but Christine Hayes has specifically referred to the JPS translations as being "more accurate"[20] than the old RSV. And while I don't doubt that many people holding fringe beliefs about the Book of Genesis hold multiple MAs and PhDs in relevant fields, we must remember how many non-accredited super-conservative evangelical seminaries give out degrees to people who don't engage in serious critical scholarship of the text. So Blackmane's comment that the IP's claims are "completely worthless" is actually wrong -- if anything, they actually count against the IP. I'm not saying that If the IP was right on the substance their personal remarks would be acceptable, just that not only are their remarks unacceptable but they are also almost certainly wrong on the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are reliable sources for the IP's views, I for one would have no objection to their being mentioned in the article, provided the edit was made in a way that is broadly in line with Wikipedia's basic nature and policies. What's going on here, fundamentally, is not a content dispute. My concern here is that we've got an editor who has ignored WP:PERSONAL for over one month, distributing personal attacks in long, repetitive, often copy-pasted rants over many talk pages despite a large number of attempts to try and rein in the vitriol. The editor also, with the exception of a single edit to an infobox, has no history of doing anything here except for promoting a particular view of Nephilim and then lashing out over the results over the course of more than a month. This is not an otherwise productive editor who has simply gone too far on one issue. This is not an editor who has made repeated mistakes and understood them. This is an editor carrying out a single-minded campaign, ignoring Wikipedia's policies, and contributing to the kind of atmosphere that makes many otherwise reasonable editors dislike contributing here. I propose a block at least until such time as the editor expresses an understanding of WP:PERSONAL and indicates some interest in doing something other than carrying on the current unproductive dispute. At least for now, the user is WP:NOTHERE.Alephb (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16

    Thetruth16 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from any content related to
    List of topics
    . This topic ban applies to all content or discussions related to these topics anywhere on the English Wikipedia. While the consensus is clearly in favor of this topic ban, there are also some opinions in favor of an indefinite block and it could go there if the topic ban is violated. —SpacemanSpiff 12:33, September 14, 2017‎ (UTC)

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

    Over the past year, User:Thetruth16 has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his subsequent downfall:

    He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:

    • In the Philippine presidential election, 1986 article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see 1)
    • In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see 1)
    • In the People Power Revolution article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the Moro National Liberation Front, and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see 2)
    • In the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see 4)

    If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the WP:Reliable sources as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See first and second ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.

    There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to WP:NPOV and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
    As you can see above, all the contributions you deleted (which I reverted) cited reliable sources and are verifiable. We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, current and past, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    @Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian.thomson: The second point covers this edit. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per WP:RS. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WayKurat I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? @Ian.thomson: Thetruth16 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, Thetruth16 has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -Object404 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.
    And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.Thetruth16 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the Moro National Liberation Front to undermine Philippine interests."[2] specifically to make the subject look bad. -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I do understand your point that it can be deleted to make the paragraph more coherent. Also, I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what WayKurat has deleted/censored. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thetruth is more than ready for a NOTHERE block, and this discussion is not giving me any reason to think otherwise. WayKurat, thank you for bringing it here; I know these reports are time consuming, but they are worth it, if only for the record they establish. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: as you can see above, all the 4 examples WayKurat brought up have been refuted. So you think that these 4 should have been censored/deleted? If they have to be re-written in an more neutral tone, other editors should be rewriting them over time consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. However, some of the facts that WayKurat has been trying to censor/delete are hard to refute, like Aquino's links with the communist insurgents which can be verified by multiple sources throughout the article. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah no I didn't see that. The problem isn't even so much the factuality, partial or complete, of some of the things you thrown in--it's the verbosity, the edit warring, the synthesis, the POV. And the talk page behavior. Did I mention the edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Per WP:EW, I understand that reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. And the policy in question here is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Also, I would have preferred to discuss content dispute in the talk page Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr.; however, as you can see, WayKurat failed to respond on the points I raised in the talk page (and even above), focused on conduct and instead of content contrary to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, resorted to mass deletions (even if everything is consistent with WP:RS) and finally reported me to admin while he himself is violating Wikipedia rules. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetruth16, I did not respond to your disputes to stop this edit war and as I mentioned above, let the other admins and editors here check the neutrality of your edits. As I have noticed on your editing style, you keep on adding this kind of information and if someone challenges you about the neutrality of these, you will give them the headache to check every edit you make if its neutral.
    From day one, that is what you are doing here, even since you have adding questionable information anonymously using an IP address. And to think to some point last year that you used blogs and self-published sources that are also being used by those pro-Marcos Facebook pages and websites, that already set the tone of your editing style. To reiterate what Object404 was saying, your edits villify Marcoses opponents and at the same time you glorify their achievements. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to let other editors check the the contributions you deem non-neutral, then why did you Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. You could have created a discussion in the talk page to gain consensus, which you didn't. Also, it's moot and academic if I used sources that didn't comply with WP:RS last year - it wasn't aware of the guidelines then, and these all sources have all been removed. I don't even know why you have to bring this up now that all the remaining contributions and sources very much comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Drmies:. As of this moment, Thetruth16 is reverting back his version of the articles mentioned above, more than 24 hours after the his edits were removed. This somehow bypasses the WP:3RR rule. -WayKurat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about double standards? Didn't you WayKurat delete my edits more than 3x? Didn't you violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Just now Object404 did a review on my edits on Benigno Aquino Jr. and Philippine presidential election, 1986 and way over 90% of what I contributed that you've censored/deleted have been retained. Besides, all the 4 points you raised above have been more than adequately addressed.Thetruth16 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "retain" your edits, Thetruth16. I just haven't had much time to review the articles above nor edit them with which your biased edits have been very damaging to their form and are a big headache. -Object404 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Headache" is a good word to use here. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg
    2. ^ The Manila Standard. "'Malaysia's new plans to undermine Philippine interests'". Retrieved May 19, 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    Object404 Good thing that you understand this Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that there is no need to immediately delete contribution (which are well-sourced, but you argue as non-neutral) that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time, unlike WayKurat who just deleted/censored everything that doesn't speak favorably of Aquino (including his links to the communists) even if they are from reputable sources. Just so WayKurat is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy, I'll put them here verbatim just so he/she won't keep on violating it: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." and "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Thetruth16 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion is that any time an account is created with the word truth anywhere in it, that a separate shadow copy of the wiki be created just for them. Their edits will affect only that copy, and only they will see that copy, with their edits. They can edit away for years without bothering anyone, and without getting blocked. Everyone's happy. EEng 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the usage of WP:RS that's the problem with Thetruth16's editing, it's his style of editing and wording which is biased towards glorifying Marcos, making him look innocent and demonizing Marcos's opponents. -Object404 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are shooting the messenger? So you could as well blame the reliable sources - editors in the national newspapers, photographers, and TV - for any revelation that makes Marcos looks innocent and that demonizes Marcos' opponents? And editing for the opposite - sources that demonizes Marcos is totally fine? It's the reliable sources' POV and factual revelations and not mine. And censoring everything, including Aquino's association with the communist rebels and his father's association with the Japanese in WWII, just like what WayKurat notwithstanding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete is the way to go? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but you keep Poisoning the well. An example of Thetruth16's biased wording style to make Marcos look good was his initial insistence that it was only communists and leftists who were the main targets of Human Rights Abuses during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, when in fact thousands of innocent civilians were the victims of torture, murder, mutilations, etc. He even protested the usage of the word "innocent" to describe the innocent victims, which can be seen in the article's history logs - [21]. The section has since been sort of balanced. -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, don't use this forum to argue and discuss about content, since this has already been dealt with. At that time, other editors questioned the word "innocent" as well, and one editor even said inTalk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence that the word innocent you inserted is "too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded." And when you said that you'll dig up more sources, those are the facts", RioHondo said that this statement itself is problematic. And weren't you told to mention the name of the authors whose opinions you presented in as facts in Human Rights Abuses? See, you accuse me of being biased, but many other editors here Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence get a sense that you yourself are biased. Thetruth16 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying the thousands of falsely accused human rights victims were not innocent? -Object404 (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that. Of the tens of thousands of accused victims, there are accused victims who are innocent and there are accused who are't innocent, nobody knows for sure. Many editors in Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence who got a wind of your editorial bias pointed out that it's wrong to say that all the accused are innocent which you stated in your contribution. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Given the facts stated above, the attitude towards other editors and editing style of this user, I propose that he will be topic banned from Ferdinand Marcos, the listed articles above and any other related articles. Please advise if you concur. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you wish to make these Wikipedia articles one-sided and censor all WP:RS sources that editors like WayKurat and Object404 find contrary to their spin, then go ahead. They want to make it a black and white, good person or evil person, and nothing else in between. People can still learn through other means anyway if other Wikipedia editors insist to censor creditable sources per WP:RS that don't portray Marcos as evil, and Aquino as a saint. There'll be no discussion and everyone's life would be easier. People will never find out that Aquino was linked to communist rebels through Wikipedia and they'll instead find it through other reliable sources. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to Wikipilipinas instead. Make the Ferdinand Marcos articles there "as neutral as possible" as you interpret it. There are no rules there, no neutrality checking, and best of all, no admins or other editors will bother you posting your version of "the truth". -WayKurat (talk)
    Very good. While I addressed all the issues on content you raised above Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, now you are resorting to attacks. Thetruth16 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request block of User:Johnvr4

    Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [23], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [24] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [25]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJBers 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: at [26] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion he continues to put forth about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern.
    I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[27]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - Having had a look at Johnvr4's edits I have to agree with Nick-D that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban at most, since this is topical and there's no indication the editor is WP:NOTHERE, i.e. not generally constructive and trying to do the right thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. JOhnvr4 is clearly here to be a contributing editor, but he really needs to heed advice from the more experienced editors that have been trying to help him. I would not oppose a short term topic ban to help him get to grips in subjects outside of this topic area. Mentorship may also be an option. Blackmane (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

    Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

    Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

    That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[28] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

    I owe User:Moe Epsilon a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for any representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. Johnvr4 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV, Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

    BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

    Other highly relevant links would be:

    1. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
    2. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
    3. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
    4. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
    5. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
    6. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
    7. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
    8. User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
    9. User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
    10. User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
    11. Deleted message
    12. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft
    13. "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid" deleted comment. (re:this discussion) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    #User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review Prior to condensing sandbox In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.

    Note these exchanges among others: "When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

    "...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

    Also: "...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [29]

    "I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

    1. Project 112 Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project 112 move from sand box on March 16, 2017
    2. Deseret Test Center Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017
    3. U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017
    4. United States military anti-plant research Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! United States military anti-plant research Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017
    5. Project MKUltra Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017
    6. 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands! Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017
    7. Japan and weapons of mass destruction Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands! Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017

    Last, Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox into another namespace WP:ARTICLE one day PRIOR to his demand.

    Most importantly, "I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page, but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)"[30] Johnvr4 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)

    I ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely, Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths, Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted. His behavior includes: WP:HOUND

    1. The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
    2. locking that page
    3. Deleting the PageHist
    4. Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
    5. deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
    6. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
    7. harassment hounding

    I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • To deal with the central request immediately, Johnvr4, Arbcom is the only place where you can ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the DRV closure review was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.
    • That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.
    I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [31]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[32] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [33]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.
    As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[34] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:
    1. Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
    2. Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
    3. Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc, from this thread.
    4. Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
    5. Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.
    Does this sum everything up? Blackmane (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for the most part and thank you Blackmane for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).
    I would add that I wanted constructive criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).
    Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?
    I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken WP:INVOLVED actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.
    Quote from User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands:
    @Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.
    What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal concerning JohnVR4

    "Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months." (Corrected typo: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    Extended content
    It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart.
    I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnvr4 Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am fairly certain it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are factually inaccurate in our present reality.
    Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same.
    "Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I highly doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about WP:DROPTHESTICK. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as WP:CONSENSUS, and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, your choice. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked here for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one.
    Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)"
    I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"
    It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat, here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnvr4: Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Please stop - this is a community discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Implied legal threat, edit warring, content blanking SPA

    Title says it all. User repeatedly blanking content on article claiming "defamatory content". Likely same as IP editor who did the same earlier. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Claiming that material is defamatory is not a legal threat, as discussed at WP:NLT. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathan A Jones: I'm having trouble locating that discussion. Can you point me to it? I've seen people treat claims as bordering on legal threats, often citing DOLT. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See the section Defamation where it says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat". One could argue over whether an assertion that material is defamatory is a discussion of libel, but I think it's close enough. Having been on the wrong end of legal threats in the past I think I know where most admins would draw the line, and I don't think these comments reach the required threshold. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysci1977 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You should raise your concerns at WP:BLP/N; the way you are handling things at the moment is likely to end badly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Polysci1977 has already been warned about edit warring while logged off it seems, and was also advised to either take the content dispute to WP:BLPN or Talk:Jimmy Dore, where similar discussion has been ongoing. The page will be semi-protected for one week for the time being to allow discussions to take place. WP:NOTHERE should be applicable if the same kind of disruptive editing behaviour continues. Alex ShihTalk 07:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; my comment was more aimed at lurkers: I learned a lot by reading BLP/N and AN/I for a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the original post (which did not qualify as a legal threat), this new "You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded" appears to be reasonably interpretable as one. After warnings. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 

    User:Oogles, CIR concerns

    User:Oogles is an oldtime editor, albeit with a limited set of articles he edits, and who hasn't edited much since 2015 until now. He recently resurfaced on The Devil's Advocate (1997 film)‎ (one of his old haunts) (Redacted). In removing referenced material, he begins with heated personal attacks [35] [36] showing a lack of understanding of what was written, or the chronology of the subjects. He then leaves two incoherent messages on my user talk to that effect, with a chilling header. [37] [38]

    After User:Mavriksfan11 chimes in with a WP:3O, what follows is a torrent of incoherence and non-sequiturs from Oogles, in 11 posts all one after the other. After commenting on a grammatical/readability issue that was already resolved, non-sequitur #1: "Have at it, hackles" [39] Confuses ledes with paragraphs again, after having been advised of a difference: [40] Non-sequitur #2 on the identification of an evangelical character: "Granted, she did fuck Satan, I mean Milton, and had a kid" [41] Goes back to the already resolved issue again [42] and again [43] Followed by this incoherence: [44]

    After the 3O is implemented, he edit wars to undo it [45] . This is followed by the second torrent of seven bizarre posts. Noting the possibility of ANI should 3O fail, he responds with non-sequitur #3: "Not the article, so no need to edit details like that" [46] Confuses "lede" and "paragraph" again, violates WP:LEAD, and ignores 3O: [47] Non-sequitur #4: invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF referring to a plot point in a different film as analogous to a real-world lawsuit: [48] Non-sequitur #5: "Done with opening paragraph? If so, I'll go to next edit" [49] (talking to himself there?) Followed by this incoherence: "You can inform me on mine, if you want, I won't view it, but have fun with that. " [50]

    Sadly, I think we have a clear-cut WP:CIR case here, or at least a WP:IDHT given the ignoring explanations, pointed-out guidelines and the 3O. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Just want to point out that the legal threat you allege (using "legal action" as a header) seems to be referring to mention of legal actions in the article, why do you think it was a threat? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought it actually was a threat, just that the header, when I first saw it, was chilling and disturbing before I clicked on it and saw what it was. It just ties into the question of whether this user knows what words mean and what our policies are. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    View the actual edits. That's all. Oogles (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (and I totally wouldn't sue Ribbit, why bother? That was notification of a revert, which I will NO LONGER do in the future. Oogles (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did't say not to discuss reverts with other users (and I don't think Ribbet32said this either.) Ribbet32 was questioning your choice of words,not saying you shouldn't notify him of anything. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, I will no longer notify anyone of anything. I'll just edit appropriately. Can he stop reverting now? OR at least TALK after the FIRST revert? Talk is OK. Why this this film is unique for having the end in the opening - and legal information in it. Oogles (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one said to stop notifying users of anything. Do you understand why this discussion was started? As for your defense View the actual edits these edits of yours (and especially this one) don't exactly justify the problematic communication highlighted in the diffs provided by Ribbet32. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So "especially this one" is where "defenses" (ie: legal defenses) weren't available to WB, INC? Source? Oogles (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no reason whatsoever to call the material you removed vandalism. This is not about article content (of which I'm not especially thrilled by either revision) but your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The COMMENT part of the edit? That is fair on that. Is that what this is about? Oogles (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone raises WP:CIR concerns about you, it's generally a good idea to see what evidence they're providing and try to understand where they're coming from. You are not helping your case at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. He was all happy about doing it. Does it matter if he "wins" - not really. I'm not trying to "help my case" That would be a case where this 1 movie now has legal information, and spoiler in the opening paragraph - which is bad :) Oogles (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a wikipedia policy that spoilers are ok. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even really a spoiler, just something revealed in the last 10 minutes. But what about legal info in lead? How bout we put all that (not true) things in the legal section, then talk about sources? HOWEVER - If the sole issue is claiming vandalism, with that specific word, in a comment - I am guilty of that. With no agenda. Oogles (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The NUMBER of edits seem to be an issue (where, does it really matter, when all inline and hasn't been edited in years?) Anyhoo, I've illustrated "Responsiveness" here too, as I did on the talk page for the edited articles. However, if issue is Ribbit is afraid of me or something lol, guy is on a crusade, and if he wins - I don't care! Oogles (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    99.9% of my edits are from IP, and those are never changed (and me and Oogles never edit same pages) I login when history is important to the edits. Oogles (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My "crusade" is to expand Wikipedia film articles using references, and when a disagreement pops up, to discuss with the other editor. When someone covers their ears and then goes "DAH DAH DAH DAH DAH" and repeats the same arguments, it hinders the project. I explained my rationale for including information in the lede citing WP:LEAD [51]; you've repeatedly ignored that and repeatedly cited a non-existing rule that a lawsuit has to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to be worth mentioning in the "opening paragraph", regardless of real-world ramifications of a settled case. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So, as a long time member (and contributor) to wiki - guess the logical thing is put the end of movies in the first paragraph, legal info and no big deal right? Lets just do that for every single movie. Seems logical. Oogles (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (The above reply is the actual first time I heard him respond to it) Do you have a settlement letter? explaining the exact details of cash transfer? And it wasn't the supreme court. Oogles (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, dude, this all belongs on the talk page for the article where I'm sure, we could resolve things, -- or, whatever the fuck this is, you can delete me too -- Don't give a fuck if you're successful on that, either, as, most of my edits from work or when VPN or whatever (again, not on the same article, I have no sockpuppets) I login, because history is important. Oogles (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you insist on improper formatting? (I fixed it) Tornado chaser (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally rooting that Ribbit wins. Just cause it's so terribly funny.
    Oh also: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use Template:ANI-notice to do so.
    The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (for pages) and Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for editors) may be helpful.
    Um, Oogles, why did you post that unsigned boilerplate notice [52]? You know I notified you immediately. [53] Ribbet32 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what it was? Thought the tags messed it up, did anyone think it was NOT from me?, under my username for the edit?Oogles (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, you shouldn't have me editing a frequently edited thread like this. BTW, I'll still contribute :P In donation and 99.99% of edits. (Mostly grammer) Which I spelled wrong. Oogles (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The end result is I guess every movie needs the the last 10 minutes revealed in opening paragraph and legal info all in there. Seems like the best place for it, right? Not the legal section. (Note, I won't be doing that, a hope is that editors keep Wiki reliable) Oogles (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree there are some WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:EDITWAR issues to address in Oogles's behavior, I think Ribbet32's "appears to have suffered a complete mental breakdown" WP:ASPERSIONS clearly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG in addition to, and completely severable from, actions (if any) taken with regard to Oogles. Nasty speculation about other people's brains is about the worst WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF transgression there is. I also agree with Tornado_chaser that interpreting an edit summary of "legal action", pertaining to article content about a legal action, as some kind of legal threat is unreasonable. Frankly, it's ridiculous WP:DRAMA-mongering. ANI does not exist for editors to tone-police each other in nit-picky, subjective, "I wish I'd gotten a trigger warning"-style ways that seem to have more to do with the complainant's own feelings and or inferences than anyone's intent or implications. ANI is also not a free-for-all playground for demonizing other editors' mentalities. Similarly, WP:Competence is required is something we refer to for "is this editor able to get along and do they have sufficient writing and English-language experience to even help out here?" determinations; it is not a "is this person smart or sane enough for our liking?" page. If you cite CIR in reference to someone, you should make clear you mean the former, but here the complainant actually intends the latter and is being very pointed about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. User:Ribbet32, please remove your comments on another user's mental health. GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like I already explained what I meant by "chilling", but fine, redacted. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with it, as well. We can have a "discussion", first - before to this - really wasting everyones time - extreme. Oogles (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a little concerned about CIR due to confusing comments like the one above. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with GoldenRing's comment - and SMcCandlish. More clear? Don't agree there was an editwar, (I can't hear you was after the fact) Oogles (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also more than happy to provide ammunition for someone on a crusade (Note NONE of this is about actual edits to the actual article). So just explain, what ammunition you want, for this case. I'll do my very best to provide it. Oogles (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note* Provide it to action against me, just cause that's funny) ;) Oogles (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, under the reason sited, I could through poop at my monitor, then post a picture of it. But, I'm not really *that* interested in providing that ammunition. Oogles (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it you want an admin to do? so far this seems like a content dispute that turned into 2 users criticizing each other, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and in a content dispute you discuss content, you don't just keep criticizing the other person. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What do *I* want an admin to do? Nothing is fine by me - ask the person who started it. Oogles (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like consensus has shifted to this being a mere "content dispute": personal attacks, edit warring against consensus, and editing beyond your language ability be damned. Someone might as well close this. Trout me if you like. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was uneventful. Oogles (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't mean there is nothing for an admin to do, I was saying that ANI is a place to ask for admins to look into things or take action (or argue that an admin shouldn't take action against you), not just to argue endlessly (and do try do discuss things in a more constructive way than "keep criticizing me cause it's funny" or "I could throw poop at my monitor"). as for what (if any)action admins should take against who, thats up to the admins. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, they should get to adminin' already. Oogles (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done, the actual edits was evidence enough - I get the mistake now - getting Ribbit's hackles up. Who then "threatened" me with all kinds of actions. So, take your action, I'll not reply on THIS particular thread anymore. Oogles (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems he's been busy on CIR. Just saying. Alright Now is time for admin to take admin actions. (or not) Oogles (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ramos1990 revert-warring RfC tag, attempting to poison RfC

    Hello: I opened an already-ID'd RfC concerning an article and its adherence to WP:POLICY this morning [54], and another contributor has now twice [55][56] added other categories to it (clearly an attempt to distract from the policy issues and confuse/poison any discussion). In a further attempt to do this, he has now just added a new RfC for many categories[57], which will also pollute any discussion and the RfC boards. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone, the RfC that User:ThePromender opened up today (September 9, 2017) [58] is literally a continuation of the the RfC he opened a few days ago (September 4, 2017) over the exact same discussion he started [59] (on September 4, 2017). Perhaps because he is unhappy with the results? Even when you look at this "new" RfC from today (September 9, 2017), he does reference the original September 4, 2017 discussion by clearly stating "For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above." and this time he does not include the other two categories (History and Religion/Philosophy) for which he started in the the first discussion see here [60]. All I did was restore the same categories since it looked suspicious that he would make another RfC 5 days later and this time he would only limit the categories for consultation to just "policy" (today) when he originally had "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" just 5 days ago.
    To summarize, User:ThePromender's behavior looks very odd since why would he open an RfC on September 4, 2017 which included 3 categories for consultation (policy, history and religion/philosophy) and then close, reopen, and start another one RfC on September 9, 2017 and reference the September 4, 2017 discussion with only 1 category (Policy) this time around? It seems his first attempt (which did include the "policy" category, by the way) was not going in his favor so after 5 days, he is trying again but this time limiting the categories to just "Policy" to try manipulate the outcome. I think the original RfC from September 4, 2017 was good enough since it touched on policy and had the RfC policy category linked. It looks like no one agreed with him that a policy was violated so he is trying again and blaming me..
    By the way, I agreed with some of User:The Promenader's suggestions throughout the September 4, 2017 discussion and even encouraged some changes to address his concerns. But apparently this was not enough. Please take note that User:ThePromenader has recently been "warned not warned not to comment on the motivations or conspiracies of other editors without hard evidence to back his claims and to edit collegially, even with those with whom he disagrees." by an admin who closed an ANI on September 3, 2017. [61]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting interpretation of events, but since during our conversation, Ramos1990, we both demonstrated and agreed that the article title was a WP:NEOLOGISM, I centred the RfC on that WP:POLICY offence. There is no need to go into a content-debate (which would just distract/drown the central point). Come to your own conclusions about the urgent 'need' (edit-warring) to add categories to an RfC that isn't even one's own.
    Character 'questioning' is no answer for the WP:POLICY offenses in question (strangely absent from the above comment), but by all means, my entire record is open to all. I have nothing more to add to this.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that now the RfC is about (society and sport?!) everything but the WP:POLICY offense it was opened for. Mission accomplished? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No we did not agree that the term was even a neologism especially since it is cited in the 1800s, per your own google search. I mentioned that a few times too and you yourself went as far back as "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" (your own words on its history). Also no other editor agreed that it was a neologism either per google book and scholar finds (used in handbooks, references, textbooks, and even topical dictionaries now). Another editor made the correction on the RfC categories you were not willing to do - make it the same as you had it when you made the first RfC. Also no need to make multiple RfCs when it is about the exact same discussion. Also why make another RfC on the same discussion over the same issues after only 5 days, right under it? Wasn't the first time enough?
    Also, User:Redrose64's correction of your RfC categories was correct: here is what the WP:RFC says on the "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines": "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case." I did not know that before. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why all the selective-reality-interpretive character doubt-accusation sowing (that the accused always feels obliged to answer in case someone 'believes' it)? I'm new to RfC, and I closed the old one because it was badly formatted [62], but we continued the conversation all the same. You acknowledged even here that the term is coined/used by a particular group - that's the very definition of a WP:NEOLOGISM. Articles like that are normally deleted, but it only gets worse from there. Read the entire conversation [63] if you're interested, but this ANI is not about that, but your edit-warring and attempted RfC-distraction-poisoning. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I did not know that, either. Like I said, I'm new to RfC. So, since you did indeed think that the RfC would target the WP:POLICY offenses demonstrated, that explains a lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No I did not acknowledge that it was neologism because it was not and I mentioned that it was found in 1859 per your own list [64]. It is not a newly invented term - even you have discovered a "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" history. A term that has +60 years and more is not a new term, or a newly coined term. The fact that it has a "Pre-WWII" history should be enough. Anyways, no I was not trying to poison anything since you had the "Policy" tag since your first RfC and I never contested it. I thought it was good idea to have "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" and the fact that you made another RfC over the exact same discussion 5 days later and how you removed the "history, and religion/philosophy" made me suspicious and you reverted me when I tried to restore the balance you had made in the first RfC. Not once did I ever remove the "Policy" category in either the 1st or 2nd RfC by the way (I even kept the "policy" on my attempt at making an RfC [65] since you kept on reverting me!) I only tried to restore the others. I have never heard of RfC so I am new to this too. No worries. Apologies if I made any mistakes on my end about it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mostly a discussion about a content dispute, and ANI does not deal with content disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone here keeps trying to turn this into a content-dispute. That is exactly what's going on with the RfC tag, as it isn't wasn't about content, either [66], but somebody really, really, really wants it to be about 'content' and not WP:POLICY, even edit-warring and modifying other-contributor RfC requests to that end, and that behaviour is exactly what this complaint is about. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The very words 'more eyes' were my conclusion, too [67], but I don't see how revert-warring another contributor's RfC appeal can be about content. Anyhow, alea iacta est so this can be closed, I guess. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate that you barely wrote "more eyes" conclusion barely today and not yesterday when you made this ANI and accusations. I was trying to re-add the "more eyes" like you had it on the first RfC yesterday since it was the exact same discussion and you reverted me and made this ANI because of it. On top of that it looks like you have been manipulating other editors comments on the State Atheism talk page by moving around my comment to another section [68]. Please do not move comments by other editors on talk pages since there is a reason I put it there. This is odd behavior on your part. I would not alter or move any of your comments so I expect the same from you.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's an interesting after-the-fact interpretation of events, and Poisoning the well against another contributor for unrelated (and falsely related [69]) events is no answer for your trying to make another contributor's WP:POLICY RfC a 'content' one that it wasn't, and the fact that you edit-warred to push that through (and had a 'need to distract' so great that you (abusively) opened a second RfC [70]) only speaks for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything done at ANI is after-the-fact interpretation, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a 'rewriting history' put in the nicest way possible. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respondents to the first RfC complained that it was a trainwreck. Under such a circumstance it's standard operating procedure to close the first RfC as malformed and do a second better one. I don't think the second one is much if any better; it is not neutrally asking the community a question, but aggressively pushing a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY viewpoint, just like the first one did. So it should also be closed, but probably by an administrator. That doesn't make it an excuse for editwarring. So, both editors deserve a {{Trout}} for a different reasons. ANI isn't the place to argue about neologisms, and WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't even apply here; no one is trying to create an article about a non-notable word; the term is attested to at least the 19th century, and is found in many reliable sources newer than that, so it's probably not a good RfC topic, either. If there's going to be another RfC about that article (likely about its content), it needs to follow WP:RFC. If one is opened and it's a third trainwreck, RfC respondents will indicate that it is one; no editwarring to delete it, close it, or de-mark it as an RfC is needed. If WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problems continue, that's possibly an ANI-addressable disruption matter, but for now it looks like the editor is trying (albeit clumsily) to actually have an RfC about the nature and content of the article, and other editors are pointing out that it's clumsy and resulting in improper RfCs. It might make sense for a third party to draft and open an actually neutral RfC on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate that third-party aid, as I'd like nothing better than to return to my Paris-based articles corner, but that article really needs a policy-checkup; practically none of its sources even mention the article title (term), and I don't even know where to start with that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish perhaps understandably mistook my 'will someone come and take a f*cking look at this!??' goal, but I have to say that promoting 'truth' is not my intent at all.
    After this note, I will let this die (be archived uresolved), but if this behaviour repeats, I will be bringing it out again. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal for Qewr4231

    I'd like to propose a topic ban for editor Qewr4231 on anything related to Kip McKean, the International Christian Church and the International Churches of Christ. Editor is a self-described former member of the church, he obviously had a painful time, but unfortunately he has been using Wikipedia talk pages for the better part of a decade as a soapbox for venting about the church and what he describes as its cultish practices. This goes back to 2009. After years of this behavior and years of being asked not to soapbox, and subsequently three blocks for this behavior in 2015, the editor still finds opportunities to dump preachy screeds like this and this today. He often disappears for long stretches of time, sometimes six months or more, (so long-term blocking is probably not terribly effective) and then returns with the same behavior. It really becomes a timesuck for the two editors who are actively trying to maintain these articles, JamieBrown2011 and Coachbricewilliams28.

    The previous blocks have obvious been unhelpful, but I'm not aware of the editor having problems at any other articles, so I think the topic ban would perhaps be a more humane way to approach this. I don't get the sense Qewr4231 is a bad fella, but this is an area that is especially prickly to him, and I think he needs an external system to help him with self-control. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that some International Church of Christ members, Kip Mckean himself, and International Christian Church members are editing these pages and putting a pro-ICOC, pro-ICC, pro-Kip Mckean stance on the articles. I know for a fact that some of the information in the articles is incorrect, but I get blasted every time I say that the information is incorrect. Any negative material on Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC seems to get blocked and discussed away. There are hundreds of websites, YouTube videos, and ministers outside of the ICOC and ICC that refer to them as cults; however, editors seem to want to block all of this information. I think that people, possible ICOC and ICC members are trying to block true information about the ICOC and ICC from being posted on Wikipedia. I think that some editors are bullying me. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Q, the issue is that your experiences have given you tunnel vision preventing you from seeing the truth behind your circumstances. Your rigid , religious sentimentality has seemingly warped your perception of reality....Again, I would NEVER have an issue with your posts IF what you said was true. I don't honestly care about all this POV talk regarding you; it's merely the accuracy. Based on all my research, things are radically different in both churches you seem to soapbox on plus Thomas (aka Kip) is on record refuting and disproving majority of the very things you say fairly conclusively even for a no non sense guy like me. I completely understand that you feel the overwhelming videos and blogs in existence give you credibility HOWEVER this is an academic forum. If someone FEELS a certain way, they can't just rewrite wiki based on their emotions. That is the opposite of science and academia. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again with the bullying. How do you know everything you say is true and everything I say is false? I have evidence that proves certain things about Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC; however every time I try to show that evidence on Wikipedia other editors dismiss it as soapboxing. Stop bullying me. Wikipedia is not an academic resource. I am in a doctoral program at a university and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource. It is not accepted as a resource at all. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said is true. Don't call me a liar I lived the ICOC and experienced it for five years. I knew kip Mckean personally. I knew his wife personally. I know things about them that you don't even know. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. I suggest you drop it, or you'll just end up indefinitely blocked. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Power~enwiki The International Christian Church has 80 churches with ~5,300 members. The previous conclusion to the AFD proposal was "keep" because this is a rapidly growing group formed ~2 years post International Churches of Christ implosion. I passively support this idea based on the idea that independent sources are few and far between. I resist this idea because what if in 10 more years they are @10,000 members with 200 churches? Surely we can't ignore their existance just because their primary citations come from their own publishing affiliate. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Coachbicewilliams28 Why do you care so much about the ICC and whether or not the ICC grows and expands? I'm not ignoring them. What I am saying is this: The ICC is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should contain factual information instead of controversial material that can't be substantiated with facts Qewr4231 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support TBAN While I am somewhat sympathetic to this user's motivations, I think he/she needs to realize that Wikipedia editing privileges are for helping to build the encyclopedia. A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes, and the above comments are enough to convince me that, whether Qewr4231 is right or not, he/she should let cooler heads solve the problems with the articles. If it was really only undeclared COISPAs shooting Qewr4231 down on the talk pages, they would be the ones getting reported here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hijiri 88 How does supporting articles on controversial organizations that have very little factual evidence support Wikipedia and help build up Wikipedia? One of the reasons that Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source at almost every university is that Wikipedia has tons of pages on controversial topics created by editors that are either pro or con that topic. And these controversial topics have little to no real evidence to back them up. Is it good that most of the information on the ICOC comes from their own websites and sources? What if I started a company or organization, created a Wikipedia article, and then sourced it with information from mostly my organization's website? Would that be a neutral article or would I be advertising my organization? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment No opinion on the ban, but the articles seem to need some tone cleanup and maybe more (Wikipedia shouldn't be talking about "bitterness in his heart" in its own voice), and I confess to some curiosity about a church that calls itself the Sold-out Discipling Movement, or (wait for it...) SODM. Hmmmmmm. EEng 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng#s At one point I was looking for a source for this SODM name origin. The best I found was a video clip on youtube explaining how a detractor from the International Churches of Christ used it as an insult and the leadership of the International Christian Church believed it to be clever. The name meaning is merely to say, they believe in mentoring one another for accountability & selling out their personal dreams in life for the cause of their savior. Not unheard of. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like when the First Unitarian Church of Berkeley moved to the adjacent town of Kensington, but elected not to rename themselves the First Unitarian Church of Kensington. (Think about it.) EEng 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    <REDACTED BY Hijiri88.> Qewr4231 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qewr4231: You are entitled to your own religious beliefs about who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, but you are not allowed attack named living people by calling them "liars", "frauds" and the like unless you have a reliable source. Generally speaking, calling a self-identified Christian "not a Christian" or "not a real Christian" is also a no-no. WP:BLP applies to this page as well as the article space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your vote, much like your comment above, don't matter. You're only digging the hole deeper. In fact, that latest comment is probably enough to get you banned outright. So... good job shooting yourself in the foot. --Tarage (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor looks like he's shooting himself, should we contact WP:EMERGENCY? EEng 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tarage Thanks I'm so glad that my vote and my comment doesn't matter (sarcasm). Is Wikipedia a club that only some people are privy to? Do you blacklist people that dont' conform to your opinion(s)? Wikipedia is not an academic source. Wikipedia is not accepted at any university as an academic source. Up until now I have never criticized Wikipedia. I am just saying that Wikipedia doesn't have correct information on three of its pages: ICOC, ICC, Kip Mckean. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point I don't care. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the door. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Qewr, I think I made it clear that I was not proposing a total editing ban at Wikipedia, rather a ban over topics specifically related to Kip McKean and his churches. Your continued rants here are not helping your cause, and your attempts to portray yourself as a victim of bullying are grossly disrespectful to people who endure actual bullying. You've been approached relatively politely for years and you've not made any material changes to your own behavior. Nobody's ever said you can't think, feel, or exist, only that you can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm very sorry that you had a shitty experience at this church, and I do feel for you, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to work out these issues. And I'll say it again in case you missed it: I don't think you're a bad fella, but you seem to be incapable of participating in this area in a constructive fashion. If you want to participate in a less controversial area like weightlifting, I've no interest in getting in your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. I'm not saying Qewr4231 is perfect, but I do not see large scale disruption by this editor. They are not edit warring article space. They are making suggestions on Talk that have some value. It is Coachbricewilliams28 who appears to be struggling most with Wikipedia norms, like RS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand, Hijiri88 suggests abopingve that, "A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes". However, Qewr4231 said here that they feel they have a conflict of interest, so they refrain from editing the article directly and stick to Talk. That's what we ask people to do: Qewr4231's avoidance of mainspace around these articles is not a failing. Instead, Qewr4231 is making Talk page edits that appear to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Here are some of their more recent edits: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Those all look OK to me, attempts to help and appropriate Talk page chat, with consideration given to reliable sources. Constructive edits, in other words.
    Qewr4231 did make this edit recently that might be considered soapboxing. It was moving away from useful Talk page discussion into a forum-style discussion, but it's hardly the greatest Wikipedia sin ever. Qewr4231 is generally seeking to work within Wikipedia rules and is not, as some have suggested above, seeking to insert information based on personal experience into article space.
    Meanwhile, Talk:International_Christian_Church#Moving_Forward shows that Coachbricewilliams28 has been taking a while to understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV, so describing them as an editor who is "actively trying to maintain these articles", as Cyphoidbomb does above, is not quite the wording I'd use.
    So, I think a topic ban is over the top. It would be advisable for several editors to take a break from these pages and focus their efforts elsewhere for a while. I am not surprised that Qewr4231 feels bullied and I hope s/he can move beyond this incident. I entirely support Hijiri 88's point below: what these articles need most is more eyes on them to improve them. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bondegezou: I appreciate contrary perspective on the matter and someone acting as advocate for Qewr4231. What do you propose as an alternative to topic ban? No sanction and we just delete any posts that veer off topic? This isn't a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious what you think would be helpful. Further, I would be fine with dropping the topic ban proposal and removing the three articles from my own watchlist if several of you want to pick up the management per Hijiri88's suggestion below. I have zero interest in this subject. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would propose merely being polite, but ignoring comments that are less helpful. I see you deleted Qewr4231's soapbox-y comment. Fine: problem solved. Qewr4231 didn't dispute that act, as far as I can see. So where's the problem? I wish all problems on Wikipedia were so easily ignorable: there's no edit-warring here, no substantial uncivility. I don't see why everyone can't just continue on as they are doing. Qewr4231 (in the last couple of years) is otherwise making some useful suggestions for the articles: if you don't find them useful, leave them. If you do, act on them. If there are occasional "posts that veer off topic", delete them, or hide them, or just leave them alone. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, my statement above about the lack of mainspace edits was about Qewr's apparent general lack of interest in building an encyclopedia, not about his voluntarily refraining from editing the articles on topics in which he has a COI. Actually, I find that latter claim somewhat dubious -- if he was only not editing those artixles because of his COI, that wouldn't explain why he has not edited any articles in several years. Wikipedia editing privileges exist for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, and when someone refuses to use them for anything other than soapboxing, the typical approach is to sanction them in some manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. I looked through a fair number of Qewr's edits over the last two years. I would only call one or maybe two of them soapboxing. The vast majority appear genuine attempts to improve the articles concerned. Occasional off-purpose posts to a Talk page should not get someone topic banned. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bondegezou Admittedly, my WP:RS struggles have been due to the lack of 3rd party content on the subject. The citations used historically on the ICC wiki have been either from their own nascent publishing arm, the Icoc themselves or a blog from a former member. My casual suggestion within the talk was to utilize the self published sources so long as it is reasonable to conclude their accuracy. Ie: Church demographics. As for the WP:NPOV I hopefully fixed that by observing the tone and style of other writers. Just a rookie mistake. I have no interest in a POV, merely accuracy. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coachbricewilliams: If what you are saying is accurate, then the ICC article should be deleted. Topics that have not received sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources do not get articles on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Repinging User:Coachbricewilliams28 after botched attempt above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hijiri88 That is interesting. Of the 43 citations NOT EVEN ONE is sourced by someone who isn't staff of the Icoc or Icc. That doesn't make the information inaccurate, but does this TRULY violate a standard of Wiki? I ask because now the Icoc page is HIGHLY suspect as well. The Icc has gone from a splinter group in a living room to 5,300 people in 10 years. That's notable to have a wiki but all sources are 1 dimensional. Thoughts? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the articles and the other SPAs/near-SPAs on the other "side"...

    I notice several impartial observers, myself included, are pointing to the problematic nature of one or two of the articles in question, and it might be worth noting that one of the users User:Cyphoidbomb pinged initially is an SPA, and the other is a near-SPA (with over half his mainspace edits and almost 90% of his talk edits to the same article). Whether or not Qewr is TBANned, it might worth putting more eyes on the articles themselves as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No objection from me (why would there be?). It's definitely an area that needs more eyes. I asked WikiProject Christianity to help out a couple of years ago to little avail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanted to quote the coach here - "While I have experience in both the ICOC and the partially accurate splinter church in discussion (ICC)" from the Talk page. A topic ban for Qewr4231, Who has never edited the article, is in sledgehammer and nut territory. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: I appreciate the perspective. As I noted to Bondegezou in the subsection above, I'm fine with dropping the TBAN proposal and withdraw from watching those articles, if other people want to pick up the slack. This is an issue though that has been going on for many years and though it's gotten less frequent, it's still a needless distraction. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: I don't know if "he's never edited the articles -- we can't TBAN him" is the right way of looking at the problem. He's been engaging in gross violation of the BLP violation in this discussion, and BLP definitely applies to the talk space as well. Aside from a TBAN, what else would you propose to make the disruption stop? A block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to all----> Just to be clear, I've never been a member of that church. They were a force on my old university though. I def saw their red tshirts from time to time. That + recent research is my "experience." Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coachbricewilliams28: Well, have you considered editing some Wikipedia articles on other topic areas? It doesn't look good when your only contributions are related to a conservative religious group and we're being told that they are disproportionately positive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would love to. I was using this page as more of a sandbox because I found the rules initially confusing. I do plan on staying in the realm of theology and kinesiology though. Great suggestion. I'll begin to venture out. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you'll forgive me for being skeptical. You've had an account for almost a year, which really akes it look like if you wanted to edit other topic areas you would have done so already. But good luck, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Coachbricewilliams28 (talk Count me as another rather skeptical observer, A SPA editor who has inside knowledge of ex-members and their motives for writing criticisms and leaving the church!!! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear I have edited other articles. I have edited the America's Test Kitchen page and the Cook's Country page and/or made suggestions to those pages on the talk pages. Anyway, I don't know why Wikipedia cares so much about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean. There isn't enough factual information on the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean to really state what is fact and what is not fact. Ex-members know what the truth about Kip Mckean's movements is. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian ministers, YouTube videos, and ex-members claiming Kip Mckean's organizations to be pyramid schemes and cults. How do you think Kip Mckean got rich? How do you think Kip Mckean became a millionaire? He's been doing his thing for a long time. Back in the 60s or 70s Kip Mckean was expelled from the traditional Church of Christ for doing his thing. And, no, this is not soap boxing. I'm merely pointing out that the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean articles lack factual information; truth. I will list some of those sources that are not accepted by Wikipedia that point to the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean having less than scrupulous practices.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html http://www.reveal.org/library/activism/srausch-warning.html http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html https://carm.org/international-church-christ-cult https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITLu2hvwlo (This one is a Fox new report on the ICOC)

    Why does a simple Google search bring up hundreds of websites that talk about the ICOC being a cult? Why would an encyclopedia even publish an article on an organization that hundreds of websites are calling a cult? Shouldn't encyclopedias stick to factual things and not controversial groups? How can you say that any article is neutral the subject is so controversial? The ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean pages should be deleted in my opinion. That's the problem with Wikipedia: Anyone can create an article on anything that has no facts to substantiate it. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the last thing I will post here: In order for Wikipedia to be considered a bonafide academic source; a factual source, Wikipedia itself needs a cleanup of hundreds of articles on controversial topics that have no real facts substantiating/sourcing them. Controversial topics that don't have a lot of good sources shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia should they? Qewr4231 (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Qewr4231 I have a few issues with your position above if I may play devil's advocate. #1- Got Questions, Reveal, Cultwatch, Carm, etc are NOT an unbiased series of sources. Those websites are ALL anti-baptismal regeneration so of course they would have harsh things to say about a restorationist church. The Icoc is included in that spectrum. They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling." Again, I've never been to their church, but I see how that is possible to FEEL much like a outgoing , vocal, standard setting COACH might cause as well. haha #2- That doesn't mean they should be left off wiki IMO, it just means the "controversies" should be it's own consolidated section as I did once a while back in reverted edit. While their opinions are merely based off sentimentality and wavering convictions on certain topics, I do not believe they should be dismissed within an article where all 43 sources are written by a biased source. #3- Again, as Cyphoidbomb admonished you on already "There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia that cause strife. Wikipedia doesn't censor articles solely because they cause strife. Ever edited in anything related to Israel, Palestine, India or Pakistan? Gamergate? That's where you'll find strife." I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not this wiki page stays or goes, but something needs to be decided due to those 43 sources. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban I've seen this subject arise several times, and it's always been the result of problematic editing by Qewr4231. Minus his editing, I doubt that we'd see much of any disruption in this area. The only solid alternative is a block, but the ban will permit constructive editing in other fields. Coachbricewilliams28's words make me suspect, however, that he sees this as a way to get rid of opposition — They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling" is hardly the way to characterise either other editors or our sources. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend Forgive me if my personal religious convictions came out in that last reply. It wasn't at him or anyone specific. Merely a generalization of people who claim Christ but cherry pick his teachings when he spoke in an all or nothing manner frequently. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: Some other editors have opposed the proposal, and their thoughts have given me pause. I'm open to open to the possibility that I'm being hypersensitive to the issue, and that maybe the behavior is not severe enough to warrant a topic ban? It's obviously a powderkeg issue for him, when even in the ANI, he continues to soapbox [82][83]. As a contrary argument, he keeps citing poor sources like Cultwatch to support the "cult" claims, but then wants to lecture us about Wikipedia not being a sufficient academic resource for his doctorate program. I can't explain the disparity in logic except "emotion emotion emotion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, then I notice that he's campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain. [84][85][86] - I'll note that the latter might be a legitimate deletion candidate for lack of GNG establishment, but the other two I'm skeptical about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not someone who's here to build an encyclopedia: it's someone who's here for promotion. Not ordinary promotion ("topic X is worth checking into!") but negative promotion ("topic X is worth staying away from!"), and that's still promotion — and over a period of years, no less. The only reason I'm not advocating a siteban is that I have no evidence of him disrupting anything that's unrelated to this topic; if he wants to edit elsewhere, that's fine. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 nominated one of these articles for deletion and Qewr4231 supported that on the AfD in a normal manner. Qewr4231 then also suggested on the Talk pages of the other two articles that they should also be deleted: the articles are rather similar, so there's a prima facie case that if one is up for deletion, it is not unreasonable to question whether the others should be too. Cyphoidbomb, for you to describe that as "campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain" seems to me to be unhelpful language that exaggerates the situation.
    Equally, Cyphoidbomb, complaining someone is being emotional when you've dragged them to AN/I seems a bit silly to me. Being emotional is quite common when someone escalates the situation to AN/I! I don't see behaviour that required administrator intervention in the first place. I suspect if everyone chilled out to begin with, then there would be a lot less emotion now!
    Nyttend, you talk about problems over a "period of years", but Qewr4231 has changed his/her behaviour. S/he's not edit-warring, s/he's keeping to Talk pages. I've just looked at his/her edits over the last 18 months or so. In that period, the main problematic editing has come from elsewhere. The articles' problems today are not because of Qewr4231. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bondegezou: Although I appreciate the contrary opinions, I can't help but infer that you're misinterpreting the core of the complaint and the longevity, though I applaud the good faith you're assuming.
    • The user was brought here for persistent talk page soapboxing against Kip McKean and related churches, not for edit-warring. The behavior has not changed. Soapboxing is a contravention of community guidelines, because it is a timesuck for editors to trudge through provocative drivel in search of constructive ideas.
    • I don't think I'm wrong for describing the behavior as emotional. He's campaigned for years for McKean's organizations to be labeled "cults" and voted for article deletion with no policy/guideline-based rationale [87][88], rather because Kip McKean is a "a liar", a "fraud", an "all-around bad person" and because "These are controversial topics that are causing strife here at Wikipedia".
    • Qewr4231 basically published Kip McKean's address to make some abstruse implication that McKean lives large and congregants were being fleeced out of his $3000/month fee bill. Rational?
    • Paranoid accusations that because I redacted Qewr's copyright violation, I must be pro-Kip McKean. That's not a rational response, that's an emotional response. And I'm not describing this stuff as emotion to denigrate him, I'm pointing it out to illustrate that it is difficult for him to participate constructively in this area because of his strong feelings against this subject. His version of neutral wants a "cult" label.
    Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your latter two examples are from 2014-5 and don't seem relevant now. Lots of people call McKean's organisations "cults", so merely doing the same on a Talk page is not proof of NPOV violation. If voting for article deletion without a rationale got you banned, Wikipedia would lose 25% of its editors. Some of Qewr4231's recent edits have not been helpful, but I remain of the opinion that problems are being overstated. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So Moving Forward

    It seems like Qewr4231 is being generally recognized as passively inappropriate at times, but not violating anything in a manner of being tbanned. As long as more eyes are on this article to prevent personal flavors of neutrality from oozing in, the majority will not care. That being said, how to we reconcile that ALL 43 citations are authored by either the church itself or the Icoc? Is this appropriate for discussion here? Just for kicks, I looked at the Icoc citation area. Same issue. ~8 +/- were non-church affiliate publishings which is better but there are still 87 total. I suppose this is a norm on Wiki? I have a few thoughts on article improvement I'll carry over the the talk page if desired. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be more appropriate to discuss these matters on the relevant Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good advice. Let's move this convo back home. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Name change

    Can someone please post the decline reason for my name change to my talk page? I can't get into the email account that I used to sign up for Wikipedia so I can't see the email. Ya Mans (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ya Mans: Are you sure your request has been declined? Did you follow the instructions for changing your username? I JethroBT drop me a line 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @I JethroBT: I changed it a few days ago but I want to change it again. Do I have to wait a certain amount of days before I change it again? Ya Mans (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about if this is that last time you change your name, OK? EEng 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aight. Ya Mans (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent blanking of politically themed content despite numerous warnings

    This editor is, in spite of warnings, persistently and disruptively adding uncited content removing content from politically categorized articles as shown

    to name a few. The editor has been warned by user:DrFleischman, user:Bishonen, user:General_Ization and myself as shown here after having received guidance on several occasions from other editors who were following guidelines and being polite. At the very least this editor needs to receive firmer caution that we have editorial policies and standards for interaction with other editors. I don't think this editor should be allowed to comment on the talk pages or make contributions to articles about politics. Edaham (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK it could be a time zone issue or me looking at the times of the warnings being issued rather than the actual edits. Apologies if this was an inappropriately filed ANI report, hopefully there's not a problem with bringing attention to a page with that many warnings on it. Edaham (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, Edaham, and thank you for watching out for disruptive editing. The way the user removes all warnings without response, and without so far having changed their ways, isn't exactly promising. However, since I warned them explicitly that there might be a block coming their way in case of further disruption, there's nothing more to be done right now. Also, Doug Weller has given them a discretionary sanctions alert for American politics. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    you live and learn. I've never blanked an entire page before and didn't know about this automatic summary Edaham (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perusing user Edaham's half-year-long edit summary history, it's clear that he's (1) not a newbie, but an experienced user with a new name or pseudonym; and (2) primarily himself concerned with political controversy.
    He seems to be using this complaint to address a content dispute. I suggest immediate closure due to lack of cause, along with a WP:BOOMERANG warning, and the advice to learn only bring properly formatted complaints against named parties.
    Indeed, I am here only because I, like User:K6ka, was pinged as having been mentioned, while I was not mentioned in this complaint, and have never been involved with Edaham or any of the articles he deals with--i.e., my time's been wasted over a tissy. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Goguryeo: Requesting quick assistance

    Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs)

    Requesting quick assistance as I am unable to implement action due to being involved. This is a possible case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR (evident through these comments: 1 2), please take a look at the revision history of the page starting from 08:44, 11 September 2017‎. For additional reading (not very long), User talk:Richeaglenoble contains everything. Alex ShihTalk 10:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is unfair.I uploded my picture legitimately.I took the picture from National meseum of Korea.Alex shin just hate to call Goguryeo as empire.Koreans call goguryeo as "empire" commonly.I hope Alex shin loves korean history.Richeaglenoble (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS is the standard--uninvolved/independent sources, not self-claims of the subject of an article or self-claims to have unpublished inside knowledge. Comment on the content, not the editor. DMacks (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support an indefinite CIR block until REN recognizes the relevant Wikipedia policies. The above comment that completely misses the point is apparently characteristic, looking at his recent edit summaries. Either way, he's made four reverts in less than three hours, so should definitely be blocked to prevent more edit-warring in the immediate future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, the editor has clearly been logging out to edit-war at the Yuan Dynasty and Han Chinese articles.[89][90] Clearly this is another anti-Chinese Korean nationalist SPA, most likely somebody's sock, and the focus on articles on the Han Chinese ethnicity and how they supposedly miscegenated with Mongols makes this look like another really ugly/racist "pure or mixed blood" affair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On my talk page the user has agreed to go looking for sources, but I really don't trust him. The fact that he has now essentially admitted he didn't have sources already is telling, and I see no reason to believe he won't twist any sources he finds to agree with what he already wants to write. He also still hasn't self-reverted, even though he admitted he did not have a source, nor apologized for any of the other tendentious aspects of his editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would another admin please take a look at the page. Many thanks. Alex ShihTalk 07:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The disruption on the article has continued, including poor grammar/spelling and misrepresentation of sources (exactly as I predicted, he read the sources as saying exactly what he already wanted to write). Also worth noting that of his three image uploads, one is a clear COPYVIO (he calls it his "own work" despite admitting in the same edit to have scanned it from a government textbook), and the other two are quite possibly in violation of the relevant museum's rules, if the photo was even taken by REN, which I find questionable -- I'm not an expert, but doesn't the texture of the background look like a scanned image from a book more than an original photograph of a three-dimensional object? And then there's the edit-warring -- he made his sixth revert just over 24 hours after his first. Has this user made a single edit to the encyclopedia that isn't a liability? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User: Diannaa, User:Primefac: Thank you for dealing with those "Goguryeo empire crown" images (no idea if you saw my above comment to the effect that they were probably copyvios), but could you take a look at the rest of this thread? The editor has been violating copyrights all over the place (on ja.wiki, even though he claims more proficiency in Japanese than English, he copy-pasted a large chunk of text from a newspaper article last week). It's clearly not just a language issue: the editor simply does not understand copyright, and unless someone monitors all his edits to make sure he doesn't do the same thing again, I worry a block might be the only way. (It may be moot, of course, if it turns out he's been socking and all his accounts get blocked for that reason. But I'm not holding my breath on that SPI getting addressed any time soon with how long my other "recent" SPI filing is taking.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Astonishingly, the deleted copyrighted image has just been re-added. Alex ShihTalk 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He just keeps shooting himself in the foot. And I'm not even talking about what Alex mentioned above. Apparently he thinks that admins of Korean and possibly Chinese ethnic background will be more sympathetic to his cause. Or something -- perhaps he thinks that westerners "don't get it". Or perhaps just non-Koreans -- I'd say there's a 90% chance he thinks I'm Japanese. Google Translate some of the shit he's been posting over the last few hours. Someone should just put him out of his misery already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on this thread regarding the crown images (and if anything happens because of it), I'd be willing to AGF, but this discussion makes it sound like it's just one in a long serious of copyright violations. Their IDHT attitude doesn't help things either. No opinions at this moment on a block, but they certainly seem to be aiming for one. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: I'm not sure if you read Chinese or Korean. My Korean is non-existent and my Chinese isn't much better. But I can still tell that the story REN told you doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. To summarize my long reply to REN on your talk page: The photos on that blog he linked were probably taken with several different cameras, quite possibly over a period of decades, and at least two of them (including the one under discussion here) were clearly scanned from a book or pamphlet, intended for an audience of mainland Chinese readers, where the blog is clearly meant for a Korean readership. It's still theoretically possible that REN is the one who owns the photos, but why would he put a scan of a book with text in a different language on his blog if he had the original photo? And he also claimed on your talk page to have taken the photo in 2010, but the blog in question was posted in 2008. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I don't have any AGF to give (DGAAGF?). Primefac (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting emergencies to ANI

    Replacing the original thread here with a reminder that credible threats of [self-]harm should be reported immediately by emailing emergency@wikimedia.org. Further instructions can be found at WP:EMERGENCY. Details of emergencies should never be posted to highly-visible noticeboards such as this one. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for reviewing the block of a disruptive user

    I request all admins to take a look at the User:Umair Aj. The User is been currently blocked for couple of weeks for sheer disruptive editing. The blocking administrator was himself Shocked to see the disruptive and malicious editing of the user [91]. From the past record of the user it is also proved that the user is a proven master sock, and the two sockpuppets of the user has been indefinitely blocked [92]. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week, after getting unblocked continued their disruptive editing and now is again blocked for two weeks, with a final warning of an indefinite block. It is clear from the users history their intention is to create disruption through their malicious editing, only to get away from scrutiny welcomes new users through twinkle. I think as soon as this block will expiry the user will again create disruption. Anoptimistix (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anoptimistix: So... you came here just to badmouth someone who is blocked and can't defend themselves? Classy. Do you have any evidence that they are evading their block? The SPI archive you link appears to show one instance of sockpuppetry from two years ago, and the live SPI shows you making an accusation you have been unable or unwilling to substantiate in more than three weeks, and one other account being CU-blocked for technical reasons beyond my comprehension and similarly failing to enable email to discuss with the blocking admin. Unless UA has done something since his block to justify upping to indef ... well, it looks like you are more unhappy with User:Swarm's choosing not to indef off the bat than anything else, which means ... well, if this is really about Swarm, you probably should have notified them. Unless that is what your email two days ago was about. You are not going to get "all admins" to do anything about this if you have been unable to convince the blocking admin to reconsider their own decision. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time either, and I should warn Anoptimistix that if this behavior continues then they are just as likely to be blocked. They sent a similar canvassing email to me because I'm "from India like me". I did not reply to the email but notified via edit summary that I thought both their edits were problematic and COIN or ANI will soon deal with them both and I had no interest in getting involved. Both editors have unclean hands here, targeting each other and the articles created definitely need a look-in by regulars at COIN and/or some extra love at AfD. The behavioral problems stem from that. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, Anoptimistix, your actions here are nothing more than a waste of community time, and I'm sure this isn't the only such thing out there. —SpacemanSpiff 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there's your overlap with at least one paid COI sock farm -- one of the reasons Siddharth Slathia was salted under a few titles, but you seem to be aware of that when you created it at Sidharth Slathia despite referring to the subject as Siddharth Slathia within the article. Please explain this as well. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hijiri88 SpacemanSpiff I apologise if this thread seemed inappropriate, as you both are much experienced and are here since years and I respect you both. I agree SpacemanSpiff I should not have sended email to request you to intervene (I sended that because from my point of view the user appeared to be a wikihounder and the evidences given by admin swarm was more than nough to prove my point), and as you were an uninvolved administrator plus I really like the cricket related articles which you created. And yes fair point SpacemanSpiff I should have Boldly moved that article about the new user which was about themself to their userspace instead of taking to Afd. Next time I will boldly move such articles to the users userspace. And SpacemanSpiff the subject of Siddharth Slathia had in-depth coverage by reliable news media Hindustan Times which made it pass WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICBIO, and the last admin who deleted it was inactive and I had already requested to unprotect it's creation at WP:RPP to allow me to create it, however my request was denied as the admin who denied it wasn't familiar with the reliability of Indian media and it's coverage. Please assume good faith SpacemanSpiff, I was about to go at Request moves to move that article after it's creation, but I started creating articles about Indian villages ad Census Town and bringing nominations of great content creators at PERM.Anoptimistix (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SpacemanSpiff The problem starts back in 2014 when Siddharth Slathia's was not enough notable to merit an article, but after 2016 September the entry of Reliance Jio changed the scenario, Indian music listeners started exploring Youtube and appreciating Singers who sing cover versions, as they were a subject of public interest they got enough in-depth coverage per WP:GNG to merit an article of their own. I hope I have answered to your question. But now my interest more lies in creating articles about towns, villages and geographical places. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not buying this, if this was one issue in isolation then it can be passed off as not knowing, but these are multiple issues where you have deliberately chosen to behave this way. I'm also not convinced that you should have the autoreviewer flag and all your creations have to be checked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hijiri88 The brief evidences of disruptive editing given by long-time prolific admin Swarm [93] is enough to justify my concern. And yes I could not give more evidence even after two weeks at the live SPI, becoz that page revision history was deleted by an admin (please check the log of that page). And I personally have requested the checkuser on their talk page to close it down. My heartfelt apologies for late reply to SpacemanSpiff and Hijiri88, and Hijiri88 yes I have contacted the blocking admin, but since after the admin Swarm's years of service, they now remain less active so i came here and my concern are genuine about the user Umair Aj , please see this, the latest case related to the user Umair Aj [94], (a good faith user appealed the user Umair Aj to stop edit warring, but instead of taking it's cognizance they reverted it the appeal notice, this shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and there is another evidence which is yet another revert of a warning, yup this is another revert of edit warring notice. Admin Swarm on the users talk page as well as I here have given more than enough evidence. But still Hijri88 you think I am badmouthing ? For your info Hijri88 I spend large time on this project for welcoming new users and I firmly believe in Editor Retention, Regards.

    SpacemanSpiff Yes you can surely check my creations at Xtools, most of them are about villages and census town, notable living people and songs which are created per WP:BIO, WP:NSONG and WP:GEOFEAT. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anoptimistix, at RFPP you were specifically advised to submit that draft to AfC, and then if it was accepted it could be moved: [95]. Instead you ignored that advice and changed the spelling to get around the protection:[96]. Why? -- Begoon 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Begoon Apology for that dear, the first time I requested I had made a draft about it on my sandbox but a user Winged Blades of Godric wrote on my talk page that my request was not accepted (you can check my talk page history), the next time I request I don't know what happened of that as I used a small mobile device to edit Wikipedia which requires lot of hard work, and I get notification when my fellow wikipedian inlink my created article and ping me, rest updates about my request I do not get until I get message on my talk page. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, it was a different, later draft. Its history shows no AfC submission I can see, and anyway that doesn't answer my question about altering the spelling to get around the protection (2nd diff above):[97]. -- Begoon 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there's this copyvio from as recently as two months ago. Clearly, you shouldn't have autopatrolled rights, as your contributions need to be reviewed. Unless Malinaccier has some objections because they reviewed the copyvios as well as the removal of many articles at AfD and didn't think it to be a problem, I will remove that right from you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff: Hi. As you know, the autopatrolled right merely marks a newly created article as patrolled, which I do not see as a problem based on Anoptimistix's created article log. If you believe that Anoptimistix will create a new article in the future that is a copyvio based on continued copyright violations or that there are other deeper misunderstandings of article policy, then removal of the autopatrolled right is appropriate and I of course defer to you. You appear to be much more personally familiar with Anoptimistix's editing abilities. From the outside, the issues you have raised may be best dealt with by a block or a clear and final warning to Anoptimistix before a block if they are part of a pattern of continued disruption. Malinaccier (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Begoon I edit Wikipedia from a small Android device, the only update which I got is this [98] by user Winged Blades of Godric, I swear I was unaware about the suggestion given by the admin on my second request. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And the reason for the spelling change to the title: [99]? Perhaps you missed that part of my question again? -- Begoon 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SpacemanSpiff you love cricket so does I love music, so I create music related articles but it's also true that I have numerous non-music related articles and yes that I have not violated knowingly any copyvio, I write content in my intermediate knowledge of english. I think you didn't liked my help request mail, it was my mistake I mistakenly thought you were ready to help. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SpacemanSpiff Can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) And SpacemanSpiff can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? The only one which I can remember was about a song, which was soft-deleted as nobody participated in Afd discussion except nominator. And later was successfully restored at WP:REFUND. SpacemanSpiff even if you remove autoreviewer rights than still I will keep on creating articles about villages, towns , notable songs as I love creating articles, and yes if you disliked that help request email i really apologize for it, I wrongly assumed you as an always ready to help admin, would better seek help of admin who publicly write that they are ready to help on their userpage, next time if I face harrasment here. As they say better go for a third opinion of an uninvolved admin if you face troublesome here so I asked help from you. Sorry will not ask help from you next time. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop pinging me! As for articles, I said removed, not deleted as there are quite a few that had to be redirected at AfD and don't about your email to me, you did not assume I'm helpful, you said you were contacting me because I'm Indian and speak Hindi! I'm always ready to help good-faith editors, but that was not your request, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Malinaccier Thanks for your comment, but I want to clarify I have never been a part of disruption here, neither I knowingly violated any copyright, never an admin have warned me for copyvio, and spacemanspiff (I'm not pinging you per your above comment) my contributions here includes posting welcomes messages at numerous newbie's talk page for editor retention purpose, patrolling 300 plus new pages, bringing nominations of good content creators at WP:PERM/A to reduce backlog at NPP and workload of new page patrollers, many times I wrote articles of newbies from scratch devoting hours for it, struggled to find indepth sources to save their articles from deletion, and create numerous articles about underrepresented villages and town which passes WP:GEOFEAT (certainly all of those were good-faith edits). And SpacemanSpiff after you declined to help me some months ago and reverted my "You've got an email" edit on your talk page with an edit summary which had no piece of help, I was thinking about quitting the project but then I went upto administrator User:Anarchyte who encouraged me to stay on Wikipedia and commended my contributions. SpacemanSpiff I have got references of some kind-hearted polite admins who are ready to help at stressful situations, next time If I face such situations I would request help from them. Once again apologizing for sending you help request email. Anoptimistix (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bishonen Aplology for the belated reply it's 1.43 am here. I was just defending myself, I don't mean to sound aggressive towards SpacemanSpiff. He have made immense contributions to WikiProject:India and I am always indebted to them for this. Anoptimistix (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trout? Boomerang?

    I haven't read through all the above bludgeoning, but what I did read (that which was addressed at me) didn't look promising. Anoptimistix (talk · contribs) appears to have opened this thread for no purpose but to whine about someone who's already blocked, has admitted to requesting a CU for phishing, has been flagrantly stealth-canvassing, and just keeps refusing to drop it despite all the voices telling him to. I'm leaning in favour of a quick close and a heavy WP:TROUT for the OP, but my gut is telling me that a WP:BOOMERANG miht not be out of order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think at the least autoreviewer and NPP user rights have to be removed owing to the copyvios and poor quality articles from the past two months. The user also doesn't seem to understand anything and as evidenced on their repeated parroting of the above claim of me being unhelpful to their canvassing email that asked me to take action against Umair Aj only because I share a nationality with him(the OP), well then, it's obvious he hasn't got a clue of editing collaboaratively or understanding policies, guidelines, and standards. Then, there's the refusal to answer Begoon's question, the overlap with a paid COI sock farm. Like I said in my edit summary in response to his canvassing email, I had no interest of wasting my time on this, unfortunately I've gotten sucked in. —SpacemanSpiff 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-week block I just noticed the OP's repeated dosging of User:Begoon's question about his obvious attempt to game the system with a trick of spelling. Anoptimistix needs to be taught that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I think if there are serious COPYVIO concerns an indef might be justified, but at least as long as Umair seems appropriate given the behaviour demonstrated in this thread. Also support removal of user rights per SpacemanSpiff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Hijiri88 Mate Please check the latest update, I have replied to Begoon, Siddharth and Sidharth both are synonymous per Indian naming system. And instead of starting this section if you would have left a polite note on my talk page, indicating that this project no longer needs my contributions. I would have voluntarily declared retirement without any sorrows, but still i would repeatedly say I have not violated any copyright intentionally, infact somedays back I have Earwig's copyvio detecting tool installed at my User:Anoptimistix/common.js for assisting me at NPP. I have done my best to attribute original source and wrote contents on my words. Further there is no evidence that I intentionally violated any copyright. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per SpacemanSpiff, I support removal of the user rights - there is clearly a need for that to happen. I also glanced at WP:PERM/A, which the OP points to, and most of the OPs nominations there are declined at the moment, so perhaps that's not a good activity for them right now (especially with any COI/gaming concerns here). With regards to further action, I'm not sure; there are, indeed, worrying signs that Anoptimistix does lack a certain amount of competence, and the walls of evasion and attempted deflection above are concerning. On the other hand, ANI is a stressful place, and there do appear to be some good intentions in their contributions. -- Begoon 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Begoon Thanks for your kind words at the end , and I want to inform you only some of my recent nominations were declined, most of my nominations at WP:PERM/A were accepted. Even the declining admin Alex Shih himself thanked me for bringing it. Regards, [100] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Begoon I did not observe the additional question which you ask me, I will reply, I was about to go at the requested moves for that, and really I was not informed that I was recommended to create draft of the subject, I get notifications only when I am pinged, my articles are inlinked and if I get message on my talk page by the Bell icon on the right hand on my mobile phone, if I knew I was recommended to create a draft first in the subject of Slathia, I would have surely created draft first. And SpacemanSpiff which copyvio you are taking about, can you give me any evidence where an administrator /user have warned me but still I committed copyvio? And you said poor quality of articles since 2 months I have been creating stub articles about underrepresented Indian villages and towns, Do you think those efforts are of poor quality and my recent article was about a cricketer Jasia Akhtar, she clearly passes notability, and administrator Malinaccier have already given my articles creation log above I don't know when i committed copyvio and was warned by an admin/users and then again repeated it ?. And you are misinterpreting the email, at that time I requested can you help to deal me with the stress and you certainly did not helped, and that too was some months ago. Let SpacemanSpiff be clear I have never ever received any warning for copyvio on my creations, infact the accusation of knowingly committing any copyvio is itself baseless. Anoptimistix (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SpacemanSpiff those were not warnings they were cautions and requests. After prolific admin Dianna recommended me some months ago to not write lyrics of the song, after that I have never written lyrics of any song, In my early days here I wrote the lyrics of the song as I thought it was permissible as editors who edit films article write entire plot, which is more serious copyvio. But I now no longer write articles about songs, as songs articles are not valued here. At NPP I have worked honestly and even my almighty knows it, I have struggled to find indepth coverages to save New comers articles from deletion and single handedly written it from scratch. But SpacemanSpiff please also take a look at Nichalp, the user was a former admin and bureaucrat desyssoped for paid editing by arbitration committee per WP:MISS list, they have been inactive for years but I can see they still have many rights. However dear SpacemanSpiff I myself voluntarily decided to quit the project, Regards will always pray for your good health and long life. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The (still) unanswered question (now for the 4th time), was - Why, when moving your draft to mainspace [101], did you deliberately circumvent the protection you knew was in place by altering the spelling in the title? You did that simply to get the article into mainspace and autopatrolled, in my opinion, and the move you now say you were "about to" request, even if you had done so, would not make that action any less wrong. Have you requested the move now that you've "remembered"? (If you reply to this, please properly indent your response - sticking all your posts unindented at the bottom has made a huge mess of this thread.) -- Begoon 02:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Begoon I was going to do that but spend more time in creating articles about different topics, Inititally I was finding it difficult to create it through my mobile phone, so i wrote Sidharth Slathia, because this Indian name is especially used by the Marathi community to pronounce, so I thought no problem in it as both words are synonymous, the Indian pronouncing style Siddharth=Sidharth would remain same, for evidence please check the subject of Shreya Ghoshal initially when it's creator created it, her last name was spelled Ghosal rather than Ghoshal because both are synonymous, and the content inside the article reffered her as Ghoshal, later it was moved per request, and I have requested the move about Slathia. [102] Anoptimistix (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might have been a bit plausible if it were not for the fact that you knew at the time that the article was create protected, having already enquired about it, subsequently had a draft rejected, and still did not request the move until prompted here once again. In these circumstances I'm afraid it stretches AGF past breaking point, sorry. -- Begoon 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to removal of user flags. As per diffs available above, Anoptimistix clearly misused his autopatrolled flag for creating a salted article. He can also misuse the NPP flag. Once Anoptimistix had accused me of wiki-hounding him, ironically, since then I started to skim his contrib history in every few days. His overall behaviour is very suspicious (immediate clearing of talkpage, his explanations in requests at WP:PERM for NPP, and page mover flags). At one time, I even raised concern about his auto-patrolled flag over article creation of not-so-notable songs: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F. He is clearly working very hard to get a good standing in the community, but his other side also gets visible once in a while. Which leads to the question, why is he working so hard on his image? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernamekiran Thanks for commenting here, the incident which you are talking about were many months ago, I have personally apologized from you on the talk pages if you can remember, initially I thought you were observing my contrb history in with an intention to Afd my articles (like you did with that two articles), and fair point that was silly I was little protective about my creations, but later you turned friendly as you started supporting my keep votes at Afd's for example Kanpur Police Station and many others and about your thread at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F, as you can see prolific content creator right there MrX said that most articles I created were sourced by reliable sources, he commented this when I didn't have any flags. And At NPP rights page I have requested I would help to expand stub article and a admin granted me, later I honestly fullfilled it, please check my NPP reviewing log, I had expanded most new articles from scratch, struggled accross the web to collect in-depth references to save newbies first creation from deletion and at NPP I had declined your one of speedy deletion because it could have been easily userfied , even admin SoWHy declined your recent nomination which you tagged for CSD A7, according to him the claim of winning the award was enough to credibly indicate the significance of the subject. I believe in saving worthy articles from deletion, because articles made Wikipedia. Readers read Wikipedia becoz of articles, this is a project which is very dear to me as since my childhood I use this as my reference, I cannot thank enough to those hardworking volunteers like us who build this without taking any penny. Anoptimistix (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support revocation of auto patrolled and NPP flags per WP:CIR. Editors lack of understanding of nuanced English is amply illustrated above in his discourse on notification, caution and warning. Anoptimistix, a mother cautioning her child not to play on the railroad tracks is just as much a warning as the locomotive's horn as it is about to run you over. If you lack the language skills to discern that, you haven't the skill set to review other's (or your own) work. Simple as that! John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. I don't believe he's crossed the line to warrant any blocks (yet), but there is evidence to the user being unable to properly analyse an article before creating or patrolling it. I believe their heart might be in the right place but their actions are questionable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. Sorry for the copy and paste, but I agree with Anarchyte completely. I also believe Anoptimistix's heart is in the right place based on my interactions (which are limited to WP:PERM only), but this thread was ill-advised to begin with, and every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible. Alex ShihTalk 08:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Alex Shih and Anarchyte Thanks both for your kindwords, I don't mind getting both flags removed, I requested for autoreviewer right as my created articles were remaining unreviewed for many months, and I had requested NPP right because when I was brand new my first article was speedily deleted like it happens with most new comers, I requested it so that I can find in-depth secondary sources coverage to cite as references at the newbies created article to make it pass WP:GNG and Mark it reviewed so that they can stay here for long time, but in my service here I have never justified any copyvio like Usernamekiran evidence is [103], Usernamekiran themself said that there copied material should not be deleted, isn't this intentional copyvio ?is intentionally justifying copyvio by Usernamekiran on their created article is fair for a user with NPP rights ? Whatever it was but I greatly respect Kiran and will always acknowledge his contributions and service done here. And Anarchyte and Alex Shih your comment that my heart is in right place was really heartwarming, Thanks once again. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anoptimistix, you really are not doing yourself any favours here. You started this ill-advised thread to attempt to get further sanctions on a blocked user. Since then you've done little but attempt to evade and deflect criticism, groping for fault in those who have pointed out any of your errors, grasping at the few positive things people have had to say, while ignoring or incoherently and long-windedly "justifying" the negative. You should try to remove those blinkers. You behaved atrociously towards SpacemanSpiff, now Usernamekiran is your latest "target". Also, did you not see "their actions are questionable" or "every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible" in the comments you were so grateful for? I'm honestly not sure you absorbed them if you did. I said above that I wasn't sure if additional sanctions were needed, but truly, each time you make a post like this I feel more like they might be, as my estimate of your competence, self-awareness and ability to interact collegially decreases. -- Begoon 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not intending to comment on this thread again, but the situation is calling for it.
    • Anoptimistix, I am always friendly. I never opposed or supported any particular individual ever. I did whatever the policy said. That police department deserved an article so I voted keep. Your participation had no influence over me.
    • Since very beginning, when your account was fairly recently active, you were told by another user not to clear your talkpage like the way you were doing. You were told to archive it. This was a clear indication to yourself that you were not familiar with enwiki policies, and "wiki code", yet on your userpage you continued to put stuff like "I help new users".
    • Your english is not so good (sended, runned, didnt liked; and many grammatical errors), and yet your articles are perfectly fine. Not even a single mistake. And thats suspicious.
      • Your userpage also contains some userboxes that you have nothing to do with, or you dont have the skills for (eg "guild of copyeditors").
      • I see this as you are trying to improve your own image in the eyes of the community, but not an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia (which you also do, but I now believe it is just a cover).
    • Regarding my "justification" for copy-vio: The content which was copied, falls under public domain. In other words, it doesnt have any copyrights. So I never violated copyright law, as the copyrights didnt exist. I didnt "justified" my copy-paste. At the time I copied the content; I was aware of the copyright terms of the content, i was aware of copyright laws, and i was aware of enwiki policies. I simply explained the situation. Its not a justification.
    • This also reminds me: how do you know about it? I would like to mention here that Anaoptimix seems to have been hounding my activities.
      • He requested for NPP flag, which I think I already had when we had our first communication. Later he requested for page mover flag, twice; after a few days/weeks from me getting the flag. His reasoning for the flag was odd too. These requests maybe co-incidences.
      • Anoptimistix also seems to loosely copy my contributions. A few weeks ago, I created a category for recipients of an intelligence award. And I was recently tagginng a lot of categories with a wikiproject banner. And around the same time, the user in discussion started contributing in categories field.
    The user also seems to be extraordinarily familiar with policies of a very limited area, which interesting as well. Also, if somebody is looking at their talkpage history, it hasnt been properly archived. One archive is not visible on the talkpage, and some threads were not archived at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Emergency Community Ban for 118 alex

    Wrong board, and the proposal would probably gain more traction if it were made by an established editor. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Short background: long term troll/vandal, vandalises Singapore Buses, creates sockpuppets, claims he is a sock of 118 alex.

    See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes. Hence I would like to propose a ban and to contact the ISP to block the user. His ISP is mostly run by Singtel. 103.27.223.112 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These requests should be made on WP:AN I think. Socking since 26 June 2017 is not enough for a community ban. Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 2 edits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    FYI on 77.46.164.179

    Nothing for admins to do here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    77.46.164.179 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is engaging in some minor harassment on other language wikis: [104][105]

    In itself, a couple of edits are nothing to get excited about, but it happened right after I made a series of edits like these;[106][107][108][109] so I am posting a report here so we can keep an eye on this IP. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These are just apparent nonsenses and defamations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.81.205 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: 93.86.81.205 attempted to delete the above report and is currently blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and more harassment, which was reverted and the user globally blocked before I even knew it happened.[110][111][112]][113] Again, all of this is just FYI; there is nothing here that needs any admin action.
    Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to watch out for those apparent nonsenses. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are looking into wrong direction. If you think that behind so called Operahome and all that is prof. Igor Janev you are mislead. In a few threads on Macedonian Wikipedia he answered that he is not interested in English Wikipedia whatsoever, neither English Wikipedia for him is relevant in any possible way. Somewhere else in Macedonian media he also said that US as a country is culturally underdeveloped, primitive, and so on... Nevertheless, he appears to be relevant person for Macedonian and Balkan history as an architect of Macedonian Constitutional Name recognition by more than 130 nations members of the UN, and also for 20 scholarly text books and more than 100 scientific articles in the field(s) of International Law and International Relations, as you can verify on Google scholar. Its my understanding that if you decided not to have here article on him, he wouldn't mind at all.109.93.70.21 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ernio48: compromised account??

    It quickly becomes obvious that the material was not intended to be included in the edit. It's still better to ask about these things though. We are all reminded to review our edits before saving, but hey, these things happen sometimes. Oshwah gets trouted again for protecting the truly wrong version, as well as blocked forever and a half and four more seconds for self-ninnying stop plz. Thus we are done. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 02:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    A recent edit by above made me to suspect that Ernio48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might not have total control of his account based off this obvious vandalism at Church of England: diff. As Ernio has 7400 edits since 2011 and no block log, I doubt he is a troll, also his talk page is not filled with rage and warnings against and behavior. I do see a lot of blocked users on his TP who might have a bone to pick with and would try to login to his account to try and ruin his credibility. My attempt to contact him regarding the above edit has not yet been responded to, thought he account has been active past its posting. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a quick glance-though with his contributions, edit summaries, etc - they all seem consistent. This looks like an instance where we should wait and see what the user does next before we act. A one-off weird edit to an article, while yeah it's concerning... it's not making huge alarm bells go off - especially given that legitimate edits have happened since. I'm going to keep eyes on and wait for now; there very well might be a reasonable explanation but a compromised account seems unlikely. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it's compromised. He reverted the article to a specific revision (check the edit summary), and it looks like he didn't realize it was vandalized. A trick I use sometimes is to scan the size of the article (85,440 bytes) to find if there's an revision of the exact same size. Once I locate the most likely revisions, I compare them. In this case, the vandalism was added by a blocked editor in this edit. Ernio48 must have unintentionally re-added it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate beat me to it - I just now found that diff and was going to follow-up with the same thing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heyyyy, fun fact: Oshwah is an idiot. User makes vandalism to the article, and I friggin' protect the page like a NINNY and didn't realize that he had added it back! Yay for me! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Writ Keeper blocks Oshwah while bot runs amok. Note AfD in progress in background.
    Beach and ocean beyond the pail.
    –EEng

    I propose Oshwah be blocked for personal attacks on Oshwah.

    Thank goodness! A ninny!!!??? He called himself that? That's just beyond the pail. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Block extended by 4 seconds for making a malformed unblock request. GABgab 02:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    In Oshwah's stocking this Christmas.
    –EEng
    EEng - ...Meh. Close enough to an ice cream cone, I guess :-). Oshwah eats it ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the intent of this message could not be to create additional linebreaks to make the page look prettier.
    I mean, that couldn't really be the case, right?
    Actually, I'll cop to it.
    Oh crap, I need one more.
    Mow!
    AlexEng(TALK) 06:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    {{clear}} would probably have worked, too - but would have been nowhere near as funny - I prefer your solution. -- Begoon 06:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind giving Oshwah an Ice cream cone. Except the fact that it would be melted before I gave it to him... *cough *cough* Oshwah *cough* *cough* Yoshi24517Chat On Wikibreak 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    39.46.122.85 and user:Fourfox posting ads for a college prep course

    user:39.46.122.85 from Pakistan also known as user:Fourfox has been advertising by adding multiple references to a college prep course in various articles. The quality of the info is very poor--sometimes ridiculous as this example shows from "Woodrow Wilson" online at http://anrprep.com/woodrow-wilson/ :In March 1918, German sub marines torpedoed three unarmed American ships including famous ship Lusitania, which resulted in heavy losses. Britain propagated this news and the German aggressive behavior was condemned and US was forced into the war. [RMS Lusitania was sunk 3 years before in 1915--and US entered in 1917 not 1918 --rj] And on same page: America was one of the biggest sellers of arms and artillery to Europe. Since the world war had begun by that time, it was the issues of the credibility of American arms as a large number of US arms were being used by the allies in the 1st world war. The failure of allies in the war would have resulted as a disaster for the US weapon industry. (The US did not sell any munitions before it entered the war -- it shipped food & raw materials like steel-rj.) Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing behaviour at David S. Chang

    The editor Preschang has been making some concerning edits of the David S. Chang article. Allegations have been made by another editor that Preschang is David S. Chang, while Preschang is loudly decrying the article as libellous, which seems like an implied kegal threat. I came to this aricle from a 3O request, but since Preschang isn't engaging in discussion, that's not the appropriate resolution forum. An admin taking a look at the situation would be helpful. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My ex wife made an implied kegel threat once. 'Bout broke my back. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    John from Idegon, that was A+. Your are cordially invited to join my glittering array of talk page stalkers. EEng 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mark Marathon: I've left the user a message regarding this, asking them to propose their desired changes on the talk page or contact Wikipedia. If they remove they info again, I'll give them an edit-warring warning. Thanks. LinguistunEinsuno 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the info pending confirmation by more than 1 local newspaper, based on un-named sources, when law enforcement have not even confirmed under investigation, let alone charged with anything. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user incivility

    (non-admin closure) Offensive material removed and IP editor warned. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    109.173.72.198 wishing users will get cancer in their edit summary (diff). -- ( Radiphus ) 10:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Radiphus: Please e-mail one of the admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and ask them to revdel the edit summary. Thanks. LinguistunEinsuno 10:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Revision history and edit summary deleted. Alex ShihTalk 11:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How would an edit summary get cancer? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:POINT violation at Povl Riis

    User:Pigsonthewing is repeatedly reverting Povl Riis to a worse version because that version includes his pet template Template:Cite Q, a template which gets references straight from Wikidata instead of using the standard, local referencing.

    He is changing from (my version)

    Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical ethics education in Britain, 1963–93, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. p. 187 London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4

    to this

    Lois Reynolds; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007), Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963–1993, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, p. 187, ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4, Wikidata Q29581753

    (both versions have bluelinks and external links in them on the page), despite the fact that the source itself says:

    Please cite as : Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963-1993. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.

    Which also matches our standard sourcing systems much closer (e.g. the names of the authors). Apparently my version was "crud"[114].

    The only reason why Pigsonthewing keeps reverting this superior cite to an inferior one is to keep his Wikidata template in the article. I started the discussion at the talk page of the article, but instead got reverted again without adressing the actual reasons why I found my version better than his version[115]. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The POINT editing is wholly Fram's; he only started to disrupt the use of Cite Q - and "repeatedly reverting" as he did so - after calling for its deletion in a tendentious discussion in which we were involved, on opposite sides, and in which he makes his antipathy to including almost anything from Wikidata clear. As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I now see that he had already been advised in that discussion, by another editor, that ""correct place to raise this discussion is on the talk page of the template", but has not done so. It also seems he's begun stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted at the Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#UNREADABLE WIKIDATA REFS discussion (which I didn't start) that Povl Riis was an example of where this template gave wrong or problematic results. I corrected this. You then started reverting to your inferior version, while for some reason calling my version "crud". At the talk page discussion as well, you didn't address even one fundamental point about what was wrong with your preferred version, or indicated how mine was inferior. Starting or not starting a discussion about a template at the talk page of that template (only populated by pro-Wikidata editors in the first place) has no bearing on correcting an article. If I had replaced your version without making any improvements, you might have had a point. But reverting three times to re-insert your own inferior version with your own template is clear WP:OWN behaviour.
    As for my "stalking" of your edits: I opened your contributions list, to see whether you pulled the same stunt elsewhere as well. I then accidentally misclicked (the diff you added), which I immediately, in the same minute, revertedthe diff you forgot to mention). And that's all there is to my "stalking" of your edits. Fram (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably, WP:CITEVAR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. No idea why you would bring this up though, as your version didn't "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" but introduced a different style. Fram (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of us has been changing a pre-existing reference from one style to another; it is not me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is not what WP:CITEVAR is about. And which is not what my edit did: I changed an incorrect reference to a correct one, and at the same time made the style for the reader consistent with the other, older references, and with the style preferred by the authors of the source as well. You, on the other hand, not only initially added a reference which was inconsistent with the established style at the article, but which contained errors, but much worse reverted to your version after improvements had been made, only because they didn't match your preference, not because they didn't match the citation style of the article. You should really carefully read WP:CITEVAR before you proceed to us this as your defense. Fram (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, not Wikidata again? We shouldn't be using anything from there because it is even more like the Wild West than this place. My reading of CITEVAR aligns with that of Fram but I have seen people argue that the point is not which template is used but rather that there is a consistent output, ie: the visuals. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram is correct in his interpretation of citevar here. The relevant parts of WP:CITEVAR are: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" and "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" - with the disclaimer I have not verified if this is the case here, I am assuming what Fram says is correct regarding the article's existing style. But this is beside the point however that we should not be deferring to information on wikidata if it needs correcting. No editor on ENWP should be required to visit another project in order to effect changes on a Wikipedia article if it requires improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is or was required to visit Wikidata. Like I said above: "As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. " Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just done this to fix a rather ridiculous use of Cite Q at another article. Andy, really, why are you doing this? It didn't even need another source adding to the article - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template? Fram (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong venue for that discussion. Simple answer is "it makes re-using an already used citation much easier, the same as any template", but you need to take that to the deletion debate. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What deletion debate? It appears to be a comment by one user, not an MfD or similar. If you could provide a link to a true deletion debate, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the issue at hand, I have a problem with this statement: "No one is or was required to visit Wikidata." What if an external link used in a cite to a Wikidata template goes dead? Then you would be required to go on Wikidata if you want to fix it. All in all, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the existence of this template. How many editors on here are going to have these templates on their watchlists, to ensure that they are not vandalized? It's just my opinion, but I fear that the Wikidata supporters are going to turn the Wikipedia community off with these features, to the point where there will be sniping between supporters of the various sites. Maybe that's what is happening here. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) This short article has had several styles of referencing throughout its recent past. Both citation templates and hand-crafted citations have been present throughout most of its history, so there's no place for CITEVAR here. What has happened, though, is that Andy made 17 edits to the article on 26 June 2017, expanding it and increasing the number of sources from 3 to 5, as well as referencing more of the text. I can see no problem with those edits. Then on 12 September 2017, Fram made this edit: edit summary Correct source. What he actually did was replace the citation using {{citeQ}} with a hand crafted citation, accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital, and labelled that as "Correct source". If he had summarised it as reversed forename/surname, one might have some sympathy with his intentions, but to be deliberately obtuse in this way is uncollegial; and to run to ANI over this feeble dispute is distinctly a case of playground mentality. If Fram wants to make the case for having "surname, forename" instead of "forename surname", or for linking to a pdf instead of a webpage, the place for that is on Talk:Povl Riis, where I observe nothing more than posturing instead of rational explanation. One style may well be "worse formatting of the authors" than another, but without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge? And how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong, when one version links directly to History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group and the other version is piped to the same article ([[History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group|The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL]]), is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, Rexxs, another Wikidata defender with whom I just happened to have an earlier acruimonious conflict, coming to present his neutral, objective, and especially wrong version of the facts. This was my first edit to that page: I did not "accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital", so please retract that false claim. Furthermore, I did not simply "reversed forename/surname", I corrected the name of the journal and the name of the publisher, and added the volume number.
    Thanks for adding the personal attack "playground mentality" though. That you only observe "posturing" at the article talk pags is your problem, I can't help you with your observational skills. "without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge?" is true. I invite everyone to see who did provide a rationale, and who didn't, at the article talk page. "how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong[...]": when a publisher or a journal) changes its name, but something is published under the old name, then we should use that name in our referencing as well. It's no coincidence that the actual journal uses that name in its own preferred "please cite this" statement. Again, that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and can see the actual difference between two versions, instead of knee-jerk reacting. Fram (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In which you again side-step the fact that the template can be made to display current, past or any other variant names for journal, publisher, article, or - as I have demonstrated - the series. No doubt "that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and..." who have taken the time to develop and document the template, and who are wiling to work to continue to improve it as new use-cases emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is utterly obscure, Andy. I don't see how it can be used without first going to Wikidata and trying to locate things there. Someone mentioned a deletion discussion above - do you know where it is? I understand the concept of standardisation and centralised templates but it isn't going to be much of a standard if it is going to be adjusted with multiple parameters. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts too. I wouldn't trust Wikidata further than I can throw it, but we need an answer ... what is the advantage to using it over the standard, reliable, citation format? Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For a citation that appears in exactly one Wikipedia article in exactly one Wikipedia language, not much advantage. For citations that are used repeatedly across Wikipedia, either by multiple articles or multiple translations of the same article, there is a big advantage in unifying the citation metadata so that corrections or improvements only need to be made in one place rather than piecemeal across the many copies of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. It doesn't answer the question and it doesn't resolve the problem. Mistype one digit (even assuming I can find the thing) and I'm citing The Beano rather than the OED. It's a grand idea but it won't work: people often struggle to use the cite templates that we have, and they're nothing like as obscure as q|123456 imported from some distant project that has bugger-all control over what happens there. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthe wing, the question was not "can you change the template so that it eventually can do all these things", the question was "could the template, at the time of the editwar, present the reference like it should have done". And if the answer is "yes, by providing extra parameters for autorname, volume, page, publisher, article title, journal title, and correct url", then what is the actual benefit of using this template?

    I think there's going to be consensus that swapping templates falls under CITEVAR, though it seems more unclear whether CITEVAR should apply in at least one of the specific examples given. Doesn't seem like it's headed for admin action, though. I went to comment here but realized I was commenting on the underlying content/style/referencing dispute rather than the behavioral issues that are the subject of this thread. IMO it seems like it would be a lot more productive to close this particular thread and start an RfC on use of this template (and/or on the broader concept of "templates which pull citation data from wikidata"). Apologies if I've missed where there was one, but it's obviously contentious, and there are pretty good points on both sides. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A broad RfC on Wikidata is urgently needed (but hard to set up correctly, "Wikidata: good or bad" is perhaps just too simplistic), but an MfD on this specific template may be warranted as well. Fram (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me give a stern reminder that accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and this is definitely happening up above. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Rockypedia

    Comments include, "Why are you lying about that?" here; "your lies", "Your main motivation in this RfC ...", "If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this ...", all found in talk page here. Rockypedia has now said "So I'm going to bow out now and let someone else handle your lies ..." but I thought if someone in authority talkted to him it might do some good.

    Context is a section in 2017 Berkeley protests about a lefty demonstrator woman who was punched out by a neo-nazi leader, whose supporters (the neo-nazi's) then doxxed her and revealed very personal information about her. Rockypedia seems to think I am in league with her right-wing supporters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BoogaLouie (talk) has persisted for the past few weeks in trying to add the name of a woman doxxed by white supremacists to the Berkeley protests article. Those edits are clear evidence that he's pushing a POV found only on alt-right and white supremacist blogs and forums, all while he feigns innocence and claims he's just trying to add relevant information to the article, even though numerous editors have warned him about his behavior. Per WP:DUCK, I make no apologies about clearly stating, in his latest attempt (an RfC), what his real motivations are, and I want everyone that sees his RfC to know it. There's no room here for insinuating good faith while his real objective is exactly the same as those of the white nationalists and white supremacists that have already doxxed that woman all over the Internet. That's all I have to say. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure even if I am all these bad things it doesn't excuse personal attacks, but I will explain my case anyway:
    While it is true I did include citations (I think 2) from sites doxxing her (my edit said that the sites were doxxing her and the cites were sources. None the personal information from the sites was included in my edit of the article), that I reverted a deletion of my edit once and the edit included her name and the cites, and that I got no support from editors in the talk page — some of these other claims are delusional. I am not attempting to push some alt-right and white supremacist POV, but pointing out that Snopes found their claims false. The woman's name can be found in a number of WP:RS sources. In any case I am doing a RfC on the issue of including her name and will abide by the results. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Regardless of any rights or wrongs of this case, it does need to be stated that Rockypedia does not have a good history on Wikipedia. Reference should be made to his obscene comments to edits on the Ted Bundy article and his "contribution" history, some of which are correct - but made in entirely the wrong manner. Let's please contribute and comment constructively. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a drive-by WP:BATTLEGROUND edit by David J Johnson. Notice that he's never edited the Berkeley protest article, but is apparently stalking me in retaliation for two RfC's that I started after he edit-warred on the Ted Bundy article. Note also that both RfC's did not come out the way he wanted them to, and he's apparently now seeking revenge by weighing in here in an attempt to smear me. Rockypedia (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "an attempt to smear me" — now see, this is the problem. Personal attacks. They're not allowed in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My contribution here was simply to alert the community to Rockypedia's previous attitude when "contributing" to the encyclopedia. I believe the WP:BATTLEGROUND tag is more appropriate to Rockypedia's history. Nor have I engaged in "edit warring". As for the accusation of "stalking", I have more important tasks than that, it is just that this page is on my personal Watchlist. This users comment is another of his(?) personal attacks on other editors. I have no further comment to make. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:DUCK only applies to sockpuppets, fine. What policy would you cite after you saw these edits? Five of them had to be redacted by admins - five! - and in this RfC, BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. You tell me - what do you make of that? Does that look like editing in good faith to you? Rockypedia (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about personal attacks but I think I better defend myself:
    • "Five of them had to be redacted by admins".
    I made an edit, cleaned it up it, it was deleted. Made my case in the talk page and restored my edit, that was deleted (that's 3 redacted edits). On the talk page I think I added a proposed revision but I can't remember and now it's scrubbed. But in the two talk page edits I agreed to not include the cites attacking the unnamed woman that were in my earlier edits. (see here where I say: "While I think the two "unusable sources" that Grayfell opposes are legit , I propose eliminating them but leaving snopes, cbs, ny times and mother jones citations about the antifa girl." It's dated about the same time (around 23:00, 23 August 2017) as the scrubbed edits. The "unusable sources" are the rightwing sites attacking the antifa girl that -- I thought -- were legit as use for sources demonstrating that the antifa girl was being doxxed.) Why were these scrubbed? They mentioned the woman's name.
    • "BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums",
    this is simply not true! See for yourself in my RfC here. I include the white supremecist claim only along with the scopes article that rates it "not true". I have explained it to Rockypedia several times. such as here down the page a bunch of lines (".... I would further ask you how including the fact checking that debunks his defenders' claim that he was preventing the unnamed woman from throwing a deadly weapon would hurt the unnamed woman or help him in any way????")
    IMHO I feel I have no choice but to keep replying to these accusations (which along with being untrue essentially accuse me of lying in the aid of neo-nazis) and it boarders on harassment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "along with being untrue" ?? Those edits were redacted because the woman's name was in them. You started an RfC with the purpose of adding the woman's name. You have a strange definition of "untrue". Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This was "information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums"? The woman has given interviews and talked to New York Times, Mother Jones where her name was used. Here name is not "currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums". This is what I mean by untrue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a another distortion of the truth (also sometimes known as a "lie") - You know full well that those sources were discussed, and none of them talked about the context that you were trying to add; ie that Nathan Domigo punched a woman carrying an explosive in a bottle, which absolutely is only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. But we're going in circles; this was explained to you on the article talk page, multiple times, that's why your edits were redacted, and yet you still continue to press your POV-based edits with the current RfC. Rockypedia (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Further context BoogaLouie's doxxing-attempt RfC is currently running at 9 editors opposed to it, and 2 for it (including BoogaLouie himself). To quote Grayfell's excellent point in that RfC, "Your stated goal is exactly opposite to the end result of your actions, regardless of your true intentions." He's much more measured (and a lot smarter) than I am; regardless, I speak plainly and accurately when I describe what BoogaLouie is trying to do, and I'm basically saying the same thing, with less tact. Sorry for being so direct. Rockypedia (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Grayfell agrees with you. There's just the little matter of explaining how including the results of scopes fact checking would be bring an "end result" "exactly opposite" of my "stated goal". It makes no sense.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, allow me to clarify:
    Shoehorning in this Snopes article would be drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE outlets, and tepidly rejected by everyone else. If BoogaLouie's intention is to debunk this theory, their actions significantly inflate its relative importance by drawing attention to a minor incident which led to sustained harassment. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish in an article about a series of protests in Berkeley, California? Playing WP:CIVILPOV games doesn't change that this is functionally abetting harassment.
    I don't accept that BoogaLouie doesn't understand this, especially since multiple editors have spent weeks trying to explain it to them. It doesn't really matter, though. The end result is the same: BoogaLouie is attempting to draw dramatically more attention to a person who has been the target of a coordinated harassment campaign. This campaign started because she was punched by a white nationalist. The extremely unreliable attack sources BoogaLouie originally tried to add demonstrate a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVILPOV, drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE, making a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith, ignoring the wisdom of multiple editors, playing stupid in the service of Nazis, etc. This has gotten way past complaining about a personal attack and is now a defense against charges of calculated dishonesty and Neo-Nazi sympathies. So would my proposed edit addition to the article have abetted harassment by drawing "attention to a flimsy theory"? or undermined it? Read it below and decide for yourself.
    The proposed edit is similar to what I originally added to the article and the whole idea was recently voted down as a RfC. I think the no votes were in error but I'm not going to contest the decision. Now I'm just trying to defend my reputation against Grayfell and Rockpedia.
    (note: the proposed edit adds to this April 15 section of 2017 Berkeley protests - article. Only two paragraphs -- "Within a short time after ..." and "Supporters of Nathan Damigo ..." -- posted below are proposed additions, the rest are already in the article)
    During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old California State University, Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a woman in the face (later identified as[name deleted])[1] and then ran into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.[2][3]
    Within a short time after the attack [name deleted] was "doxxed" by supporters of Damigo and the rally who sent "more than 1,500" harassing or threatening messages to her and publicized her home address and her parents contact information.[1][4]
    Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain Damigo prevented her from throwing it when she was punched, however Snopes factchecking site found [name deleted] was not arrested over the incident, that observers found no M80s being stuffed inside glass bottles at the rally, and that [name deleted]'s hands were empty at the time she was punched by Damigo in the publicized images, and no indication of anything in a bottle [name deleted] was holding when Damigo punched her earlier in the melee.[5]
    Cal State Stanislaus stated that that they would investigate Damigo.[3]

    References

    1. ^ a b Bauer, Shane (27 April 2017). "A Punch in the Face Was Just the Start of the Alt-Right's Attack on a Berkeley Protester". Retrieved 20 August 2017.
    2. ^ Sheffield, Matthew. "Trolling for a race war: Neo-Nazis are trying to bait leftist "antifa" activists into violence — and radicalize white people". Salon. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
    3. ^ a b Branson-Potts, Hailey (April 17, 2017). "Cal State Stanislaus to investigate white supremacist student who punched woman in Berkeley melee". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved April 17, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
    4. ^ "Woman seen getting punched in viral video speaks out". CBS NEWS. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 30 AUgust 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
    5. ^ "Was a Protester Throwing Explosives Into a Berkeley Crowd Before She Was Punched?". snopes. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
    Inclusion of this much on the incident in question strikes me as uncalled for and tangential. It seems kind of shoehorning in WP:BLP1E in to a more notable article. Inclusion of the name of the woman in question strikes me as vile. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is constantly altering said article (history) deleting valid info supported by valid references and adding info based solely on a fan site (http://www.steaualibera.com) and photographed (original?) documents [116] and [117]. This not only violates the WP:NOR principle, I also am not sure the images are even real – if you reverse search them you'll find they are hosted only on yellow press sites at best. Yet the user manages to juggle the Wikipedia policies and recently obtained blocking of one of the users that pointed to the problem many many times. On Romanian Wikipedia, administrators were more vigilant and protected ro:FCSB and ro:CSA Steaua București (fotbal) without long ceremonies when it became clear that TPTB has an agenda. Please consider protecting the article for some period so that TPTB is stopped. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CC @Ymblanter: @Andrei Stroe:. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not really care who is right and who is wrong here, but the user I blocked reverted carelessly without explaining theor position (they added multiple talk page protected edit requests which were all rejected and they were reverted by multiple users).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - This is not true. It's true that I linked a lot of references to that website, but that's only because the website hosts those documents and it's easier for me to find them. One of the documents in question is a court ruling. It's a scanned document. Those guys are the onlyones who have the entire thing. You can find the document here: http://www.steaualibera.com/2017/06/07/exclusivitatea-motivarea-deciziei-din-dosarul-numele-steaua/ The Romanian press posted parts of the document but not the entire thing. If you want, I can link to them as well, but the sources are not as complete as that full document. Here is one of them: http://www.ziare.com/fcsb/stiri-fcsb/exclusiv-avem-motivarea-curtii-de-apel-iata-de-ce-a-fost-obligat-becali-sa-schimbe-numele-echipei-1467840 The documents in question are original documents. In this one https://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_588_x_379/2017/01/25/790860-762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg you can see the FC Fcsb owner holding the team's birth certificate. This sports certificate shows that his team was founded in 2003. Additionally, the people who edit the FC Steaua Bucuresti page clearly have their own agenda and are only looking to create confusion. Take, for example, the year the team was founded. Right now it says that the team was founded on July 7 1947. The people editing this page claim that it's a page about Steaua Bucharest, the Romanian football team that won the European Champions Cup in 1986. However, that team was founded on June 7 1947. The people editing the page claim to know what they're doing. But they clearly don't. No Romanian football team was founded on July 7 1947. The fact that they make such a big mistake clearly shows that they either have no idea what they're doing or that they just want to make fun of a certain team and create confusion. I am going to say this one last time. The Romanian court forbade FC Fcsb to use the names Steaua, Steaua Bucuresti or any other name that may let someone believe that that team is Steaua Bucharest. Here's a link to the Romanian Ministry of Justice website, where you can clearly see that FC Fcsb has no right to use the name Steaua Bucharest: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000000660029&id_inst=2 I am trying to help wikipedia and tell the truth. If someone says that I'm lying, then let him bring some solid proof to back that up. As for the user Taras bulba 47, who only created his account just to vandalize the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and who evidently asked his friend to intervine on his behalf, the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more. You can check it out for yourselves. That's about it from me. - TPTB (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    TPTB is making his or her own interpretations based on primary sources published only on some channels that are dubious at best. For instance, claiming that a "Certificat de identitate sportivă" is the "birth certificate" of the team is ridiculous: this a merely a document that states a certain company is registered as practicing a certain sport. In Romania, they have only been issued since 2001 based on a law that had been passed the previous year, so no team will have one that is older; and it also absolutely cannot cover cases such as the shift that happened there in the 1990s, when state-owned "amateur" clubs (all Eastern European clubs before that time were state-owned) turned privately-owned professional clubs. For this purpose, a commercial entity had to be created, and the assets had to be transferred from the state to the privately-owned company. So of course the new company is registered in the 1990s or the 2000s, but the teams they manage go back a long time before. The vandalism accusation against Taras bulba 47 is also far-fetched: I found no diff where s/he wrote any insults or personal attacks. I can see, however, what Ymblanter takes to be disruptive editing, and that Taras bulba 47 also looks like s/he has an agenda. Sliding on the disruptive editing slope is something that happens a lot to newcomers, and in this case it seems to have happened to both users. Discussion is the key. I haven't had interactions with Taras bulba 47 on ro.wp, but my and Giku's experience there with TPTB is that we're talking to someone who's here to fight a WP:BATTLE.- Andrei (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - The thing you said above is a common mistake in Romania. Those certificates are not given to companies, but to sports clubs. A company may own a club and manage it, and it can get one of those certificates if it does. But, if it does not own a sports club, then it will definitely not get one. The deal with FC Fcsb's sports certificate is that it was issued at the same time when the team was founded. Becali, the guy pulling the strings at FC Fcsb, claims that he purchased the Steaua Bucharest football team. However, that team already had a sports certificate in 2003. Had Becali purchased the team, he would have also acquired its certificate and he wouldn't have needed to ask for a new one. The fact that FC Fcsb's certificate was issued in 2003 and it existed at the same time as Steaua's sports certificate shows pretty clearly that the two are distinct entities. This is why FC Fcsb lost the right to use the Steaua Bucharest brand and name. So yeah. I'm here to fight a battle. I want wikipedia to show the truth. Is that a problem? Or am I supposed to just accept lies just because some of you are too lazy to do proper research? As for Taras bulba 47, it's really easy to go to the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and look at some of the edits made there within the past 24 hours. You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right? - TPTB (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You could show respect to the dozen of people involved in the discussions and refrain from editing the page until the issues are settled. Ideally the page should be fully protected so nobody edits until consensus but it looks like admins are not in a hurry. Gikü (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What issue are you talking about. Everything is already settled. The Romanian Court of Appeals already decided the matter. They said that FC fcsb is not Steaua, that it can't use the Steaua name. It's been 9 months since the decision was final and the page still shows the name Steaua Bucuresti, because some of you are supporters of FC Fcsb and refuse to change it. - TPTB (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's settled for you. There are people disagreeing. Please wait for the consensus. Gikü (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ymblanter: : my apologies for the repeated modification requests. I understand these requests must be better edited and documented. I have to mention that all my requests were made in an attempt to roll-back the destructive changes made by TPTB. The majority of them were "undos" of his changes. Looking at his recent contributions it's obvious that he has an agenda (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TPTB ). Since yesterday he kept on modifying articles relating to FCSB (formerly called Steaua Bucuresti) football team. I will not go into details now, I will do it on the articles' talk pages, but I am kindly making this request again: please protect pages related tot Steaua Bucuresti and only allow modifications after a careful review has verified all the information. It's painful to see how administrators have allowed TPTB to alter the truth for almost two weeks! The articles I think require a careful protection and watch are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steaua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football)

    The latter misrepresents the reality by mentioning the football team created in 2017, with no affiliation to FRF (Romanian Football Federation) or UEFA, has 21 national titles :) Again, I will not go into details here but please: put a stop to this! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gikü, @Andrei Stroe: Thank you for bringing this to the English noticeboard. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @@TPTB:: I really don't think there's a point engaging in this conversation with you. Your lies have spread even here on the noticeboard. I quote <<the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more.>> and <<You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right?>> just to mention some of your blatant lies. I made no such comments and this is very easily verifiable! I cannot comprehend why you'd even bother to lie like this. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Heart Songs Corporation

    Could someone have a look at this page... I noticed an edit removing content claiming that it was slanderous - and the content does appear to have been added recently by an IP. I reverted the page to what appears to be the last good version, but if someone could check my work that would be great. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Home Lander: I think that was the right thing to do as one of the refs was linking to a web page with defamatory allegations. But that article is an AfD candidate if ever I saw one! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Home Lander: Good work, I've added a COI tag as one of the editors is clearly the CEO. I don't know if it should be deleted or not. I'll leave that to someone who knows. Jschnur (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Malcolmxl5 and Jschnur. I agree on the deletion and have PROD-ed the page for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Legacypac's WP:ASPERSIONS

    Closing this with no action before it escalates any more. This thread is directly related to this huge thread at WP:AN which was just closed yesterday, in which the closing admin (Primefac) noted and endorsed a consensus among administrators for amnesty for previous actions directly related to that dispute, in the interest of moving on. The actions identified here are directly related to that dispute, and so I view this as covered by that amnesty. This close may be read as "the past is the past, treat your fellow editors with respect from now on."

    I also wish to remind participants here that WP:STALK and WP:STALKING are deprecated shortcuts and are not to be used. See the text of the soft redirects for details.

    Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

    User:Legacypac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Three days, three different examples of WP:ASPERSIONS violations. These accusations are nothing new but they have recently become more frequent. The two of us edit in some similar areas and tend to disagree a lot (which is fine), but the personal attacks have been bleeding into project space (particularly with the most recent edit summary linked above). I don't think any technical action is needed here, but a final warning that the next violation will result in a block would be nice. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: [121]. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I've been considering preparing a case against VQuakr for his repeated personal attacks, stalking and other unpleasant behavior. I've warned him on his talk page several times recently. This seems to be a preemptive strike. Sorry, was not planning to play his game today. I'd rather be doing more interesting things, but if he wants to pursue this, I'll marshal my evidence here...
    • WP:STALKING: Why is he following my edits so very closely? [122] for which I have warned him. His response is unconvincing. [123]
    • Personal attacks: like [124] accusing me of typing a "blatant falsehood" and immediately proposing a topic ban for me (which quickly failed).
    • Talkpage warnings about personal attacks, stalking and other inappropriate behavior: [125] [126] [127]
    • VQuakr edit warring: [128]
    • Misidentifies what I tell him as a personal attack [129] and some of the above links.

    I could bring forward more detailed difs, but #1 the stalking needs to stop #2 the personal attacks need to stop, and #3 the other nonsense like this ANi thread needs to stop. My tolerance for such behavior is at an all time low. Since VQuakr choose to file this report - the community needs to act against him, not when it gets way way out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict with Softlavender)[reply]

    The interaction report shows our interactions in the areas where we are both active - MfD and drafts. That isn't stalking regardless of how many times you repeat the claim, which is all that you've linked. You are continuing the behavior here with which I have a problem - making a serious accusation without providing evidence, which is a violation of WP:NPA. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • The edit summary for the third diff is "see talkpage then. Stop with the WP:STALKING me all over the site". Are you saying that if Legacypac sees evidence of "stalking" and he comments as such, that the edit summary is not civil? If he had written "Stop fucking WP:STALKING me all over the place, asshole", I might agree, but otherwise why is it uncivil to point out possible WP:HARASSMENT in an edit summary? Given the information Legacypac posted above, [130] it looks to me as if there is a prima facie case for Legacypac's claim, one that VQuakr should respond to with more clarity then he did. [131]. I'm not saying that either one is in the right here, but I do think it's best not to aggravate a situation with unfounded claims. In my judgment, there's nothing uncivil in the edit summary of the third diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: per your request: there are 25 pages at the link provided by Legacy that you cite, [132]:
    • 10 are MFD discussions, exactly half of which I first edited prior to Legacy.
    • 2 are WP:DRAFTS and WT:DRAFTS. An edit to the former was linked in the OP of this section.
    • 1 was a warning on TakuyaMurata's talk page for edit warring "across the aisle" from Legacy (related to WP:DRAFTS above), that was delivered concurrently to one of the edit warring warnings on Legacy's talk page that I mention below.
    • 4 are edits to drafts or draft talk pages that are/were the subject of an MfD.
    • 1 is an AN3 report.
    • 1 is a third party admin's talk page discussion related to an MfD, the interaction sequence on which can be seen here.
    • 1 is Legacy's talk page, to which I have posted two edit warring warnings in the timeframe shown.
    • 1 is my talk page.
    • 1 is WT:CSD, where Legacy and I share a common interest.
    • 3 (WP:RPP two other User talk pages) contain no actual interactions.
    Legacy's reply above is a 4th example of a serious accusation, harassment, without supporting evidence. WP:NPA specifically cites this behavior is a personal attack, and WP:ASPERSIONS cites previous ARBCOM findings against precisely the behavior you summarize (routinely making serious accusations rather than bringing the issue to the appropriate forum). My asking him to stop doing this has not worked, so I'm asking someone uninvolved to warn him to stop violating policy. VQuakr (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: sure I could perform a dredging exercise and come up with a bunch more, but what would be the point? He's started casting aspersions daily, and I've asked for a lightweight response to intercept the escalation. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that I assume you're asking for some kind of sanction against Legacypac, and the three diffs you provided are most probably not going to be sufficient for that. If Legacypac is indeed "casting aspersions daily", then it shouldn't take a "dredging exercise" to come up with new diffs, you should be able to lay your hands on them readily, which I would suggest you do if you expect an admin to take your complaint seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to assume anything; I identified my desired outcome (a warning) in the opening post. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point stands. IMO, you need to present more evidence, but, of course, it all depends on the admin who addresses the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legacypac's aspersion casting is not limited to this case and he is not very credible in discussing matters related to stalking. Just a few days ago, he misconstrued my comments on an AN thread as a defense of stalking by another editor, even though I was supporting sanctions on the editor in question because of said stalking. It is bad enough that he failed to give fair-minded consideration to what I was saying, but he crossed the line by mischaracterizing my motives to his own advantage. When I called him out for this at his user talk page, he removed my post with the edit summary "Sorry can't discuss". If he can't discuss his comments (whether because of an iBan or whatever his reason is), then he shouldn't be making them, especially when they involve a reckless misrepresentation of the behavior of others. Lepricavark (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: If I recall correctly, you and Legacypac just had something of a run-in. Do you think it's a good idea to be commenting here when you still might be a bit biased from that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: he and I disagree not infrequently, but I honestly can't think of anything recent and exceptional. Are you referring to the recent AN3 post, or something else? The post here was prompted by the most recent diff linked in the OP, which seemed enough of an escalation in behavior that community intervention was warranted. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Sorry, my bad, my remark about "something of a run-in" was meant to be addressed to Lepricavark. I'll go back and label it now Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification! VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your support is/was much appreciated. I still can't discuss your comments on my talkpage as they were outside the ANi thread. Sorry. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious sarcasm is obvious. Lepricavark (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lepricavark I'm not being sarcastic at all. In Canada we are famous for saying Sorry and meaning it! I genuinely appreciate your support. The ANi comment you referred to on my talk page was poorly worded and not intended as it came across. My removal of the comment was purely practical in view of a restriction I need to protect, and not intended as an insult or to suggest my unwillingness to discuss. Also, my reply here got seperated by intervening posts. No hard feelings on my side. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We're literally getting a new one of these threads every single week. Has anyone suggested an IBAN between VQuakr & Legacypac? I imagine this would reduce the amount of nonsense. -FASTILY 04:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that VQuakr hasn't really made a good case for disciplining Legacypac at all. If anything, VQuakr's behaviour has been more problematic but probably also not worth a block or ban. Reyk YO! 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I'm tangentially involved in this menagerie I would note that Legacypac's edits have been reasonable, whereas VQuakr's edits strongly smell of certain ideological campaigns (anybody remember WP:ARS and their brigade voting strategies) and would suggest that at minimum VQuakr be warned that their contributions to XFD are in need of improvement and could be the cause of sanctions being leveled Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The MfD board

    I think the solution here is that the admin community needs to be more involved on WP:MfD (which is currently backlogged). Based on this page and WP:AN, it appears that every active participant on that board is feuding loudly. I tried to close some discussions that I thought were "less controversial" and got run out of town on a rail.

    Banning any number of participants on that board won't fix things. Send in the mops! Power~enwiki (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think the biggest issue right now is that we never sorted the Taku Drafts thing, so all the MfDs related to it are just sitting there, unclosed, inviting further nitpicking on all sides. If there had been a resolution for that I think we'd be in a better place but there was zero consensus for anything to be done on the whole so nothing gets done individually. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not a problem with MFD as such. The real problem is that MFD is being used as a process to delete stale drafts. Draftspace is intended to be a space where articles are prepared for mainspace, not a perpetual holding pattern for unworked pseudo-articles that couldn't actually cut it in mainspace. That's why people have sandboxes ;) When you have editors like Vquakr and Godsy voting keep on all sorts of crap drafts that have been untouched for 6 months, that they have zero intention of improving, and have little chance of surviving an AFD in mainspace, the problem will continue. The change to CSD in enabling abandoned drafts to be deleted after 6 months is a step forward, but Taku made it abundantly clear above they are just requesting refund and so it will sit there again for another 6 months and the cycle repeats. What there needs to be is a hard limit for articles in draftspace, 6 months of no use means its either moved to mainspace, moved to sandbox, or deleted through CSD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: The part about me didn't sound right, and I just checked to confirm - I've voted some variation of "delete" about 30% more often than "keep" at MfD. Care to rephrase or clarify? VQuakr (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. You have voted 'keep' on a significant number of useless drafts currently on MFD - specially relating to films (that are not in production and unlikely to be soon) and anything Taku related. None of which would survive an AFD, almost all of which have not been worked on for long periods. The problem is not with MFD, so that you vote delete on other discussions there is irrelevant when you are voting keep on most drafts that you vote on. The problem is with the handling of draftspace when editors like yourself want to keep it full of pseudo-article rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, Only in death hit the problem exactly. Some examples: [133], keep vote on a 1 line promotional piece [134], Keep on spam [135], keep on a film that's spend years in development hell[136] (Procedural keep and appears to say I'm trolling!), [137] keep on another dead film project, [138] Speedy Keep on a contentless Taku page (there are others) [139] Blank on a BLP that claimed with no refs the subject could faith heal and predict the future, [140] another BLP with no V or N evidence. Thank goodness for G13 expansion for it has saved a lot of drama at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating any sanctions here, but would appreciate more productive and less negative activity. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OID has hit the nail on the head. There are precisely two problems that plague the board:--
      • 1)Taku-craft
    Until and unless, there's a community consensus about whether there is any need to deal with them and (if yes) how to deal with them, MFD isgoing to be a poor place.As, I wouldn't expect either Legacypac or Taku to back away from their modus-operandi.
      • 2)Can MfD evaluate staleness/article-potential?
    There is no clear answer.We have different phrasings in different policies, all of which could be reasonably hammered and construed by both the sides (obviously in goodfaith) as a document that supports their and only their views.
    Add to these, some useful idiots; (Hasteur will probably understand!) and we have got one hell of a package!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only noting for procedural reasons that an involved editor to this running menagerie is currently serving a 48 hour block for edit warring. I recommend that no action be taken with respect to this thread until the editor has had an opportunity to provide input. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on Hasteur's note that it's TakuyaMurata who is currently blocked, and who is the other side of the deletion issue, so yes it's probably wise to await their input before calling anything decided here. With that said, I endorse OID and Godric's comments here. Dealing with Taku's drafts piecemeal through MfD is a poor solution, and hasn't really worked any better than any of the other solutions that have been presented. Taku's pointy ownership of these pages isn't helping, but it's not the only problem. Anyway, what to do about all of them should be settled before any more are flagged for deletion individually. As for evaluating article potential, yes, I believe MfD can do so, but the RfC declaring that notability doesn't apply to drafts has left a lot of confusion which remains unsettled, so both "article potential" and "whether article potential matters" are still things that weigh heavily on who shows up to the discussion. There's not much that we can do about that. Otherwise, the issues here are the same that appear whenever there are editors passionate about opposing sides of an issue. Being in a rush to "solve it" isn't going to play well here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godric on Leave: BTW, did you know your signature's link to your talk page is broken? There should only be one space where you have User__talk. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove talk page access for User:CivilRightsandWrongs

    Handled by Alex Shih (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Instantmatter49 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Suspected sockpuppet user CivilRightsandWrongs (talk · contribs) made another threatening edit on his talk page alongside with an unblock template. It's probably becoming obvious that this user is WP:NOTHERE, so can someone revoke his talk page access? And also, if applicable, remove the edit that I've linked to? Thanks. Instantmatter49 (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access revoked and purely disruptive material deleted. Alex ShihTalk 04:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated it. Instantmatter49 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by User:Videogameplayer99

    Despite repeated warnings, User:Videogameplayer99 continues to create a large number of non notable video game articles solely based on their appearance in directories like Mobygames. Some are notable but most of them aren't. I don't doubt that it's a good faith attempt but WP:COMPETENCE is based on more than that, and they have not made an effort to learn Wikipedia guidelines about notability despite many, many deleted articles.

    See also: Contributions ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles copied from Wikia

    I've been dealing with a certain sockmaster, Ctway, for a few years now. To give a brief summary, they create tons of low-quality, poorly sourced, and factually suspect articles about firearms and sometimes other military equipment. During the most recent round of emptying the sock drawer and AfDing their creations, Icewhiz found that several articles that I'd nominated were copied from a Wikia wiki. Investigating further, I found that Ctway's articles were often (but not always) created or greatly expanded by a user there named Cutaway (CuTaWAY) and then copied over nearly exactly (excluding images, which I now realize are often added as hyperlinks instead of a gallery) - or occasionally the other way around. For example, BSA Autorifle was worked on by Cutaway in 2016, then copied over verbatim to BSA Autorifle in one edit this year by a Ctway sock. I did a bit more digging, and the second article I looked at (Union Automatic Revolver) from the original sock report was created the same day on both wikis, with identical content: en-wiki and guns.wikia on 12 August 2010. Given that Cutaway was created on guns.wikia in 2008 and the first account mentioned in the SPI was created in 2009 though not blocked/confirmed for lack of CU data, the issues probably go back at least that far (and now I'm marvelling at how coincidental it is that Ctway was the account that the SPI was filed under, and wondering if the filer who is sadly now inactive knew about all of this at the time). Cutaway also has a comment on their Message Wall (aka talk page) from a guns.wikia admin reminding them to not copy articles from Wikipedia; that admin seems to have an active account here as well, Grunty89, so I'll invite him to comment too. It would probably also be nice if there was a way for Cutaway to participate in this discussion, but they probably don't have an active sock yet after the last batch was whacked, so meh.

    So, after all that, the question is: is copying content from Wikia, which I believe shares the same CC-by-SA 3.0 license with Wikipedia, okay, or should it be treated as any other copyvio? Some of it seems to be copying their own work between wikis, so there isn't necessarily even an issue regarding maintaining attribution, but at the same time many of them have other contributors on Wikia or here. I wouldn't want to have to go through the probably thousands of articles these socks have created looking for possible copyvio to delete, but I feel like it may unfortunately be necessary. ansh666 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My personal understanding is that it is kosher to copy/replicate one's own work (as the creator retains the copyright), but not kosher to copy someone else's (even on-wiki - you need a copy-right edit summary when copying substantial amounts of text between on-wiki articles). How you go about proving the sock's instance on Wikipedia is the same as on Wikia (though circumstantial evidence would seem to imply this at least for some of these copies) - is a different matter. Note that in some instances, e.g. BSA Autorifle - other users (in this case AugFC in 2015) - worked on the article in addition to Cutaway (so in this case, it is possibly a copyvio regarding content from AugFC if text survived). I do however, believe, that if it CC-by-SA-3.0 we don't have to blank - just attribute (e.g. dummy edit) - but not 100% sure.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you are not sure then it could be better to discuss at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My fairly uninformed understanding is that if Wikia shares the same license as Wikipedia, then it's okay to copy as long as the original contribution is attributed, which can be done after the fact with a template on the article's talk page. Essentially follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects, except you'll probably have to replace any attribution templates with a simple link to the source edit on the Wikia project. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A35821361 is NOTHERE

    Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to. special:Diff/diffid780797428 I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=800620911"